Threads

See more results

Topics

Usernames

Mumsnet Logo
Please
or
to access all these features

Rachel Meade, Social Worker, being suspended for 'transphobic' Facebook postss
367

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 14:58

A social worker, Rachel Meade, is in the process of challenging Social Work England - their professional regulatory body - as she believes she may have discriminated against her due to gender critical beliefs.

This is because during the GRA consultation, she shared posts on her private FB page, from FPFW, WPUK & Standing for Women, among others. These were being secretly screenshot by an ex colleague who then sent these to Social Work England, claiming that the posts were from groups who were discriminatory in nature, transphobic and who wanted to remove trans rights.

SWE decided that this was the case and sanctioned her, leading her employer to investigate her for gross misconduct. They placed a public Fitness to practice warning sanction on her record for a year. She has been suspended by her employer as a result of Social Work England's decision and will be facing a disciplinary process which she has been told may end in her dismissal.

She is taking both Social Work England and her employer to a tribunal; this is a really important case as if she wins, it will clarify in law that not only are employers bound to protect gender critical beliefs under EA2010, but Regulatory bodies are bound by it too.

This will mean that all regulatory bodies will have to recognise that the gender critical beliefs of their registrants/members are protected in law. This will cover social work, healthcare & law as well as any other areas covered by regulatory bodies so will have far reaching effects.

I have heard that she may be setting up a crowdfunder but obviously this is not the place to advertise that, but if people wish to donate should be easy to find.
Just saw that the Times have covered this too.

twitter.com/EmilieCCole/status/1481638709724270593?s=20

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:00

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

ScreamingMeMe · 13/01/2022 15:02

This is ridiculous. Surely, in light of Maya's case, if all she has been doing is expressing gender critical views, she will have every success with this?

This snitching to people's employers (it only took ONE complaint?) has got to stop. It's so vindictive.

Please
or
to access all these features

Iwishihadariver · 13/01/2022 15:04

Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:11

Similar happened to me, Screaming. A private facebook post of Dawn Butler's 'babies are born without a sex' clip and some 'friend' on the other side of the world sent a screenshot of it to my company's HR.

This case is specifically important - in that social workers need to be able to be confident that they are able to do their job without being labelled as transphobic - because of the huge rise in mental health issues in girls since summer 2020. (Truly, the most marginalised demographic in the UK right now).

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

barleybadminton · 13/01/2022 15:13

@ScreamingMeMe

This is ridiculous. Surely, in light of Maya's case, if all she has been doing is expressing gender critical views, she will have every success with this?

This snitching to people's employers (it only took ONE complaint?) has got to stop. It's so vindictive.

Maya hasn't won her case yet and it's quite likely she won't. The right to hold a belief and how that belief is manifested are two very different things.
Please
or
to access all these features

Goatsaregreat · 13/01/2022 15:16

In the light of a social worker's safeguarding role, this is chilling. It means that social workers will never dare raise any concerns about a child and external influences, Munchausens, abuse by an adult if there's any suggestion of gender non conforming issues. Which of course is what women have been warning all along is the end game for some. Silencing parents and professionals from raising concerns about vulnerable children.

Please
or
to access all these features

Wreath21 · 13/01/2022 15:16

If someone can't keep their bigotry to themselves they have no business working with vulnerable people. If, for instance, someone's religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong, their right to believe that might be a protected characteristic, but it doesn't protect them against disciplinary action if there is a likelhood - or even evidence - that they will be unable to shut the fuck up about their bigotry should they have to deal with a member of the group they are bigoted against.

Maya Forstetter was essentially penalised because she demanded the right to be rude to other people with no consequences ie the right to describe them as male/female according to her perspective rather than theirs, with impunity.

Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:17

@barelybadminton

Maya might not win the next stage, her employment tribunal, but the court judgment made it very clear that from that point, gender critical beliefs are protected in law.

www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly/

"This is a landmark decision. Gender Critical beliefs are protected characteristic. Those who hold and express those beliefs are protected from discrimination. It is a comprehensive reminder of the liberal principles of freedom of speech and thought that underpin our democracy. "

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

thedancingbear · 13/01/2022 15:21

Hang on, doesn't it depend on what the tweets actually said (which as far as I can see isn't confirmed anywhere)

Or is the MN position now that it is actually impossible to say something transphobic?

Please
or
to access all these features

MrsToddsShortcut · 13/01/2022 15:22

What's happening to Rachel is dreadful. Social Workers have to be able to challenge prevailing orthodoxy if it may impinge upon or affect clients.

I think Social Work England are fully Stonewalled if memory serves but all regulatory bodies have a duty to protect their members and also to uphold their rights - it's written into the Equality Act.

This is SUCH an important case as it will set a precedent for all regulatory bodies if she wins.

I believe that the original SWE outcome statement on their public website had to be amended as they defamed @Glinner (there were various parts to it but one referenced a Glinner related post she shared) so it looks as though they have just taken all the allegations at face value and not looked critically at the complaint.

Also worth remembering this case in which Social Services came into a fair bit of criticism. I guess SWE have short memories.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/21/boy-living-life-as-girl-removed-from-mothers-care-high-court-judge

Please
or
to access all these features

barleybadminton · 13/01/2022 15:22

Maya might not win the next stage, her employment tribunal, but the court judgment made it very clear that from that point, gender critical beliefs are protected in law.

All kinds of things are been ruled protected beliefs including the idea that gay people are deviants. That doesn't mean you get to keep your job if you decide to post that on public social media. And that quote is wrong, it was not a landmark ruling, it was a very pedesrian ruling which is commonplace in such trials - and many people have had their beliefs ruled protected and then gone on to lose their tribunal.

If Meade was really posting stuff from Standing for Women then I don't fancy her chances much given the extremist nature of the views of that organisation's founder.

Please
or
to access all these features

newnamesa · 13/01/2022 15:23

@Wreath21 a word to the wise mate. Your nonesense just encourages us Smile

Please
or
to access all these features

newnamesa · 13/01/2022 15:24

@barleybadminton do you believe in safeguarding barely? curious to know.

Please
or
to access all these features

MrsToddsShortcut · 13/01/2022 15:25

I don't think anything was posted publicly though?

Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:28

No MrsTodds it was on her own time, on her own private Facebook page.

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

RoyalCorgi · 13/01/2022 15:29

Maya Forstetter was essentially penalised because she demanded the right to be rude to other people with no consequences ie the right to describe them as male/female according to her perspective rather than theirs, with impunity.

You see, that's a lie. Aside from spelling her name wrongly, you've said something that is unequivocally and provably false.

Possibly you're just a bit dim and given to repeating crap that others post online. In which case, I strongly recommend you check stuff first before you post libellous content on a public forum.

Or possibly you know it's a lie, in which case I have to ask you: doesn't it worry you that the arguments of trans activists are so feeble that they have to be constantly bolstered by outright lies?

Please
or
to access all these features

RocketAndAFuckingMelon · 13/01/2022 15:30

@Wreath21 surely the question is the extent to which a regulator is entitled to interfere with someone's lawfully held beliefs expressed exclusively in private.

In your hypothetical example - if you have a member of a regulated profession (SW, solicitor, teacher etc) who said on their private FB page that homosexuality was wrong, but there was no evidence that this privately held belief affected the way they interacted with the public - because no complaint was raised at work - but their supposed friends screenshot the posts and sent them to the regulator, is that
a) totally ok, bigots are bigots and deserve to be unemployed and unemployable; or
b) an unacceptable infringement of their freedom of expression?

Personally I think the normalisation of surveillance and reporting is in general more deplorable and more of a social ill than privately held views, but YMMV.

