Rachel Meade - it's a win!

Frightening. So dangerous when people are too scared to raise safeguarding concerns. Why do we never learn? I bet this is being replicated in councils across the UK.

A bit more on this in the Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/social-workers-scared-to-speak-about-trans-issues-382370zcm

https://archive.ph/Fv9Pg

I expect in a few years, possibly not that long, we'll see the CoW being sued by careleavers and/or their families. But what Farrell is doing seems to be what they want to put into law in Scotland.

@RethinkingLife thank you - I can’t see SWE agreeing a reasonable settlement given their behaviour to date!

Gardening for Rachel and hoping that the others who were suspended (for not snitching 'the witch') are also given proper compensation in the end of this.

Very happy with this result! There's been some talk at work about it. When a worker has to complete re registration every year SWE requires you to confirm your 'gender identity'. One year you had the option of stating 'other' and completing a declaration in which you write your own text, so you could declare that you didn't have a one. It was a long winded way to resist the stupidity and exercise defiance against the machine. Last year that option wasn't there and you couldn't complete unless you declared your gender. Not completing isn't an option because without registration you can't practice. I look forward to seeing what happens this year as I think some will feel emboldened to challenge that more strongly now - it'd need some planning to make sure it's approached at the start of the registration window though, so time doesn't run out.

I've been out gardening for Rachel and I really hope SWE and BASW et al are rattled enough to start employing some critical thinking. We'll see!

The needs of those looked after by social-workers are not usually anything to do with gender beliefs either

Not usually, no. But sometimes they are, including children. And adhering rigidly to trans ideology in these instances is actually potentially more harmful than being gender critical. There is more professional curiosity in a GC approach than an automatically affirming one, yet which one gets punished…

@LiesDoNotBecomeUs @Froodwithatowel
The GC position is the neutral 'this stuff should be left out of the workplace and clients should not be exposed to anyone's personal beliefs'.

If you think about it for 2 millennia + believing that there are two sexes was the default position. In both law and at work in policies and procedures were based on this default position. It wasn’t discussed or even a factor at work.

Employees worked within the EA2010 (and it’s predecessors) where PCs don’t have a hierarchy and competing needs of PC are balanced. Clients were not exposed to personal beliefs as it was about them.

It is less than a decade (2015 I think Allison Bailey stated) that the GI belief has not just gained traction but overturned the long standing practice of neutrality in the workplace. It is frightening but also shows what can be achieved by brave people like Maya, Allison, Rachel and others.

I was once in a church and overheard a heated committee discussion about how the next stage of its re-decoration should go:

'Yes - but is that carpet fitter a Catholic?'

I have often wondered about the differences between Catholic carpet-fitting and non-Catholic carpet-fitting.

A person's beliefs on gender (even if strongly held) are probably not the only important thing about how they do their jobs.

The needs of those looked after by social-workers are not usually anything to do with gender beliefs either.

This is a star post!

I've just been out and had a bit of a dig. Lovely weather for gardening - not raining!

(Unfortunately I might know the answer.)

If you're correct, and if there's the usual NDA as to any amount, do we expect it to be described by said person as negligible and indicative of nothing and far from precedent-setting?

Any predictions for weasel-wording and non-apology of any statements?

I wasn't arguing with you.

Just exasperated that SWE cannot see the writing on the wall in the way Westminster Council, and the body James Esses was fighting, managed to. SWEs position has to be wrong and both Cass and recent legal decisions highlight this.

Who is advising them....

(Unfortunately I might know the answer.)

@Needmoresleep I was clarifying why Rachel still needs gardening.

The 3 parties Rachel, WCC and SWE can agree a settlement before the remedy hearing. In legal costs this is the cheapest option. If they can’t agree then the remedy hearing will determine the outcome.

So there will be a remedy but no one can say what this will include.

If they won't agree, the responsible Minister needs to start asking questions. Their stance is clearly counter to both Government policy and recommendations contained in the Cass review.

Vulnerable children are involved. Local authorities, as service providers, will be at risk of future legal action. Bonkers.

I’ve done some gardening as I can’t see WCC and SWE both agreeing a settlement ahead of the hearing.

James Esses managed to settle with United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). As part of that they had to issue a formal statement and I suspect make some fundamental changes.

Rachel is clearly looking to achieve similar and I am not sure SWE in particular will agree.

The capture goes so deep though. It will take decades of hard work to reverse, and while plenty of proselytisers in positions of power will quietly reverse ferret, there will be a high cost to some who have staked their reality on this ideology.

