Rachel Meade - it's a win!

I’ve previously sent this judgement to management at work. Nothing really happened - I should follow it up.

(I’m a social worker and was keen to ensure that any messages given about working with trans-presenting young people were subject to rigorous professional curiosity)

Or are they going to start polishing their turd CV and get the hell out of Dodge?

Leaving lots of organisations utterly clueless they are left with a tranche of ticking time bomb policies and training contracts.

This is an issue many years in the making. Reviewing/overhauling significant chunks of HR policy/contracts/department culture can't happen overnight, even if there is a will to do so.

Helen Joyce frequently says we're in this for the long haul as it will take decades to unpick the culture, policies, and laws than now permit these harms.

In the interim, the damage to professions, to freedom of thought, expression, to assemble etc. is immense.

I see that Isabelle Trowler, Chief Social Worker for Children and Families (England) received an honours in the New Year's Honour's List.

"She is a founder member of the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care, a member of the National Panel for Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews and the National Stability Forum. Isabelle was appointed to the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel in June 2018, she also sits on the ministerial-led Family Justice Board and the Partners in Practice Governance Board."

Someone who should be keeping an eye on safeguarding practices and raising concerns about the adoption of an affirmation only policy?

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/isabelle-trowler#:~:text=Isabelle%20was%20a%20founder%20member,led%20by%20Professor%20Eileen%20Munro

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria Your colleague could be reported to the regulator since their hostility to your legally protected belief was expressed in a way that was deliberately offensive.

There are terrible consequences for children when social workers are silenced from exploring "gender reality" views. SWE completely ignored a very telling judgement from 8 years ago (2016) by Mr Justice Hayden about the abuse that happened to a young boy when his mentally unwell Mum decided he must be a girl and got caught up with the paedophile scandal hit lobby group Mermaids.
I've picked out a few extracts as it's breathtaking that this carefully evidenced judgement was completely ignored by SWE in favour of pandering to Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, GIRES, Mermaids & all the other adult groups weighing in on social work practice despite their lack of knowledge & expertise.

He highlighted how numerous well founded allegations were dismissed & found the LA's section 37 report as "entirely lacking in any logical, coherent analysis. I have found it quite impossible to understand why so many concerns were disregarded so summarily. Neither the senior social worker in this case nor the lawyer who acts on the Authority's behalf have sought to advance any explanation".
"Not only are the conclusions of the report irreconcilable with the core information within it but it is striking that the Local Authority had moved into wholesale acceptance that J should be regarded as a girl.
Once again, I make no apology for repeating the fact that J was still only 4 years of age. The conclusions of the report speak of J by use of the feminine pronoun. There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary. The cry for investigation went unheeded":

He concluded that "..in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skills and, it has to be said, common sense".

This is what happens to children when social workers are too intimidated to speak about the trans orthodoxy. Children are abused.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

I'm afraid I think this has got be given central credence and become more and more the focus for discussions and decisions. Everyone needs to be aware of this.

When you are talking to someone who believes in their own selective reality, and their right to silence and punish anyone who challenges their selective reality, you cannot expect them to make a lot of rational sense, or be interested in realities that contradict their personal one. Such as law. And other people's interests.

You are not engaging with someone who is able to share objective reality with you. You are engaging with someone who is open about their feeling threatened by it, and believes that they can make you agree with them that reality is what they say it is/wish it to be. And that you are harming them if you do not do this, or mention an aspect of reality or a fact that they have edited to meet their own needs, and that it is appropriate for you to be shamed, coerced or punished for not enabling them, by insisting on your own perceptions and actual facts.

And this is where I think the decision has to be revisited regarding mental health. Because mental health is your capacity to deal with reality. And it also needs to be considered as to whether this is compatible with capacity to hold a job requiring impartiality or public service.

For example providing services to those who are not willing to meet your needs, or agree with you. Or accepting that another person has the right to say no to you for a same sexed service.

The thing about 'practice in a GC way' is that it is continuing the intentional activist misunderstanding of the situation.

