Rachel Meade, Social Worker, being suspended for 'transphobic' Facebook postss

Will look for Rachel's garden in the morning - thanks for the reminders.

bumpette

Bump for this thread, as Rachel has posted she is in need of more carrots

Update – hearing dates
I finally have confirmed dates for the Fitness to Practice hearing that Social Work England are pursuing against me for sharing what they allege are discriminatory posts on my closed Facebook page. It will take place from October 17th to 21st 2022.

Social Work England (SWE) is the regulatory body governing social work. I am hoping that my fitness to practice case will make them realize that my views are common place, worthy of respect and that regulatory bodies have obligations under the Equality Act. It could have a huge impact on the way that similar vexatious cases are dealt with, against anyone else who works for a regulated profession.

I know, such nonsense.

Also, why isn't it considered rude to demand that other people describe trans people as male/female according to their perspective, rather than the other persons. They never think of other people's right to say the truth that's in front of them. Why should we have to capitulate to their self image? I for one think it's rude to impose my self belief on others and demand they play along.

Maya Forstetter was essentially penalised because she demanded the right to be rude to other people with no consequences ie the right to describe them as male/female according to her perspective rather than theirs, with impunity.

Is that right.

Donated. Good luck Rachel 🙂

It is incredibly exasperating as SWE could have avoided this costly and distressing process by after admitting they had made mistakes. Simply
reviewed their decision and agreed there was no further need for an investigation or any sanctions.

I said on the previous page that I thought she was pursuing a high risk strategy. I really wonder about the quality of legal advice she is receiving, because there was no realistic possibility of SWE saying "Ohhh oops, we shouldn't have investigated this" when the case examiners had sent it forward for a full hearing. It just was not going to happen. I assumed that, when she applied for the agreed outcome with the case examiners to be put aside that she realised that that meant a full hearing was inevitable, but it appears that that isn't the case.

I do hope she knows what she's doing

Shoved a few 🥕🥕🥕 into the ground.
This really does need to go forward. Maya has won but it is a win that needs reinforcing.

I thought I would paste across the most recent update (24 june) just so people can see where the case is at. She is being messed around.

"Work disciplinary hearing on 28th June

Just a quick update to let you now what has been happening and due to all the delays detailed below to once again ask for any further shares / donations so I can continue to fight and fund my legal costs which have now been drained.

Social Work England (SWE) hearing -

They were meant to provide me with their case evidence against me for the fitness to practice hearing at the beginning of June, which they didn't. They then stated they would supply it by 24th June (which they have not) and have now have said that it will be by provided by the16th July.
The date for the fitness to practice hearing is not yet arranged, (they had previously stated would take place probably in August / September). It is incredibly exasperating as SWE could have avoided this costly and distressing process by after admitting they had made mistakes. Simply
reviewed their decision and agreed there was no further need for an investigation or any sanctions. As a professional body I'm really not sure what they hope to gain other than to silence any other social workers by making an example
of me.

Westminster City Council (WCC) Work disciplinary hearing-

I was to have my hearing on 23rd May but it was postponed at the last minute due to WCC having to look over all my submissions prior to the hearing.
It was rearranged for 28th June and to date is still going ahead

Employment Tribunal-

No update - still set for December"

Bumping again.

bump please could do with a lot more carrots and parsnips, peas etc

Another Social Worker here (not currently working) - this needs to go to tribunal, Social workers need to feel safe to be able to speak out on safeguarding vulnerable women and children. We need to know that SWE are critically analysing information and are not being indoctrinated by any political group, that they are unbiased and impartial. Rachel needs more help with gardening. Please plant if you can - every little helps. :)

Maya’s result should have given them food for thought, its certainly reaffirmed how well the seeds can grow with a bit of nurturing

So, does that mean there is a definition of transphobia in the context of social work?

And, just so I understand the lunacy this is because of comments Rachael made on her private social media?

Fucking hell.

<plants furiously>

Grrr…who could get it right first time, but not everyone has those skills.)

Come on now, numbers are hard.

(I mean, when I worked for the CPS I managed a team of admin officers on c.£17k each who cou

Bump.

We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Maybe the bundle is just particularly difficult to nail down in this case too.

Maybe the ability to restore trains and the like does not fit one for organising papers, timelines, tying ribbons and so forth? Had the skills been those of trainspotting, the outcome of the bundles might plausibly be very different.

We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Maybe the bundle is just particularly difficult to nail down in this case too.

I shall chip in for this on Friday.

Maya's result is encouragement to me that investing money in these actions is worth it.

Just planted some more carrots.
I understand that bundle has been up to their usual time wasting again so more digging is needed

OK

Just bumping this thread to say that if anyone is in a position to do a bit of digging for Rachel, she hasn't reached her target yet.

What nonsense. Plenty of practising religious people who are able to hold a belief and not discriminate against people who don’t. It’s a slippery slope to thought police. Professionals should be judged on how they act towards others not on their beliefs or faith.

Thank you, LordLoveADuck.

(Sorry it took so long for me to express my gratitude, but it took me awhile to stop laughing hysterically...)