Rachel Meade - it's a win!

I saw the BBC article too just now posted above. Very good decision.

The pressures on parents are difficult to handle well. Some parents assume that supporting their children requires affirming them, and once you have set off on the affirmation path it is particularly difficult to turn back. Others start off questioning, and have to face the distress and anger and scripted manipulation from their child.

Most parents start from a place of ignorance. I thought I was quite well informed, but the source of my information was Guardian articles so I was misled to some extent. In my case, I was desperate to understand better, so I started reading much more widely and discussing with anyone who had a viewpoint. I read books by transgender people, and found that they contained, in between some things I could agree with, complete nonsense backed up by pseudoscience. I discovered that Queer Theory eats away at norms without any discernment of the good reasons behind some norms. I found my way here, where there is actually pretty well-moderated discussion, and saw the truth of what many posters were pointing out.

I have started to speak out, sometimes anonymously online, sometimes by being open about our family situation with other family members and friends.

All this has left me close to estrangement from my son. It is a big price to pay, keeping my integrity as best I can, trying to work out what my loving duty to him means practically, knowing that being honest with him risks losing him.

Politicians are always vulnerable to accusations that they are mistreating their children, so they have that extra pressure on them. Have you noticed that parents’ perspectives are rarely heard? It is all part of the trans ‘most vulnerable’ narrative which has been so successful in silencing any dissent.

Do you think that WCC HR will spend a nanosecond thinking about doing that?

Since they discriminated against and unnecessarily sanctioned x3 employees you’d think that might amount to gross misconduct.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67934781

It will be expensive for council tax payers in Westminster. There will be no impact on the senior team who will continue to feel that they are in the right and the tribunal is wrong.

Bloody hell. This is going to work out very expensive for WCC isn’t it? Hopefully though they will now have thoroughly learned their lesson.

I wish WCC luck in recruiting and retaining their social work workforce. They’re going to need it. As an experienced SW myself, there’s not a hope in hell I’d ever apply to them, and believe me in this job people talk about employers.

Dennis Kavanagh on X

This has been an extraordinary time for the West, a deeply intolerant civic religion grew up in the shadows of dead ones, wore the clothes of gay rights, pretended marginalisation and set about the sadistic work of making people's lives hell.

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1745048591192694791

You've summarised it better than me.

So many public institutions are on their knees (schools, social work, the NHS) in thrall to this madness wasting literally hundreds of thousands of pounds on the emperor's new clothes.

It's such a waste of taxpayers money and is causing so much real harm both directly and in terms of all the things that AREN'T happening because gender woo is taking up so much time and energy.

Like the Post Office, people in management positions who let this harm happen really need to be held accountable. I wish the Tories would pull their finger out.

Yes, they were suspended by their employer, City of Westminster Council, after one of them forwarded the information about the Social Work England decision on Rachel to their line mangers, but without adopting a condemnatory stance towards Rachel.

Basically Rachel’s direct managers took a sensible approach to the complaint against her. Unlike their more senior colleagues / the investigator.

Their more senior colleagues took a biased and punitive approach to the complaint and Rachel’s two direct managers got caught up in the fallout from that alongside Rachel.

And what is the cost to those families needing social services support in having an abrupt change in case worker.

Its a good point.

What is the cost to this service and their work in terms of paid man hours and staff stood down? In fact what is the cost to the taxpayer of all of this witch hunting? The police who can't attend muggings but can spend hours doing the high cost acts of arresting and questioning women suspected of heresy? The tax payer money paid to Stonewall in the first place?

This fur coat and no knickers stuff needs to stop.

I really hope they take SWE to the cleaners. Unbelievable.

I think they were suspended by WCC not SWE. Could be a very expensive cock up.

Meanwhile there aren't enough social workers and many people struggling without getting the help they need in a timely manner. How many people suffered actual harm because these 3 women were suspended and not in post? Because of a witch hunt. I'd like to know.

That is fucked up. It really is.

WHAT?!! So these people were, essentially, suspended for 3-4 MONTHS for having the moral backbone not to join in a witch hunt and for speaking the truth about RM's professionalism in her job.

I really hope they take SWE to the cleaners. Unbelievable.

127. Ms Barry, who have been suspended on 11 November 2021 and Ms Gilroy, who have been suspended on 2 November 2021, on the grounds that they had failed to report concerns regarding the Claimant’s allegedly discriminatory posts, were informed that their suspensions would be lifted and that Ms Barry could return to work on 2 February 2022 and Ms Gilroy on 10 March 2022.”

Those are long suspensions and for what? Not behaving like the Stasi basically.

Particularly interesting is this section of the Tribunal judgment.

“Mr Noyce’s evidence

88. At paragraph 10 in his witness statement he says that Case Examiners do not make findings of fact but instead apply the “realistic prospect” test. At paragraph 12 he said that they took account of the fact that the complaint itself demonstrated that the Claimant’s social media posts had caused offence to that individual (Mr Wolton).

89. In response to a question in cross examination Mr Noyce appeared to accept that Jack Aitken, investigator (Mr Aitken) and Mr Wolton were known to each other and had a shared social history but he made it clear that this was not known to him at the time. He retracted this statement during re-examination. Nevertheless, we consider that the initial response given would appear to indicate a level of awareness by Mr Noyce that there was more than a mere professional acquaintance between Mr Aitken and Mr Wolton.

