Rachel Meade - it's a win!

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

While the treatment of Rachel Meades has been appalling, I hate to say it but their attitude to her is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of potential harms. These are the people making judgements over families.

Thank you, I’ve completed it

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/

Thanks Rethinking

Tribunal hasn't ruled after the most recent hearing, as ever, this takes a while.

Does anyone know what the outcome of the remedies hearing was?

Right. I’m fucking disgusted that I have to be governed by these people.

I think this is right. SWE would far rather have the remedies imposed, that be seen to have given any quarter. Being seen as righteous (by certain groups) is more important than getting this finished, than putting right a wrong,than complying with the law, than anything.

Yes the judge found she didn't bring her views to work. But that wasn't the attitude SWE and WCC took at first, was it?

Given NCs pointing out SWE did not put up a witness for the remedy hearing, that there is potentially evidence that SWE has not accepted the ruling e.g. the article and RMWs tweet (RMW was the barrister for SWE until quite close to the ET) I think there is a good chance it may a recommendation in the remedy.

I think it is highly likely a settlement couldn’t be reached is because of the soft remedies such as WCC apologising to RMs two managers, the training etc. rather than the ££.

I quite enjoyed the theatre of the most recent case where the witness snarled at anyone who used correct sex pronouns, even by accident, but repeatedly deadnamed a colleague all through her evidence.

It isn't about getting it right, no one can get it right. It's about a vehicle for brow beating everyone else.

Counsel for the respondents struggling to get the pronouns right. 😲

It'd be fairly seismic if it weren't for the double standards, if people proselytising the GI doctrine were subject to the same scrutiny and penalties.

I wonder if this is the tweet in question. RMW completely downplaying the significance of a case where a regulator has been found to have seriously discriminated against one of their registrants which resulted in her also being discriminated against and sanctioned by her employer.

Sisterpita
What is interesting is that Rachel is seeking a recommendation that managers and employees in both SWE and WCC receive freedom of expression and protected belief training. The provider to be neutral I.e. not Stonewall et al.

That would be great. Is the ET likely to oblige, do you know? Is this sort of recommendation often requested?
If Judge Nicolle and the panel connect the request to the New European article, they may see how necessary it is.

What is interesting is that Rachel is seeking a recommendation that managers and employees in both SWE and WCC receive freedom of expression and protected belief training. The provider to be neutral I.e. not Stonewall et al.

Excellent recommendation. I would hope that she or someone comparable would have input into that. iirc, did the BBC replace Stonewall with Gendered Intelligence which is not really more than a cigarette paper's worth of difference? (Or is it Global Butterflies?)

Had a look a t the tribunal tweets. Rather startling how much mor coherent and florid SC was in legal arguments re remedies. Which seems to show how hopeless the defence was in the first place.

@Ramblingnamechanger this was to decide compensation and costs. I expect it won’t be too long before the outcome is published.

What is interesting is that Rachel is seeking a recommendation that managers and employees in both SWE and WCC receive freedom of expression and protected belief training. The provider to be neutral I.e. not Stonewall et al.

So has this finished now? Result? Hoping that Rachel’s case can be well and truly made exemplary for those captured organisations.

Yes i wonder what RMW tweet is too

I'm a bit lost, I read the New Statesman piece, but what is RMW tweet? I'm not on TwiX so can't read links.

It really is most unfortunate that the internet never forgets.

At least that article has been submitted as evidence so no one can ever deny it existed.

I am so outraged by the arguments of opposing counsel at this remedy hearing. Particularly enraged by the argument that RM was distressed by first respondent anyway, so distress caused by actions of the second respondent isn't a separate reason for separate damages.
And the way SC casually says that the threat of having to pay the other side's costs is normal so RM shouldn't have been frightened by it. So offensive, such a privileged, luxury opinion.
I don't think Judge Nicolle is quite getting the significance of the New European article and RMW's tweet. It's probably the first time the judge has seen anything like it and doesn't realise that it would be taken by the gender zealots as a proper legal summary of the situation, especially with the apparent endorsement of a lawyer who had represented one of the respondents in the case. Annoying.