Rachel Meade - it's a win!

Social Work England not doing their job properly.

“252. The Second Respondent’s failure to check if Mr Woolton’s complaint could be malicious, and not checking his previous social media history, is indicative of a lack of rigour in the investigation, and an apparent willingness to accept a complaint from one side of the gender self-identification/gender critical debate without appropriate objective balance of the potential validity of different views in what is a highly polarised debate. For example, Mr Woolton had described Standing for Women as a known “hate group” and referred to feminists arguing for gender critical views as “terfs”.

253. Context is important and merely accepting at face value a complainant’s subjective perception of offence is not the appropriate test, but rather that an objective evaluation should be undertaken, as to whether a social worker’s social media posts had over stepped the line in terms of their content and potentially offensive nature.

254. Mr Noyce’s response to a question in cross examination that you have to turn the question on its head and consider whether a member of the trans community would find the Claimant’s post offensive and discriminatory involves giving preference to one side of the debate. Given the vitriolic nature of the debate, the fact that offence is taken, is not the same as a remark being objectively considered to be offensive. Therefore, allowing the subjective belief of one party to determine where the benchmark for offence should be taken involves a potential abdication of responsibility for assessing whether a social worker has breached applicable guidelines.”

Thank god for that. Phew.

Oh wow.

Thank you to all highlighting the most relevant sections for those of us who haven't had the chance to read yet. It can't be overstated how important this case is.

What a brave woman and congratulations to the legal team. I don't have the words to express how important these cases are towards breaking the culture of fear and silencing imposed by TRAs and Stonewall around this topic.

What a world it is we live in that this needed to be done. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to everyone who fought this case.

Fabulous news. Another stream of light piercing the darkness.

Joan Smith's take on it in Unherd

https://unherd.com/thepost/victory-for-social-worker-harassed-over-gender-critical-beliefs/

I've just noticed Maya has dinosaurs 🦕 on her dress 😀 and the 'Victory House' plaque 👏

@BreadInCaptivity @LoobiJee this is what is so encouraging, it is clear from the judgement that public and private sector companies will no longer be able to take a stance regarding trans rights and force employees to accept it.

That means if you are subject to this sort of thing, you can chuck off your lanyards, delete your pronouns, refuse to hold candles for the none deaths of trans people.

Its so much better than a bra burning session.

And what’s more Stonewall are fucked.

Harassment.

“236. However, we find that the overall duration of the Claimant’s suspension from 22 July 2021 until 12 July 2022 was wholly excessive and undoubtedly constituted an act of harassment.”

“…The Claimant, as per paragraph 85 of her witness statement, made it clear that she wanted to return to work and serve the community. This was always refused by the First Respondent who cited the front line nature of her work meaning that she was a potential safeguarding risk as she worked with vulnerable people.

Suggestion that the Claimant may pose a threat to vulnerable clients if she returned to work (2nd bullet point in allegation (i)

239. We find the suggestion that the Claimant might pose a threat to vulnerable clients was an act of harassment. “

”243. We do, however, consider that the Claimant’s return to work meetings on 14 and 15 July 2022 constituted harassment given the circumstances, the evident disapproval expressed, or at least implied, as to the Claimant’s expression of her gender critical views in the workplace and what we consider to have been the lack of objectivity within what was a contentious and ongoing debate between those espousing gender self-identificationn and those with gender critical views such as the Claimant’s.”

Again, this reminds me of the employer witnesses in Maya’s tribunal.

“j) An addendum dated 3 February 2022 to Ms Farrell’s investigation report which maintained that four of the Claimant’s Facebook posts were “transphobic”.
^^
222. We consider it surprising that Ms Farrell considered it appropriate to set out her personal views on these highly contentious issues. We consider that this would give rise to an understandable concern from the Claimant’s perspective that she was not considering matters from an objective perspective but rather from a pre-ordained view, that the views espoused by the Claimant were less worthy of respect than the opposite side of the debate i.e. an employee promoting gender self-identification rights.
^^
223. We considered that this is arguably indicative of bias in relation to how she handled the investigation. It gives the impression of that Ms. Farrell had reached a decision on the Claimant being guilty of gross misconduct at this stage. Further, her reference to the Claimant being transphobic could potentially inappropriately influence the disciplinary officer.“

And then this para 234. Crikey.

“Further, we consider that the element of harassment was exacerbated by
pejorative comments made by Ms Farrell which went to the core of the Claimant’s beliefs. For example, her labelling the Claimant’s Facebook posts as being transphobic was clearly something the Claimant found deeply offensive and in itself would be sufficient, in our opinion, to constitute harassment.”

A question here i noticed that the examiners at SW regulators includes a LAY regulator.

Wonder how they source them, they are stonewall champions, can hazard a guess.

Smacks of the Bailey case and stonewall lobbying.

Thanks @LoobiJee for your efforts here it is very important that you have the energy to do this

And also for this excellent comment she made earlier -

'I can accept no accolades. When your opponent states in official documents and in all seriousness that a piece of paper can work magic, then you can relax somewhat.'

