Swim England has been accused of “blatant censorship” for blocking a debate about its board on social media.

The controversy relates to an open call for board resignations made by more than 25 GB Olympians, who are spearheading stakeholders’ efforts to improve trust in the governing body in the wake of three damning reports on culture and safeguarding.

According to a source, an emergency board meeting in late March to discuss the call did not lead to resignations, nor was anyone asked to resign. Despite repeated requests, campaigners note, Swim England has still not published minutes of that meeting (or responded to a request to provide them). 

Olympians call for board resignations

In their open letter the Olympians expressed full confidence in the CEO, Andy Salmon, (currently on leave for health reasons) but called for the resignation from governance positions of Chairman Richard Hookway, Neil Booth, and Caroline Green, who sat on both the Swim England and Aquatics GB boards.  

Here’s that story: 

Olympians Reject “Pointless” Offer To Meet Swim England Chair As Resignation Calls Grow Louder

Swim England governors want to meet Olympians calling for resignations but swimmers, past and present, say ‘no’, one key reason stated like this: “Resignations will improve trust. And those associated with past failures are hardly likely to be the best future leaders.”

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

The latest development in a long controversy follows an official article posted on Swim England’s Facebook page - which normally allows comments by followers – on 8 June. 

The piece announced the appointment of what it called two “new” independent board members, Max Sherrard and Alex Cunningham. These members were in fact appointed (according to Companies House) on 16 February and 10 March – that is, three months earlier and, indeed, before Swim England was aware of the Olympians letter and the meeting it called to discuss the matter.

Controversy as Swim England blocks discussion 

Professor Sue Arrowsmith posted a comment querying the reference to “new” board members. This, she has explained to State of Swimming, seemed important, as in the context of the public controversy around the board it could have created an impression that the appointments came after the emergency meeting or were a response to the open letter. 

Her comment also asked why the individuals named in the letter had still neither resigned nor explained why not, and why the current board (including the two most recent appointees and others recently arrived) had apparently decided to back the named individuals. Another follower posted a comment supporting Professor Arrowsmith’s views. 

According to those who posted comments, Swim England then hid the post from public view. It reappeared later with a reply from Swim England but with a block on any further public comment.

Swim England’s reply repeated an earlier statement made to State of Swimming, which claimed there had been some change but answered none of the Professor’s specific questions about the board and trust. The full exchange is at the end of this article. The reply also invited Professor Arrowsmith to email the communications team to “discuss this further” but when she did so the team simply declined to answer the questions about the board’s position or expand on its statement. 

Her further question on why Swim England had blocked all further discussion merely received the response that it was “more appropriate” to send comments privately for “considered responses”, especially where “individuals” were concerned (responses which - as noted - they then refused to provide). 

On the timing of the news item, Swim England said this was for reasons of “internal scheduling and content readiness” and not intended to mislead. 

 “Blatant censorship of criticism” 

Professor Arrowmith commented:

“This is blatant censorship of critical discussion. 

"Why isn’t it “appropriate” to use our common social media – which normally allows comment – to debate the state of our leadership and feed our views on that to Swim England? The Olympians letter is an open one that makes important points about trust, and presents constructive suggestions for addressing that. 

"Of course there have been some positive changes since Andy Salmon arrived. But simply pointing to SOME change does not address the critical question: would necessary change, and particularly development of trust, be much BETTER served by new board leadership, rather than sticking with those associated with past failures?  

"These questions need open debate, and a proper open response from the board, not a smug PR statement and a shutting down of discussion.”

She added:

“When the Post Office scandal happened, was it not appropriate to have public debate about whether those at the top should resign? Was it “more appropriate” for those affected just to continue to send their views on that privately to the Post Office itself? It seems absurd to suggest that stakeholder debate over the top leadership of a national body  - especially one responsible for safeguarding and welfare – is somehow not for the public domain.

"This whole saga hardly bodes well for the goals of “shifting the culture” and “building trust” that Swim England’s website refers to”.

One of the Olympians behind the letter to Swim England commented:

“They say they take our views seriously and that they want us to know that they listen to people. Well, we’re months down the line from the letter and the aquatics community still has no meaningful reply on why they’ve rejected our call for resignations.”

State of Swimming will continue to report on the growing call for resignations as events unfold. Swim England has pledge to share its position with us in the coming days.

The full text of Prof. Arrowsmith's comment on Facebook, followed by Swim England's response:

Sue Arrowsmith

I'm a bit unclear why this is being presented as news when these appointments were made 4 and 3 months ago and have been publicly notified ages ago. More helpful would be a substantive response on why there has still been no word on any resignations resulting from the call for resignations from stakeholders spearheaded now by Olympians following the three very critical reports on Swim England. Why have longstanding members who have been involved in the period running up to those or strongly praised the old regime still neither resigned nor explained why they are the best people to lead and why will Swim England - including these new members - not provide an explanation of the reasoning behind keeping those people from the old regime on board despite the obvious lack of trust? Why have these and other new members who have been in post for some months or more now not collectively addressed this issue? It is disappointing how the new members have rallied round the old.

[There then followed a link to the original article on SOS, as referenced above]

Swim England

Hi Sue Arrowsmith,

Thanks for your comment. A Swim England statement was shared with the State of Swimming website last month and has now been published by them. You can view the statement below:

“We take the views expressed in the letter from the Olympians seriously. When people within our community take the time to share their perspectives, we want them to know they will be listened to.

We're concerned that these individuals feel they need to remain anonymous to Swim England, but we absolutely respect their position. We have invited the group, or some of its representatives, to meet with us so that we better understand their views, and we hope that invitation will be accepted.

Swim England, including the Swim England Board, has undergone significant changes in recent years, with our stakeholders telling us that we’re making genuine progress, but we equally recognise how much more there is to do.”

If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact [us] and we will pass it onto the right team.