Please
or
to access all these features

Goatsaregreat · 13/01/2022 15:32

Thanks for that article MrsToddsShortcut

Here's a link to the judgement which lays out specifically how children can be repeatedly abused when social workers are in thrall to an ideology instead of using their professional expertise neutrally to ensure that children are safeguarded. Mermaids (unsurprisingly) came in for significant criticism:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

Please
or
to access all these features

Clarice99 · 13/01/2022 15:45

I find the idea of social workers buying into gender ideology terrifying. They are often dealing with vulnerable people and to hold views that are not based on fact fills me with horror.

I sincerely hope that Rachel Meade's case is ruled in her favour.

Please
or
to access all these features

barleybadminton · 13/01/2022 15:46

[quote RocketAndAFuckingMelon]@Wreath21 surely the question is the extent to which a regulator is entitled to interfere with someone's lawfully held beliefs expressed exclusively in private.

In your hypothetical example - if you have a member of a regulated profession (SW, solicitor, teacher etc) who said on their private FB page that homosexuality was wrong, but there was no evidence that this privately held belief affected the way they interacted with the public - because no complaint was raised at work - but their supposed friends screenshot the posts and sent them to the regulator, is that
a) totally ok, bigots are bigots and deserve to be unemployed and unemployable; or
b) an unacceptable infringement of their freedom of expression?

Personally I think the normalisation of surveillance and reporting is in general more deplorable and more of a social ill than privately held views, but YMMV.[/quote]
You mean like the surveillance of the trans guide leader accused of being a safeguarding risk all over the internet including here after people trawled her social media and found a picture of her in a leather dress?

Reades facebook page was not private according to the findings of Social Work England. Any of the families she worked with could have found these posts quite easily.

Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:50

@Clarice99

I find the idea of social workers buying into gender ideology terrifying. They are often dealing with vulnerable people and to hold views that are not based on fact fills me with horror.

I sincerely hope that Rachel Meade's case is ruled in her favour.

It is terrifying. Many families now with children who have severe mental health issues are self-referring to Social Care in the hope that in doing so CAMHS wait lists might become less than a year for them Sad. So many of my DD's teen friends are autistic, trans/non-binary, have EDs.. SWs need to feel empowered to see the right treatment for all of these, not fear challenging gender stuff.
OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Wreath21 · 13/01/2022 15:54

[quote RocketAndAFuckingMelon]@Wreath21 surely the question is the extent to which a regulator is entitled to interfere with someone's lawfully held beliefs expressed exclusively in private.

In your hypothetical example - if you have a member of a regulated profession (SW, solicitor, teacher etc) who said on their private FB page that homosexuality was wrong, but there was no evidence that this privately held belief affected the way they interacted with the public - because no complaint was raised at work - but their supposed friends screenshot the posts and sent them to the regulator, is that
a) totally ok, bigots are bigots and deserve to be unemployed and unemployable; or
b) an unacceptable infringement of their freedom of expression?

Personally I think the normalisation of surveillance and reporting is in general more deplorable and more of a social ill than privately held views, but YMMV.[/quote]
'The extent to which a regulator is entitled to interfere' should be decided on a case-by-case basis (whatever the beliefs in question).
Most people who get into trouble for social media posts have been posting on non-private social media (Twitter rather than FB) or they have been airing their views in the workplace, or sharing them in such a way that it reflects badly on their employers.

(As a general rule, if you want to be contentious or even just express yourself freely, and you believe that what you do in your own time is none of your employer's business, the most sensible thing is to have separate social media accounts under an alias nor nickname.)

Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:54

Barely "Reades facebook page was not private according to the findings of Social Work England. Any of the families she worked with could have found these posts quite easily."

Can you prove that? It's my mis-understanding that these were on her private facebook page and it was a 'friend' that took screenshots of everything she shared. Please prove otherwise?

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Wreath21 · 13/01/2022 15:55

Unfortunately a lot of bigots and wingnuts won't do this because they are raging attention seekers and it's important to them to bellow across multiple platforms about how 'silenced' they are.

Please
or
to access all these features

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 15:55

My 'understanding', not 'mis-understanding'

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.