Rachel Meade - it's a win!

I have to admit, I wouldn't have had the courage.
Hopefully there'll be an appeal with precedents set.

Thank you Rachel.

Yes, but disappointingly they didn't even name Wolton or give any more information - just described they as a member of the public. Nor did they mention that this person holds a senior role in Sport England.

It's like as though they don't want to mention or draw attention to any bad behaviour by a trans person as it doesn't quite fit the victim narrative...quelle surprise.

There are quite a few posters on X with a legal background asking RMW to comment.

@Froodwithatowel

indeed, glad you share my optimism, i know the workings of civil service, local authorities and probation, on Legals and HR oh to be a fly on the wall.

Heads definitely should be rolling. The financial and reputational damage to SWE and CoW should be immense. Imo, it's the PO scandal in so much as it affected Rachel, she was judged and found guilty by a prejudiced investigation following a completely spurious and likely malicious complaint from a self interested complainant. I could throw allegations of bigotry around with better grounds for it too.

Thank you for the quote above re Stonewall: I've had the chance to read in depth and it's worth posting here that entire section.

Keep in mind this is a legal decision.

274. We consider it wholly inappropriate that an individual such as the Claimant espousing one side of the debate should be labelled discriminatory, transphobic and to pose a potential risk to vulnerable service users. That in effect equates her views as being equivalent to an employee/social worker espousing racially discriminatory or homophobic views. The opinions expressed by the Claimant could not sensibly be viewed as being transphobic when properly considered in their full context from an objective perspective, but rather her expressing an opinion contrary to the interpretation of legislation, or perhaps more accurately the amendment to existing legislation, advocated for by trans lobbying groups to include, but not limited to, Stonewall.

This is the end of being able to dismiss concerns about this being the 'same' as racism or homophobia. The end of it. Finite incantatum.

I would absolutely LOVE to now see Facebook awash with links to the case on everyone's feeds. Wouldn't that just be amazing? In your face Woolton!

Delighted to see to this covered by the guardian on-line. Properly.

Sharron Davies backs free speech and women's rights campaigners calling for Sport England's diversity chief to be fired for his role in 'Orwellian' transgender row

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

Another chip away at the 'chilling effect' for we social workers. Bless you Rachel you star ⭐️

This judgement folks is the end of Stonewalls interference in the public sector

This judgement has gone beyond Foraster. It sets out in detail, and, in no uncertain terms, what public bodies and professional regulators, cannot do to professionals expressing their GC views outside and inside the work place.

It’s a clear handbook for Legal departments and HR alike, who will be very busy indeed re drafting, well pretty much everything, it will preclude them from seeking stonewall et al advice.

Judge Nicolle ..”it is self evident that there is no settled societal, political or legislative position regarding the rights of those seeking gender self ID such as but not limited to Stonewall.

YIPEEEEEE!

I wonder if my SWE membership costs will go up next year, I really resent paying them to “regulate” in this haphazard, incompetent and harmful way.

This is fantastic news, so pleased for Rachel. 🤞for Jo Phoenix.

The summary list of discriminations is awful because Rachel had to go through this but very helpful for others.

Does anyone know if Rachel could be awarded costs?

This is fantastic news!

Excellent!

This is great news

Congratulations to Rachel: she and her legal team did brilliantly. It must have been awful for her.

Excellent. Well done to Rachel and her team.

For her sake, obviously, I hope they don't appeal but it would be good for the cause if they did.

Just finished reading the full judgement and I think it's more broadly applicable than Maya's because it concerns treatment by the employer, not merely a termination. This employer took a lot of actions (in addition to suspending Rachel) that limited her ability to hold private views and that harassed her for her views. It's also notable that the regulator is on the hook and also that the employer is found to need to act fairly, even where the regulator is taking time to reach a decision.

It would be wonderful to have those as binding precident and I think this case is so egregious that its the perfect test case (from our PoV).

I suspect being so heavily invested personally in ideological thinking about gender themselves will mean that Woolton might be incapable of reflecting on this

Do you suspect Sports England knew that they would have to filter themselves or that Woolton assured them during recruitment that Woolton | Wolton is capable of being impartial and policy-making in Sports England's best interests?

What a great start to the year.

A picture says a thousand words.

I suspect being so heavily invested personally in ideological thinking about gender themselves will mean that Woolton might be incapable of reflecting on this. I suspect that any less than positive acceptance of that ideological thinking would be taken extremely personally.

Ah, Lord Patel and SWE, eh.

Lord Patel of inviting Jones to tea at the House of Lords infamy.

For those unfamiliar with this incident: these words in your preferred search engine may be enlightening.

mumsnet lord patel karen jones

It's not cricket that she can just spitefully toss the hand grenade, with no proof, etc, upend Rachel's life, reputation and bank account...