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

[MidCenturyClegs]

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

[quote MidCenturyClegs]@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. "[/quote]
Well, no.

(1) Higgs v Farmors School got there first.

(2) WHERE and HOW you express those views will be important. It’s not an unfettered right.

but in all honesty I would have preferred a case that didn't have the issue of findings being accepted to contend with.

It may well be that some points will be upheld, and others will not. Which is fine. There is 70 odd to go through. I think the important ones for social workers will be around the sharing of information, signing petitions, taking part in the national debate, and liking particular groups / and comments that are not considered desirable thoughts by the 'captured'.

Is your record player jumping Robin? I recommend a soft clean cloth.

@MrBIobby

And WHERE and HOW you express those views will be important. It’s not an unfettered right.

Yes everybody here knows this Robin. The continuous repetition of this point is becoming somewhat tedious. And the same principle should apply to trans activists. Maybe a few tribunals for some of those in public facing roles, who find it acceptable to be aggressive and offensive to those with gender critical views may set the on the path of correct thinking right?

And the whole point of this case is to ascertain whether the where and how actually was appropriate, particularly in light of recent rulings.

Are you now an expert on the social work code of ethics?

Well, it may not be so clear to everyone. I have this week had to deal with a work circumstance where an individual thought they DID have such an unfettered right.

And yes, I have previously advised in health, social care and social work contexts.

I am not, as yet, instructed in this case but will, of course, watch it with interest.

doesn't it worry you that the arguments of trans activists are so feeble that they have to be constantly bolstered by outright lies?

But if an entire ideology is founded on something demonstrably untrue, and people have to be forced to pretend to believe it, what else could you expect, RoyalCorgi?

Is your record player jumping Robin? I recommend a soft clean cloth.

And yes, I have previously advised in health, social care and social work contexts.

Lol. Well I look forward to you advising the social work professionals here with your enhanced knowledge on their profession 😉

Lots of TRA seem to think they have unfettered rights to express their views, up to and including issuing death threats, demanding forced speech from others, and intruding on spaces that have been set aside for others.

@RobinMoiraWhite

"Well, no.

(1) Higgs v Farmors School got there first.

(2) WHERE and HOW you express those views will be important. It’s not an unfettered right."

I don't know the details of that but defining how and where seems legally arbitrary to me. Who decides what is hateful? I don't believe in gender identities, that may offend you and here I am telling you this and no doubt you'll report me, but it would equally offend me you if called me 'cis'.

I would say that posts on one's private Facebook page - links to mainstream articles at that - constitute a fair place to do so. If any of Rachel's friends didn't like it then the adult thing is to have a discussion about it without name-calling or just quietly unfriend and move on. Simples.

So many witch-hunts against feminists have happened in the last few years. A few males too, but mostly females.
Why do you think that is, Robin? Do you think maybe there are a bunch of males out there who just don't like women who reject gender? Who want to discard the concepts of femininity and masculinity? Reassert ourselves as women and only we are women?

That's very different to what she is saying now and I'm struggling how further legal action will square that wrt to her case because if she doesn't believe the above does that mean she was not honest in her evidence to the examiners? That's a very serious breech of the code of practice in itself.

This also seems relevant

" The social worker maintains that they did “not
fully read or analyse their content before posting”. Case examiners are concerned
that the social worker failed to fully read or analyse the content of their posts.
The reputation of the profession relies on its members behaving in a manner both
at work and in their private life that consistently demonstrates that they can think
through their actions and understand the impact both for the profession and the
wider public."

I think this is fair and suggests that the issues are broader than just the opinions she shared but that she was negligent for not fully appraising what she was sharing. If it's true she linked to Glinner's site for example there is clearly content on there that is deeply hostile to trans people and which raises real concerns about confidentiality - his outing of people from their dating site profiles for example. Imagine being a trans kid and googling your social worker and finding that she linked to sites like that. Would you feel confident opening up to her about what might be deeply personal and sensitive issue or would you be more worried you might end up on Glinners blog being mocked and outed. That is a safeguarding risk, a real one, a trans kid reading her posts may not have felt comfortable disclosing abuse to her. That's why this is different to people in other kinds of jobs and the regulators were right to take the action they did.

@MrBIobby

but in all honesty I would have preferred a case that didn't have the issue of findings being accepted to contend with.

It may well be that some points will be upheld, and others will not. Which is fine. There is 70 odd to go through. I think the important ones for social workers will be around the sharing of information, signing petitions, taking part in the national debate, and liking particular groups / and comments that are not considered desirable thoughts by the 'captured'.

Yes I hope that this has the potential to bring clarity/sunlight even if all the findings are not found to be inappropriate and a breach of the Code of Practice.

I've chatted today about this with some of my fellow students and to be honest the overall perception of this issue is a mixed bag.

• The wording in the examiner's report and some of the charges against her are concerning and there is a worry about "capture" especially wrt the implications for safeguarding.

• Other charges most agree overstepped - false information and the guides/scouts posts.

• Some we just don't know what was said and as such it's premature to reach conclusions, though it was thought that it was likely the "worst" allegations had been listed and thus what was left was likely to be "mild". Questions/confusion though about much much the volume of posts was an issue (so you can post certain things but posting them too frequently is a breach of the code????).

