Rachel Meade - it's a win!

Useful reminder from Marzipan that Rachel still needs to defray the costs of winning this case (yes, our various justice mechanisms are expensive even for people who win).

And it's their skewed interpretation of the law, as well.

Beautifully put. 🎯

Love this paragraph:

"The Professional Standards Authority, which oversees Social Work England, said, in a statement: “Through our performance review process, (in which we assess regulators against the Standards of Good Regulation), we will monitor how Social Work England responds to the Employment Tribunal judgment and its recommendation. Social Work England’s performance review period runs from January to December and we aim to report on this by the end of March each year.”

Community Care just released an article.
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/05/03/social-work-england-committed-abuse-of-power-in-punishing-practitioners-gender-critical-beliefs/?utm_campaign=CC%20Snapshot%2003%20May%202024&utm_content=Top%20story&utm_term=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.communitycare.co.uk%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2Fsocial-work-england-committed-abuse-of-power-in-punishing-practitioners-gender-critical-beliefs%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Community%20Care

Interestingly this hasn't been reported in Community Care, the main social work magazine. I've helpfully sent them the remedy link and drawn their attention to the comments in the aggravated damages section.

Haha! I don't think I knew that, or if I did I'd forgotten. It was just the first word that came into my head but turns out it's entirely apposite 😎

Barnacles?

You mean the biggest dicks (proportionately speaking) known to nature?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080206150703.htm

They are still focusing on the 'how to raise concerns about social workers' use of social media correctly' aspect, as though everything would have been hunky dory if only they'd had a slightly different process for dealing with complaints.

They are completely blind to the fact that there was no justification for raising concerns. Rachel was absolutely entitled to use her social media in the way that she did, in order to express her protected and WORIADS belief. Their mealy-mouthed nod to that belief being protected doesn't mitigate against the core of their statement which is essentially "next time someone says something we think is twansphobic we'll make sure we have a process in place to nail them to the wall more firmly and precisely".

What a bunch of captured, led-by-the-nose barnacles.

LGBT groups are clearly conflicted. They are activist groups pushing for their own priorities. Something that everyone seems to have forgotten. We don’t invite other activist groups to set agendas/write policies that affect everyone like this. Hence their guidelines never balance competing rights; women and girls are simply a resource to be used.

This make me wonder at what point authenticity and commitment and lived experience turns into conflict of interest.

A question for every organisation that swallowed whole the guidance and training they took from LGBTetc groups.

it may be indicative of just how captured an organisation they are

and the conflict of interest of their barrister…

OU VC initially made out that OU would consider their options re: the tribunal findings from the Jo Phoenix case.

CGD made noises about contesting the final Forstater judgment.

GCC made noises about the Bailey judgment.

I hope it's the same rattles from SWE although, as PPs remark, it may be indicative of just how captured an organisation they are. Not unexpected when Lord "please come to tea at the House of Lords and address us, Karen Jones" was Chair of SWE until March 2023 but still tiresome.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3180059-To-think-if-youve-killed-raped-women-we-dont-give-a-flying-fuck-what-you-think-on-any-given-matter

Hmm i noticed at the end that he stated that they were still considering their options regarding the judgement ergo an appeal.

Probably to do with tribunals jurisdiction. Could be interesting …

Brilliant I’ve been thinking McCarthyism too

I can't believe they haven't apologised.

Thank you for the link, that's a powerful article. "Banal McCarthyism" succinctly pinpoints what has been happening to professional women.

https://archive.ph/1qhL2

Suzanne Moore has covered this in the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/04/30/stonewall-guidance-no-basis-in-law-gender-critical-tribunal/

https://archive.ph/1qhL2 bypass the paywall

I'm glad she mentioned 'looked after' children. If anyone has a subscription, assuming it hasn't already been done and the rules allow, please consider mentioning the shortfall in the crowdfunder in the comments. It might bring in a few quid.

Agreed.

RethinkingLife · Yesterday 17:57

According to the update on her crowdfunder page she still has a substantial deficit for the legal fees so that £58K will be swallowed and she still needs more.

It's a travesty that in such an egregious case of sustained harassment and bullying does not have to be paid for by the guilty party. It's absolutely sickening. Why are the perpetrators still employed - it beggars belief. Surely it's misfeasance in a public office?

Para 81 on her employer

“We consider that the comments made by Ms Farrell on behalf of the First Respondent in the investigation report dated 6 December 2021 were spiteful or vindictive. We refer to paragraphs 219-221 of the liability judgment and particularly to her contention that the Claimant’s change of position raised serious concerns regarding her integrity and honesty and further that the Second Respondent may wish to review its outcome in light of the Claimant’s current position. We consider that this was vindictive and was predicated on Ms Farrell’s personal opinion that the Claimant’s gender critical beliefs were unacceptable.”

Thanks.

para 86, on Social Work England

“We consider that the Second Respondent’s actions constituted a serious abuse of its power as a regulatory body. We accept Ms Cunningham’s argument that the Second Respondent has allowed its processes to be subverted to punish and supress the Claimant’s lawful political speech, and to do so on grounds of her protected beliefs. In doing so it has violated her Convention rights to freedom of belief and expression and combined that violation with unlawful discrimination. “