90. In response to a question in cross examination Mr Noyce stated that he and Ms Martin had not discussed the Forstater case as their role was to examine the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to this case.

91. He suggested that a particular concern regarding the Claimant’s Facebook posts was that it included the Claimant’s children’s school. However, we consider that this represented a significant and inappropriate heightened concern regarding the nature of the Claimant’s posts. It should have been apparent given the limited number of the Claimant’s Facebook friends that the communications were solely in respect of her children’s schooling rather than any intent by her to proselytize her gender critical views to schools more widely.

92. Mr Noyce said that there was no evidence that Mr Wolton was a trans activist. However, we consider that this represented a failure by Mr Noyce and others to undertake an appropriately balanced and objective assessment of the complainant’s motivations, in the context of the offence he claimed to have experienced, in respect of the Claimant’s own posts. For example, no research been undertaken online as to Mr Wolton’s social media posts.”

Here’s what the ET Judgment says about the events.

“This Claimant’s response to the complaint dated 23 November 2020

61. The Claimant has said that she was naively unaware that any posts she had shared or liked, any petitions she had signed, or any organisations to whom she had donated, were discriminatory or offensive. She said that she had not fully read or analysed the content some of the articles or links before posting. She acknowledged showing a lack of judgement in her use of social media. The Claimant said that she had removed all posts and unfriended any organisations or friends that may share posts to her Facebook account which may be seen as being critical towards minority groups. She said that she intended to access training around LGBT+ issues.

62. Attached to the response was a statement from Jackie Gilroy, the Claimant’s Team Manager (Ms Gilroy), to say that she was confident that the Claimant had never practised in a discriminatory way and that her work with minority groups was exemplary. Ms Gilroy said that the Claimant had readily and unprompted acknowledged that she now realised that her posts on Facebook were ill considered, but she understood that she was taking part in a wider debate and it was never her intention to discriminate against any group. Ms Gilroy said that the Claimant had now assured her that she had removed these posts and that her profile does not reveal her profession in any way.”

And then this…

“The First Respondent becomes aware and concerned

95. On 22 July 2021 Ms Gruska, who had replaced Ms Gilroy as the Claimant’s manager, sent Ms Barry the Second Respondent’s letter confirming that the Claimant’s case had been closed without a hearing with a warning apply to her registration, and attaching the decision and the investigation report. Later that day at 16:06 Ms Barry sent the investigation report to Senel Arkut, Director of Health Partnerships (Ms Arkut) with a covering email indicating that the Claimant’s immediate managers had no concerns about her practice. Ms Arkut forwarded the email at 16:07, without comment, to Ms Flaherty and Ms Ffrench. The Claimant was asked to attend a Teams meeting that afternoon and suspended on gross misconduct charges.”

And then

“The Claimant’s letter of suspension dated 22 July 2021

98. Mr Arkut advised the Claimant that she had been suspended with immediate effect pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation under the Council’s Disciplinary Code. The Claimant was advised that the serious allegations could, if substantiated, constitute gross misconduct under the Council’s Disciplinary Code on the grounds of: • Bringing the Council into serious dispute. • A breach of trust and confidence. The suspension letter echoed the charges brought by the Second Respondent. Ms Barry was also suspended that day.”

And finally

“Lifting of the suspensions of Ms Gilroy and Ms Barry by the First Respondent

127. Ms Barry, who have been suspended on 11 November 2021 and Ms Gilroy, who have been suspended on 2 November 2021, on the grounds that they had failed to report concerns regarding the Claimant’s allegedly discriminatory posts, were informed that their suspensions would be lifted and that Ms Barry could return to work on 2 February 2022 and Ms Gilroy on 10 March 2022.”

I agree. It's pretty straight forward.

Are women real humans who should get their own sport, or are they a NPC resource for male feelings and needs?

If you find that question 'challenging' and 'emotive' I would suggest that you're a misogynist twit.

Sport England said transgender inclusion in sport was a 'challenging and emotive area of policy we have always understood and accepted that there are a wide range of personal views'.

Hmm personal views.

Sport England said transgender inclusion in sport was a 'challenging and emotive area of policy we have always understood and accepted that there are a wide range of personal views'.

Whether or not to include trans people in sport isn't, afaik, in question.

It's whether having certain feelings makes someone a different sex. I personally don't find that a challenging question.... maybe I should be the boss?

This is the DM article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344759/Sharron-Davies-backs-campaigners-calling-Sport-Englands-diversity-chief-fired.html

Two things

Mrs Meade's solicitor, Shazia Khan, accused Social Work England of failing to uphold freedom of speech and called for the body to apologise to Mrs Meade. It declined to last night.

It seems SWE have learned nothing, the bastards.

And, I think this is the quote referenced by Jon Pike's tweets (I can't read the twiX thread)

Sport England said transgender inclusion in sport was a 'challenging and emotive area of policy we have always understood and accepted that there are a wide range of personal views'.

Which is just gobsmackingly at odds with what Wolton has been up to. Unless the sentence was cut off and it actually ended '....most of which we ignore.'

An interesting twitter thread from Jon Pike who's picked up Sharron Davis's demand that Sport England's misnamed "diversity" chief is sacked. He points out that they shouldn't be sacked for their behaviour that was so severely criticised by the tribunal, but because their behaviour is in open conflict with the stated values of Sport England.

"The Equality Lead at Sport England is strongly opposed to the position of the Sports Councils Equality Group".

https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1745058596260344071