The misrepresentations of reality have been very successfully embedded in public sector institutions. For instance, last week the all staff email bulletin at work (big NHS Trust) was advertising a session called something like 'building resilience in the LGBTQ+ community in the context of growing health inequalities and hate crime'. No evidence of these growing inequalities and crimes, just the assumption that they exist and people need training to overcome them.

How do you fight an ideology which starts from a position of victimhood and persecution, without being positioned as attacking a vulnerable group? Questioning the oppression is just seen as perpetuating it. Let alone what it must be like for some gender believers to really believe they are in constant danger of attack or even annihilation - I've seen posts online by young transpeople in the US saying things like 'I won't be taken to a camp, I'll kms first', they really believe they are being genocided. The scale of the capture is daunting, and beliefs are much harder to challenge than facts.

Yes, I must remember to do a bit of gardening. So nice to see the results of all our planting and gardening for Rachel Meade - beautiful foliage and buds popping out all over! - but not quite fully bloomed yet.

Crowd J indicates that RM is still >£70K from her stretch target so that is the current shortfall.

The judgement has landed and I am vindicated!
My employer, Westminster City Council and my professional regulator, Social Work England were wrong to have sanctioned me for expressing my legitimate views around sex and gender.
It’s been a very difficult and harrowing three years for me and my family. I would not have got to this point, come so far, or achieved justice without your incredible support and generosity. I cannot thank you enough.
But, we still need to raise funds to cover the shortfall in my legal costs and representation for the two-day remedy hearing in February. This is important not just for me, but for the whole social work profession, and everyone who believes in freedom of speech on equality and gender critical issues. I want to ask the tribunal to make recommendations that will help Social Work England and my employer to take the lessons from this process properly on board, and make sure that everyone concerned with managing and regulating social workers understands that we are entitled both to hold and to express sex realist views for the greater good, and to protect those who are vulnerable in society.

I'm in the same boat @DrBlackbird. It's really quite concerning.

I am very glad that this exists though, as it is an NHSE endorsed training module produced by the NHS and informed by the Cass review.

For under 18s, it is a change in direction from instant affirmation and includes the need to be mindful of underlying issues. Fairly In line with proposed school guidelines.

It's still not statutory safeguarding but helps to illustrate that these aren't "opinions and beliefs" of bigots but are nhs evidenced/ practise.

Apparently it's it's for all nhs professionals working with children and young people, as well as those working in education settings, teachers, education staff, parents and carers.

www.minded.org.uk/

www.minded.org.uk/Catalogue/Index?HierarchyId=0_59819&programmeId=59819

Yes Frood describes it really well.

Beliefs and opinions aren't going to keep children safe.

I think that's why I always had issues with Maya's win in terms of the 'belief' factor - whist being immensely valuable, it doesn't transfer to or directly impact child safeguarding.

It's a very important first step on what is a hike from Lands End to John O Groats. (And is likely to grind to a halt at Gretna.)

It's that distinction between academic freedom and 'free speech /debate' verses child safeguarding. The rules have to be completely different. Child safeguarding can't be theory based.

What is extraordinary is that first Liz Truss and then Kemi have been very vocal about the importance of protecting women's rights, and their desire to see Stonewall influence reduced. Boris, after a couple of U turns confirmed his support, and Rishi has been clear about his belief in biological sex.

But people within the public sector don't seem to be listening. Some will be "Tories are evil bigots, so automatically wrong" but the extent to which clear Government signals are being ignored is extraordinary. This cannot be in the interest of either the current Government or the "Government in waiting".

There is an apparatus. There is a Chief Social Worker for Children and Families. I hope she has read Cass. She needs to start talking to the regulatory bodies and they need to clarify their guidance so it is in line with both the law and with Government policy.

@WarriorN our training on human rights has also been outsourced and that company has incorrectly represented the protected characteristics with an a la SW version. However, I fully admit that I’d be too scared of the repercussions to send an email questioning the training. Not even sure who to question as it’s not evident which department in the university commissioned and approved the training. You’d hope the law department would have something to say but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Seconding how clearly this positions the imbalance that’s occurring in the workplace and how far it is from neutrality.

Thank you. Absolutely horrifying.

@DrBlackbird my school has recently switched from LA delivered safeguarding to a business who delivers it.

That's a fucking outside provider.

We've got to make this statutory. "Rights to a belief" isn't enough for the children. Both this and the schools guidance is for the staff, the parents and to remind everyone what the law actually is.

Unfortunately that can probably only come from a public inquiry.