Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Rachel Meade - it's a win!

692 replies

BreadInCaptivity · 09/01/2024 12:35

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1744697995822526961?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

OP posts:
Thread gallery
38
BreadInCaptivity · 28/04/2024 22:21

Thank you

OP posts:
Snowypeaks · 28/04/2024 22:11

Fantastic news for Rachel Meade. The process is finally at an end.

Well done Naomi Cunningham and the legal team. I believe that judgement is absolutely everything they asked for, isn't it?

DrSoupDragonsFriend · 28/04/2024 22:04

Wonderful news.

HandShoe · 28/04/2024 22:04

Great news! Well done Rachel 💐

Waitwhat23 · 28/04/2024 22:02

Woo hoo! Well done Rachel!

ArabellaScott · 28/04/2024 22:02

Fantastic. Well done, Rachel!

MrsOvertonsWindow · 28/04/2024 22:01

Excellent news - and the tribunal have been very clear about the culpability of Social Work England and Westminster Council.

BreadInCaptivity · 28/04/2024 21:56

Anyone got a share token?

OP posts:
chilling19 · 28/04/2024 21:55

This is a resounding win. Usually ETs tend to pull their language, but in this case both Westminster Council and Social Work England have been told they were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. 👏👏👏

BreadInCaptivity · 28/04/2024 21:54

Excellent news and well done Rachel.

OP posts:
ScrollingLeaves · 28/04/2024 21:54

Well, well done. How brave too.

chilling19 · 28/04/2024 21:51

Excellent news - first two paras from The Tines:

'A social worker who was suspended over her gender critical views has been awarded almost £58,000 in damages from Westminster city council and Social Work England.

In what lawyers described as an unprecedented move by a court to award exemplary damages against a regulator, an employment tribunal called for both the council and the watchdog to train their staff in the principles of freedom of speech.'

Redshoeblueshoe · 28/04/2024 21:50

Just seen that on Twitter - result

BettyFilous · 28/04/2024 21:46

There’s a new article just posted in the Times.

“A social worker who was suspended over her gender critical views has been awarded almost £58,000 in damages from Westminster city council and Social Work England.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/social-worker-suspended-gender-critical-views-awarded-58000-2b7c337n7

LiesDoNotBecomeUs · 17/04/2024 16:54

Hoping for a reasoned judgement soon.
The waiting must have been very tough for those at the sharp end of this!

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/04/2024 08:13

Hope this judgement comes soon. `it was such a shocking case.

Sisterpita · 16/04/2024 06:28

@WestTwoWoman Given that we have had the remedy hearing I don’t think there can be a settlement.

I think the outcome is due fairly soon, like many cases, no one knows when until the panel are ready to publish. Normally the complainant (Rachel) and respondents get a heads up so they can read an embargoed copy before it is published.

WestTwoWoman · 16/04/2024 01:41

Sorry to revive a dormant thread, but does anyone have any information on when the remedies judgment will be made available in the Rachel Meade case? It seems really overdue. In the light of the Case review’s findings, I’ve been thinking about how Meade’s request for the recommendations for training must seem worthwhile to a reasonable tribunal judge.

I don’t expect there’s been a deal hashed out behind the scenes, because surely Meade would have announced that, even if she was prevented from sharing detail. (Like Jo Phoenix - she didn’t share info about what her settlement was, just that she had reached a settlement with the OU.) But the Meade case has just gone quiet.

mum2jakie · 26/03/2024 08:55

Icanttellyouanything · 26/03/2024 08:33

Typically of SWE, who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, they've made it an open survey. Anyone who follows the link can complete the survey. Anyone. It doesn't ask you to prove you're a social worker but it does allow you to comment on your level of confidence in them as a regulator.

Yes, I thought that! The alternative would mean that it couldn't be an anonymous survey though. I don't know if there would be a way for them to ask for confirmation of SWE registration without linking the results to individuals. Clearly SWE are very fond of self ID....

Icanttellyouanything · 26/03/2024 08:33

mum2jakie · 25/03/2024 18:46

If any social workers want to share their views with Social Work England in light of their appalling treatment of Rachel Meades, they currently have a survey open. Link is at the bottom of this Community Care article:

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/03/25/social-work-england-launches-first-annual-survey-of-profession/

Typically of SWE, who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, they've made it an open survey. Anyone who follows the link can complete the survey. Anyone. It doesn't ask you to prove you're a social worker but it does allow you to comment on your level of confidence in them as a regulator.

Froodwithatowel · 26/03/2024 08:20

It's something that this political movement appears to struggle to get its head around.

That forcing everyone to lie and pretend, even if you've terrorised them into obediently pretending through gritted teeth out of fear of you, will not make the nasty realities go away. Things will go hideously wrong to the point that many will cease to be able to pretend it away. And those people will not stay under your control for ever, and they will get steadily angrier and more resentful every day you do it to them.

Signalbox · 26/03/2024 07:47

SaffronSpice · 26/03/2024 07:29

They were merely telling ALL social workers as part of their professional registration that they MUST discriminate against those with GC beliefs and that those beliefs are harmful, or be sacked. 🙄

Yes. And clearly this will potentially lead to bad outcomes for families if SWs are unable to raise concerns without being investigated by the regulator. It really is an appalling state of affairs.

SaffronSpice · 26/03/2024 07:29

Signalbox · 26/03/2024 06:38

SWE won’t be doing that. They are the professional regulator.

They were merely telling ALL social workers as part of their professional registration that they MUST discriminate against those with GC beliefs and that those beliefs are harmful, or be sacked. 🙄