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

Go Rachel

Really glad that Rachel has had the sanction removed. I hope she has support from other professionals . The debate is so public now I really hope the tribunal goes well for her

The tribunal administrate hearing is today. Tribunal tweets tweeted about it a few days ago (upthread) but I don't know if that means they will be live tweeting.
And she is still needing carrots I think.
I hope the hearing goes well today. I would imagine an administrative hearing is about sorting out the timetable and practicalities of the hearing rather than dealing h with the actual facts.
Best if luck!

Update from Rachel's case:

Hi,
Just a quick update to let you know that my Employment tribunal date has been set for the 1st December 2022.
My fitness to Practice hearing with Social Work England will likely go ahead in August - we are awaiting confirmation for the date.
I have been told by my employer Westminster Council that they will be going ahead with disciplinary and are yet to confirm a date.
To continue with support from my legal team I am reliant on donations and need to raise further funds to continue so would be so grateful if you could share my appeal far and wide so I can continue with my actions.
Thanks again for all your kindness and support it really means a lot and makes the days much brighter.
Rachel

More carrots, leeks and artichokes needed in this particular garden.

Thanks for letting us know!

Just dug the plot over again. Very important crop, this one (well, aren't they all?).

Bit of gardening done.

Total misrepresentation of Maya's case.

And it has to be either or.

If GC views and associations are unacceptable in a professional person, then so must be Stonewall, Mermaids et al. And frankly as a lesbian, I find seeing a Stonewall association or sharing of yippee lets destroy women's sex based rights and spaces and right to homosexuality equally offensive and unacceptable in someone providing a service.

Either bring your whole self to work or don't. What can't be permitted is 'you can be political so long as it's the right politics'. That's what these cases will decide. If it's ok for some politics to be waved everywhere in a professional role then there are those who are going to have to realise that they don't get to be intolerant or try to destroy the livelihoods of anyone who dares to not be One Of Them. And that other people have rights too.

Going to be highly entertaining seeing a court discuss exactly how FPFW and WPUK are transphobic and establish it all in law btw. Very helpful.

Because other than waaaaah they help women say no to being mugged for their rights and excluded, there is nothing else there . If women wanting rights and equality is transphobic then let's set that out and decide, as a society, just how sane this is.

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.

Please would post a link to the bigoted remarks you say she made made on her Facebook page when she posted the various articles?

Please would someone explain, as I don’t do Facebook: Is Facebook a place for sharing photos, messages and ideas among friends, or a public forum?

This all seems a bit like the Stasi.

Well said, Artichoke.

The case examiners have referred the case to a Fitness to Practice hearing and their original decision and report has been removed. This means I no longer have a sanction against me on my registration and on their public website pending the Fitness to Practice hearing. This is my chance to clear my name and professional reputation.

That seems a high risk strategy. I hope she knows what she’s doing.

Does she have a lawyer involved? Fitness to practice is a serious area and if she doesn't she might want to get in touch with sex matters or legal feminist or someone.

She definitely Italy has lawyers involved in her case. You cant fundraiser through crowd justice without. Whether she has instructed them fir the fitness to practice I dint know, but I'm sure they will advise her that it will be a good idea!

Can you elaborate on why it's "high risk," please, Motorina? iirc, you're experienced in matters relating to professional evaluations and fitness to practice so I would like to know what it is that I don't understand, IYSWIM.

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.

This might turn out to be true if the employer & professional body follow proper processes to try and resolve the issue first, but I don't think they could stipulate that the employee is never allowed to express their beliefs anywhere. In the case below (it was a student of social work - so different circs) the appeal court found that the actions against him meant that he could not express his religious beliefs at all, and that wasn't considered acceptable.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2019/07/11/legitimate-free-speech-views-incompatible-social-work-analysis-felix-ngole-case/

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.

False equivalence. And I say that as a lesbian who has shared a workplace with staff who openly expressed homophobic views.

For a start: you may think someone has views you don't agree with and don't like hearing. You don't need to rush to get them punished for sullying your ears with them, because grown ups need to be able to cope with mutual tolerance and differing views.

There is a difference between someone expressing a view you don't like, and behaving in an actively bullying, harassing, discriminatory manner. Those things are covered already by workplace and HR policies.

Homosexual people do not go around requiring that people use the words that they dictate even if this means speaking against personal belief and against own interests, express the beliefs they dictate even if not agreed with, subordinate their own rights and needs for single sex spaces and other needed facilities. Largely homosexual people manage to respect others, live and let live, and don't make demands of others. Particularly negatively impacting demands, and then require that no one minds, reacts negatively or dares to say 'this doesn't work for me'.

A better comparison would be you may hold a very strongly faith based position, but you should not require your colleagues to pray with you at the start of meetings, repeat the catechism with you, state that they hold the faith even if they don't (in the knowledge that you may reach for disciplinary action if you don't, or say 'actually, I'm an atheist and believe x and don't want to participate in this), and use your religious symbols and wordage on their profiles. Plus hold days celebrating your personal beliefs.

That's likely to piss off people enough to start standing their ground and telling you to back off. Which is what you're calling 'refusing to shut the fuck up about their bigotry'.

This needs a huge bump.

Social Work England and Westminster Council have both jointly hired Robin Moira White for their legal representation and since then, they have kept delaying the process and all the money that has been crowdfunded so far has run out. Thanks for anything you can do.

bumpette

I've done some digging. This is outrageous.

Bump.

I'm a Social Worker, an a manager in social work.

I work with several very deeply religious social workers who do believe that homosexuality is a sin (I am also bisexual, for reference) however I have never, ever had cause to think that their personal religious views has impacted negatively on their work. Part of the social work training is about managing your internal biases and value base.

I see nothing in what I have read to suggest that Rachel had not upheld the values of a social worker. As a gender critical social worker myself, I have donated to her cause.

Arseholes. Off to dig.

Oh FFS. This seems to be an ongoing tactic, to make things as long and drawn out as possible so that the complainant runs out of money.

Is there no code of ethics for lawyers? Shouldn't they be trying to win a case based on sound arguments rather than underhand tactics like this?