In terms of religion for example: you would expect that a Catholic member of staff would not enforce Catholic beliefs and views and doctrines on people in the course of their work, and that the colleague at the next desk would not in their turn be enforcing Muslim beliefs and views and doctrines on people. And that your experience of that service would be strongly coloured by the personal beliefs of whichever member of staff you saw. The expectation would be that no member of staff sees their job as an avenue for exercising their beliefs on others or trying to influence that person's life according to their faith, and that religious faith was entirely left out of practice with clients. Whatever it might be.

The thing with this is, that one side is gender ideology and the other 'belief' is just not being a believer in/advocate for gender ideology. You can't do GC beliefs and practice: you can only do an absence of active evangelism of gender ideology. The heresy is not being a believer and vigorous advocate of the faith and using your position and work place to further this.

The GC position is the neutral 'this stuff should be left out of the workplace and clients should not be exposed to anyone's personal beliefs'.

Heresy is just neutrality. That is how insane this is.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I was just reading the BBC article and very much enjoyed this sentence:

She had been a social worker for about 20 years before she was suspended for sharing views online that were gender-critical - where one believes that sex is a fact of biology that cannot be changed

And just like that, millions of readers realise they are also gender-critical.

YetAnotherSpartacus · Today 11:08

I'll give up because I'm obviously failing to get my point across but the core is that RM and anyone else can hold GC beliefs but this has not been tested in practice with clients.

Thanks, that's certainly clear now.

Thank you, yes.

If I express factual information about gender, with references and within the law (thanks Maya) but publicly on eg twitter - and someone else, who isn't trans, takes offence and threatens to report me to the register then I think this finding means it is less likely I'll land up in a tribunal.

As long as what I say isn't intended to cause offence or upset. Unlike what a colleague did say on my twitter where she called me names and threatened me with a report to the HCPC becuase of my bigotry and transphobia - nothing I said was either.

I'll send her the tribunal findings and link to this thread and my HCPC registrant number and some lucky white heather.

I think this is yet to be fully tested in court. So potentially yes. I think the regulators are likely to become far more cautious though after the RM case (they'd be mad not to). The NMC's has new Freedom of Expression guidance out in relation to fitness to practice which refers a lot to trans issues. Time will tell whether or not they have the balance right...

https://www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/understanding-fitness-to-practise/fitness-to-practise-allegations/misconduct/freedom-of-expression-and-fitness-to-practise/

The HCPC also have some new guidance which has not yet come into effect but it doesn't mention gender/sex issues specifically...

https://www.hcpc-uk.org/globalassets/standards/standard-of-conduct-performance-and-ethics/revised-standards-2023/revised-guidance-on-social-media.pdf

You mean could someone complain to your employer or to your Professional Council about your conduct?

If someone complained, your employer took action against you, but your employer didn’t take action against colleagues expressing TRA views on twitter, then you would be able to argue that your employer was discriminating against you on the basis of belief.

If both those with GC views and those with TRA views are equally permitted / not permitted to express their views then it isn’t discrimination on the grounds of belief.

So, if I am an HCPC registrant and speak openly and factually on twitter about gender issues then I could be taken to tribunal because it's not said in private?

I think I’d rather the Candyman showed up to be perfectly honest.

Yes, and I apologise for my frustration. I just see the damage being done to really vulnerable people by a totally captured profession and would like to see SWE (and all relevant regulators) subject to a review for fitness to regulate. RM's case shows that SWE is not at least as far as their complaints mechanism is concerned - but the rot is deeper.

Totally agree.

Yes, and I apologise for my frustration. I just see the damage being done to really vulnerable people by a totally captured profession and would like to see SWE (and all relevant regulators) subject to a review for fitness to regulate. RM's case shows that SWE is not at least as far as their complaints mechanism is concerned - but the rot is deeper.

