Rachel Meade - it's a win!

I think the New European article has been taken down as the link on Twitter/x isn’t working. Reading the posts I think it may have misrepresented Professor Kathleen Stock.

Brilliant news. But when the sweet fuck are employers going to cotton on to the fact that legal rights trump hurty feelingz. Do HR departments not read the news? Isn’t there an HR Times that keeps them up to date?

How many other women are going to be put through the stress and trauma of a hearing, plus all the other stuff leading up to a hearing.

Afternoon part 1
https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1757071654511931442?s=61&t=W8z-NdrPTYy21FuiQuezcw

It is worth reading through this afternoon's TT's.

NC gave the judge that New European(?) article that was published today (the barrister one) and observed that there was little/no sign of remorse/apology from SWE, or their former counsel ( did anybody say "bundle"?) so significant damages would be in order to give them a wake up call and to effect change:

NC Extraordinary for WCC to not attend todaty to explain a witness statement. Really shocking is SWEs failure to call any evidence, total silence and no comms with the C. The only comms re the liability judgment is on SWEs website to acknowledge judgement [reads]

NC No change on website since 9th January and said nothing further since. Takes me to New European article from this am. They are wholly unimpressed by tribunals judgement and feel they are right in this case. Their intention is to minimise impact of judgement and will continue

NC to silence SWs on this issue. They shld have sent SWEs CE CC today to explain the orgs position, and I cld have asked him about freedom of SWs ability to express these views in public, and vigourously engage in public debate. I ask u to infer that SWE wld have been unwilling

........ (jumping some tweets)

NC....... Which is why exemp damages is so important. This case needs to be seismic for SWE. If its not the work of tribunal is only half done. Something needs to be done to make it seismic for SWE. Needs to get to CEO, risk

NC c'tee and relevant minister. exempl damages are the words that'll have that effect. [Reads RW's tweet].

I've done a small bit of extra planting. Remembering to change the tip to the website to £0 - if they hadn't behaved so badly to Allison Bailey, they'd have had quite a few carrots from me what with one crowdfunder and another. Oh well never mind.

Will do a bit of gardening later

Added marigolds to your carrots as they're a charming companion planting.

Stonewall et al have formed an alternative government.

The still accurate Yes Minister exchange except that it's gone a little further.

[Hacker is about to ask for advice from his predecessor, a member of the Opposition party]

James Hacker : The Opposition aren't the opposition.
Annie Hacker : No of course not, silly of me. They're just called the opposition.
James Hacker : They're only the opposition in exile. The Civil Service is the opposition in residence.

They have almost certainly been told by their barristers that, having had their arse handed to them on a silver plate, soused in raspberry jus keeping schtumm is the best policy.

Have send a few seed, it's a beautiful spring day here.

Rachel has to pay her legal bill at the end of this hearing (tomorrow?)
She might need a few more carrots.

It appears that SWE have declined to put up a witness at the remedy hearing.

The tribunal commented:

Social worker’s views ‘could not be viewed as transphobic.

I find that to be highly significant. T'other can wail and pretend as much as they like that cling film, Smarties and deodorant are transphobic, but the legal profession disagrees and explained why and how.

Quite. It's as if Stonewall et al have formed an alternative government.

it rejected the claim that the Girl Guides/Boy Scouts post had the effect of equating transgenderism with paedophilia. It concluded this constituted “a reasonable satire” and addressed a “legitimate safeguarding concern that some transwomen, retaining male bodies, could exploit their position to have access to young and vulnerable girls”.

Wow.

Rachel gave evidence at her remedy hearing today. https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1757017915725897997?s=46&t=lJm6-66fq4MtGcwwAsK6Kg

Just had an update on the remedy hearing. Rachel could do with some gardening.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/unlawful-discrimination-by-soc/?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Update_2078,%202850]%20on%20Unlawfully%20Harassed%20by%20Social%20Work%20England%20&%20Westminster%20City%20Council%20(February%2012,%202024)&utm_medium=email

This link https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1757017915725897997?s=46&t=lJm6-66fq4MtGcwwAsK6Kg takes you to TT thread reader for this mornings evidence.

I came across this (my cookies must all be Tunnocks 😁)

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/01/17/why-social-worker-won-harassment-claims-against-council-and-regulator-relating-to-gender-critical-beliefs/

I didn't know the Tribunal had said this

it rejected the claim that the Girl Guides/Boy Scouts post had the effect of equating transgenderism with paedophilia. It concluded this constituted “a reasonable satire” and addressed a “legitimate safeguarding concern that some transwomen, retaining male bodies, could exploit their position to have access to young and vulnerable girls”.

You are entitled to not be bullied or harassed for your beliefs and lifestyle if it is appropriate and within the boundaries of the situation you are in. Non participation and other beliefs to yours are not bullying or harassment. Failing to tolerate those with other beliefs and their boundaries and rights not to participate or enable you - and seeking to convert them, punish and coerce them into participation or get rid of them from your environment - is harassment.

Exactly.

Views is starting to be an inaccurate term in some ways.

Sexed reality is framed as offensive as for example marching around an office loudly expressing a view that homosexuality is a sin.

In fact it is nearer religious tolerance. You cannot demand that everyone in your office prays with you, genuflects at your altar, and denounce them as sinners and try to get rid of them when they explain that no, they have other beliefs that they choose to live by. It is not 'offensive' to not believe what you do and live by those beliefs.

The issue is the demand to enable someone else's personal belief system and create it around them/reflect it back to them. Yes, that person may well perceive that as you rejecting the 'true authentic them' and other such stuff, but the distortion is there.

You are entitled to not be bullied or harassed for your beliefs and lifestyle if it is appropriate and within the boundaries of the situation you are in. Non participation and other beliefs to yours are not bullying or harassment. Failing to tolerate those with other beliefs and their boundaries and rights not to participate or enable you - and seeking to convert them, punish and coerce them into participation or get rid of them from your environment - is harassment.

Yes, good article. This bit in particular bears repeating:

If you say you value diversity in your company, that means diversity of views too.

Well, we all know what 'diversity' really means these days - it means the exact opposite. Narrow minded group think and prioritisation of one group over all others. Everyone forced to chant 2+2=5 or face what happened to Rachel Meade if they don't.

Cripes that is a terrific article, thank you.

Another article in the Times by Simon Fanshawe.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/beware-the-culture-wars-how-employers-can-trip-over-trans-issues-fvj9m5kxv

https://archive.ph/zUMSl

Although for most of us on FWS it's kind of labouring the point 😃 by now. I hope it will get through to a few more HR departments, politicians and even, I may hope, activists.

Belated Congratulations 🎊! Rachel !

@IcakethereforeIam thank you for the link.

This is the next big scandal, many of us can se it but others seem blind. There will be a public enquiry and people like Helen Farrell will try to use weasel words or blame others not realising the damage they have done.

Underscores nicely what I said about social work and SWE!

Thanks for link.