And there’s this….

“In particular we do not consider that the Respondents struck a fair balance between the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression and the interests of those who they perceived may be offended by her Facebook posts. In reality it was only Mr Woolton, who we have found to have a direct interest in the gender identification/gender critical debate, who was offended and there was no evidence that the Claimant’s views had been expressed in the context of her professional duties.”

para 199

Still working my way through. This also jumped out at me.

“191. We carefully considered those of the 70 posts which the Respondents had primarily focussed on. Whilst this represented a shifting position, given that they did not all refer to the same posts, there was a large element of recurrence as to the posts primarily focussed on. Nevertheless, had it been the Respondents’ intention to argue that the Claimant’s Facebook posts were accepted as a legitimate manifestation of her beliefs, but certain posts had overstepped the mark to go beyond a mere manifestation of her beliefs, and thereby constituted offensive material outside the legitimate expression of her right to freedom of speech, we consider that the Respondents would have focussed on these posts, and identified why it was considered that they were not protected but constituted offensive material vitiating the protection otherwise enjoyed.”

Shows that her employer didn’t do any analysis at all.

In contrast to her employer, the Tribunal did analyse all her posts and found that….

“194. We do not consider that any of her manifestations of her beliefs were of a nature that they aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms of others contrary to Article 17.
^^
195. We do not consider that any of the posts can reasonably be regarded as offensive thereby vitiating the protection provided to the Claimant in the manifestation of her protected belief. Whilst some people may have been offended by them, that is not the same as saying that the Claimant’s right to freedom of speech was lost. Freedom of speech inevitably will involve the right, to on occasion, cause offence to some people but it is clear that that does not preclude an individual’s ability to express such views.
^^
196. We do not consider that any of the 70 posts were abusive, incited hatred or violence or defamed any individual.
^^
197. We consider it significant that many of the post complained of did not constitute the Claimant articulating her own views but rather forwarding links to articles or comments on television programmes pertaining to the gender critical debate.”

The tribunal concluded that her employer objected to her beliefs, not the expression of those beliefs. It sounds very similar to Maya’s employer.

“201. We find that the Respondents’ contemporaneous state of mind was that the beliefs expressed by the Claimant were inherently discriminatory and transphobic and therefore unacceptable. We find that the Respondents’ attempt to draw a line of demarcation between the Claimant’s protected expression of her beliefs, and those posts which fell outside the protection on the basis that they were offensive, to be artificial and inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentation.”

And the Tribunal was unconvinced by the employer’s attempt to retrofit a justification on to their bias against her views.

Honourable mention also to Sarah Philimore whom is the most relentless and trenchant campaigner for women's rights and who took this on, despite not being in the field of public law. Go Sarah! 💪🏻

@Sisterpita Yes hope Jo draws some confidence from this.

This is brilliant. As a fellow SW I am very heartened by this news!

@LoobiJee alot of that could apply to the witnesses for the OU in Jo Phoenix’s case. They were all so focused on the trans students feelings and distress they couldn’t see that Jo on the opposite side of the argument was equally distressed. By not taking a neutral position they all effectively discriminated against Jo.

I could not see any scope for an appeal, it adheres the the forstater precedent.

Ah this is brilliant news! I'm sure she's been through hell but it's another plank propping up women's rights and another layer of protection for people who care about women's protection to speak the truth.

Congratulations Rachel and thank you for your bravery 💐

Sod Dry January.

Tonight, I raise my glass of brandy to Rachel, Maya and all the relentlessly brave women who HAVE NOT SHUT UP.

To those who have stood up and been counted, despite the appalling mental, physical, social and financial consequences.

To those have sent a few spare £, to garden support for cases like these.

Bloody wonderful, all of you!

I’m just working my way through it. The reverse ferret in para 152 caught my eye.

“Letter from Mr Wrobel of the First Respondent to the Claimant dated 15 November 2022
^^
152. Mr Wrobel advised the Claimant that having considered all of the evidence, and her grounds of appeal, she had concluded that a final written warning was not appropriate or proportionate in those circumstance and should be removed. No formal sanction should be applied. He did not, however, revisit whether the allegation of misconduct was appropriate but merely addressed, and lifted, the sanction imposed. He said that the position had changed substantially and concluded that there was no impairment to the Claimant’s ability to practise. However, this appeared to simply be that the Second Respondent had changed its position.
^^
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.”

And also the para 153-154 refusal of the employer witnesses to express any view on the issue at the Tribunal. In contrast to the non-reluctance of the investigator to express their own personal opinion eg on transwomen in sport when deciding to find her guilty. It all smacks of “oh sugar, we were so convinced of our own moral high ground, we messed up, now let’s frantically backtrack”.

None of them seem to have asked the question “what was discriminatory about these FB posts?” That’s pretty woeful from social workers, surely.

Yes but thankfully the judgement did and, themselves friendship with an examiner, on the case Noyce