Yes, I am, because that was RM's job and I know there are social workers out there who are forced to follow Stonewall inspired idiocy in their practice and this isn't just about their personal beliefs but about the effects on vulnerable people. This is about broader effects and not just individual rights.

Absolutely but I was also thinking about the broader picture, just not the same one as you. I think we're basically talking at cross purposes. There isn't just one way to consider this.

Yes it’s important I agree. What are the guidelines and who is impacted

It’s probably outside the scope of this decision - idk tbh

But it does raise a question on how much Stonewall is influencing SW guidance

I think you are looking at it more from a social work perspective than me, perhaps.

Yes, I am, because that was RM's job and I know there are social workers out there who are forced to follow Stonewall inspired idiocy in their practice and this isn't just about their personal beliefs but about the effects on vulnerable people. This is about broader effects and not just individual rights.

Yes!!!! This makes me so damn happy. You’re forced to chose a gender identity in order to renew your registration with SWE. Can’t wait to gleefully tell them, to shove it this year.

Case in point - how deep is the rot in SWE and how far has Stonewall infiltrated?

Is RMW therefore agreeing that the complainer was in the wrong and shouldn't have complained, on that basis?

I tried to ask a couple of people on other platforms that, but strangely they didn't want to answer

The ruling is great, but it is limited.

I've never said anything different. Not really sure what point you are trying to make. I think you are looking at it more from a social work perspective than me, perhaps. I'm looking at the principle again being affirmed that gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society. The nuts and bolts of that will have to be worked out, but it will heed to be a consideration among other issues in policy making etc. That's all.

Yes!!!! This makes me so damn happy. You’re forced to chose a gender identity in order to renew your registration with SWE. Can’t wait to gleefully tell them, to shove it this year.

RMW is just “running interference”. Like happened with the supposed leak of legal advice on schools guidance.

But on that point about who was in the wrong. The tribunal shows that:

• Rachel Meade was not in the wrong when she supported feminist campaigns in her private life.
• Rachel’s direct line mangers we’re not in the wrong when they concluded she had done nothing wrong.
• SWE did not do its job properly and was in the wrong.
• Rachel’s more senior colleagues were biased against her views and were in the wrong.
• Rachel was discriminated against and subjected to harassment by her employer.

The trans activist social worker Woolton/ Wotton was not a respondent in the Tribunal as Woolton was not employed by SWE or CoW, so there is no legal finding against Woolton.

However those who read the Tribunal judgment can draw their own conclusions about whether Woolton was in the wrong. Woolton / Wotton tried to damage/destroy Rachel Meade’s career as a social worker because of her support for female humans having single-sex female-only sports.

Indeed. It is relevant that this “surprise” was expressed in the section entitled “overall assessment of the respondents’ witness evidence”.

My observation, fwiw, is that tribunal judgments and similar documents (eg bullying investigation reports) in which lawyers express “surprise” are generally the section of the report which the non-lawyers amongst us might describe as the “pants on fire” section. lol

“Overall assessment of the Respondents’ witness evidence

153. Whilst we accept that at the Respondents’ witnesses would have felt uncomfortable responding to hypotheticals, and expressing their own views regarding the gender identity/gender critical debate, we nevertheless consider that overall they were extremely reluctant to provide answers to hypothetical scenarios put to them by Ms Cunningham or by the Tribunal. The invariable response to such hypotheticals was that it would depend on the context. Even when it was then explained that the context was the exact equivalent of the situation which actually applied to the investigation concerning the Claimant’s use of social media there was a reluctance to engage in the questions postulated.

154. We also consider it surprising that virtually all of the witnesses were reluctant to express any opinions, either personally or in the context of the organisation by which they were employed, regarding the status of gender critical beliefs and whether there was discussion and debate on the issue in their organisation. We consider this surprising given the topicality of the issue and consider that there would be a reasonable expectation that those engaged in social work, or the regulation of social workers, would have a heightened level of awareness on what has been a high profile and ongoing public debate.”

It’d be interesting to know how a SW is expected to talk about gender issues if they arise

Yes, exactly!