• There is a broad agreement that you can't have it both ways. If GC views of this nature are not appropriate, then neither are TRA posts that echo a similar (if reverse) sentiment.

"The regulator found that Meade had “engaged in a pattern of discriminatory behaviour which persisted over an extended period” by sharing social media posts more than 70 times.

She was also criticised for signing petitions and donating to organisations that were alleged to have discriminated against specific groups.

Regulators said that Meade’s actions “could be perceived to be derogatory and potentially discriminatory to members of the transgender community” and others who were concerned about a social worker’s “ability to act in an anti-oppressive manner which values the diverse lived experience of others”

There's a lot of "alleged to" and "could be perceived to" in that extract. Not much in the way of cold, hard facts.

I am not social media savvy but I would hope that social workers facebook posts are private. No trans, or other, kid should be able to access their social worker's profile surely?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

I am not social media savvy but I would hope that social workers facebook posts are private. No trans, or other, kid should be able to access their social worker's profile surely?

Well they shouldn't be able to, but I think in this case it was a 'friend' who had access to her page. I think one of the lessons here is to be careful who are 'friends' on Facebook, as this is clearly a weak point. To also really think about what is being posted, and to regularly limit past posts. It's probably safer, when taking part in a such a polarised national debate, to do so anonymously. Not that I think social workers should have to. But in a culture of targeting, cancelling and blame, it wouldn't be an unreasonable response. I guess wait and see what the results of this case bring. Maybe things will change and people will be able to speak up safely. I hope so.

Ah I see. But one of her clients would not have been able to see her posts?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Ah I see. But one of her clients would not have been able to see her posts?

Probably not. But it depends who the friend was. Clearly they weren't a friend. Maybe she didn't even know them. I don't know. Maybe they pretended to be someone she knew. I've had requests from 'friends' who clearly aren't, they've just gone through my friends list and lifted photos and names. People often accept friend requests without checking carefully. The point is though, that whilst it may be a private page, if someone is in there that shouldn't be, taking screen shots, then arguably it's no longer private as adequate precautions were not taken. I'm certainly not blaming her for this. It could happen to anyone. But it's certainly worth thinking about the possibility of this happening.

That's good advice, thanks. I wonder why there aren't laws preventing you distributing private info you had to lie to access - but maybe there are and in which case the person who distributed this needs prosecuting.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Ah I see. But one of her clients would not have been able to see her posts?

It doesn't seem so on the basis of what we know.

She'd locked her FB account to friends so it wasn't widely accessible to the public.

In the crowdfund info she says it was a friend and former colleague who took screenshots of her posts and then reported her.

I'm presuming because that "friend" held very different views.

It was also noted that this person had tried to engage/discuss but RM blocked her.

The examiners noted that had she engaged she might have thought differently.

That's another aspect I take issue with.

Not that it's inappropriate to discuss in good faith and respect differing views, but the tone in the report came across to me in the "educate yourself" vein of discourse.

What if she had discussed rather than blocked but still disagreed?

Would that have made a difference? From the tone of the report I'm not sure that it would. Which is "ammo" on her part to suggest there was a bias against her GC beliefs and not just how she expressed them.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

That's good advice, thanks. I wonder why there aren't laws preventing you distributing private info you had to lie to access - but maybe there are and in which case the person who distributed this needs prosecuting.

You have a fair point there. And maybe there are. Although if the information was fairly easy to obtain I still think the blame will lie with the owner of the Facebook page. It might be different if someone had actually hacked into the account. But the door was reasonably easy to open.

Probably not. But it depends who the friend was. Clearly they weren't a friend. Maybe she didn't even know them. I don't know.

Or a fellow profesional who felt duty bound to report the posts on safeguarding grounds. No sacred castes and all that.

Not that it's inappropriate to discuss in good faith and respect differing views, but the tone in the report came across to me in the "educate yourself" vein of discourse.

Yes I took issue with this as well. There was something extremely unpleasant about it. Particularly as this was not in a workplace where there might be an expectation to discuss, but instead in someone's private personal space. It's extremely intrusive.

*She'd locked her FB account to friends so it wasn't widely accessible to the public

So she now claims yet strangely there is no mention of that in the Case Examiner's report, and we know she appears to lie, even to regulators. So I'm afraid I'd take all her claims with a pinch of salt from now on - as will the courts I expect.

Well you would say that Barley. There's a preference for activists to blame rather than seek truth and fair justice when someone else views are not in line with group think.

Let's hope this case gets to the truth, and is in line with the law. Everybody has the right to a fair hearing. Even those people you don't agree with.

@MrBIobby

Well you would say that Barley. There's a preference for activists to blame rather than seek truth and fair justice when someone else views are not in line with group think.

Let's hope this case gets to the truth, and is in line with the law. Everybody has the right to a fair hearing. Even those people you don't agree with.

I think it's important to be sceptical when discussing possible safeguarding risks don't you? You can't just take someone's word for it.

I'm not even sure the distinction is that relevent anyway, there are private facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members, and depending on the nature of the group it's quite possible that someone on her caseload might have seen the posts.

I think it's important to be sceptical when discussing possible safeguarding risks don't you? You can't just take someone's word for it

Yes I absolutely do think it's important to be sceptical. And consider all the possibilities. Maybe you should take your own advice and do the same ☺️