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

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.

Yes it really does very low.

I've worked with people at Westminster Council before. Let's say I made sure to back up everything I did with emails, in writing, and refused to take things over the phone.

That should be treated as unethical. I felt the same happened to several other cases I have supported.

It can never be right for someone to attempt to impose their emotiional subjective view of something on other people whose objective view is more rational and verifiable. It is time to halt the descent of thinking into feeling.

I'm really glad to see that there are so many more comments on this thread than there are on the one about the US Supreme Court's cancelling of Roe v Wade. Clearly, most people here recognise that the merest existence of a tiny few transwomen is much, much more of a threat to natal women than the overturning of a right to abortion for millions of women. :) Mumsneteers have their priorities right! :)

Oh grow up. This thread has been on the board since the 13 jan. The Roe v Wade decision was this afternoon.

Btw, this board was demanded as a silo to cordon off discussions about gender ideology. So you need to go to the Feminist Chat section and berate the posters there for not posting enough about Roe v Wade, as that's where it's supposed to be discussed according to the demanded separation of the topics.

There were 5 posts made on this thread since the time that the Roe vs Wade one was started and you made your post.

Don't be an arse.

Lol, is that really what you're resorting to now? 🤡

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus - sorry, wasn't ignoring you! Have only just seen this.

The sanction on her registration at that point was a warning that remained on her record for 12 months. Which is not great, but...

If this goes to a full hearing, she could end up with a formal finding of misconduct, and a sanction ranging from a reprimand, to suspension from being a social worker, to removal from the register. The last is admittedly highly unlikely.

It's a bit like turning down a police caution knowing the alternative is a criminal trial. If you're innocent it's of course the right thing to do. But it risks a worse outcome. Hence high risk.

I will contribute to the legal case, thanks for this thread

Ridiculous.

The Roe v Wade thread was posted at 15:36 and is at 134 posts and 6 pages, nearly 4 hours in.

This thread has had 6 posts in the same time (that's excluding your pointless one and also excluding the posts responding to it.)

There's also a thread on Roe v Wade in AIBU where FWR regulars are posting, so fret not about Mumsnetter's priorities, Ides.

Thank you.

Every little helps.
Rachel isn't in a position right now where she can push a big publicity drive.
Her disciplinary hearing is this Tuesday. Steph Davies-Arai and Nic W are witnesses. Even if she doesn't lose her job apparently she'll still then have a 'Fitness to Practice' hearing later in the year.

Standing behind you Rai, you brave woman 💚🤍💜

On radio 4 now.

oh peeps if you could allotmenteer for Rachel if you are being paid this week that would be great....

When kids with abusive fathers can't ask for help in school - due to Stonewall teaching- schools/ social workers must intervene. Rachel is brave to challenge ideological capture.

childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/02/27/how-to-help-children-of-transitioners/
childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/09/25/not-shutting-up/

Watermonster· Today 11:45

When kids with abusive fathers can't ask for help in school - due to Stonewall teaching- schools/ social workers must intervene. Rachel is brave to challenge ideological capture.

childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/02/27/how-to-help-children-of-transitioners/
childrenoftransitioners.org/2021/09/25/not-shutting-up/

This is heartbreaking really. I nearly cried reading it. ‘Bleeders with front holes’😭😭
Expecting girls to change in front of their trans women fathers. Calling him ‘mum’. Referring girls with fathers like this to Mermaids for brain-washing.

@barleybadminton · "...Probably best social workers don't post things on social media which attempt to link trans people with paedophilia then eh?"

So disingenuous.No one linking trans to paedophilia has pulled the connection out of thin air. The connection is made because queer theorists from the getgo have argued for paedophilia to be legitimised.

"...hating on women is perfectly legal no matter how much we get murdered and beaten etc, they refuse to make misogyny a hate crime ..."

You are spot on VelvetChairGirl. Odd isn't it how trans have a recourse when subjected to hate but women don't.

@CompleteGinasaur I too had an issue with the link Whatiswrongwithmy knee posted. If you're interested in having a look, here's a link that does work

blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2022/01/12/re-centring-white-victimhood-in-the-age-of-black-lives-matter-a-terf-project/?fbclid=IwAR285gZ3_RX7i2EXp9qvRm60drkUquKb2q0YSmpVstYTW3ZTSAckSzT2AM

You’ve misunderstood. This thread isn’t about the merest existence of a tiny few trans women and the threat they may or may not pose. It’s about the right of an employee to hold and express an opinion amongst friends without being disciplined or losing the right to practise her profession.

The case is therefore of utmost importance to anyone who wants to preserve their right to express their opinion freely - including trans activists.

You might want to read the thread from the beginning in order to understand it properly.

HTH.

Thank you, LordLoveADuck.

(Sorry it took so long for me to express my gratitude, but it took me awhile to stop laughing hysterically...)

What nonsense. Plenty of practising religious people who are able to hold a belief and not discriminate against people who don’t. It’s a slippery slope to thought police. Professionals should be judged on how they act towards others not on their beliefs or faith.

Just bumping this thread to say that if anyone is in a position to do a bit of digging for Rachel, she hasn't reached her target yet.

OK

Just planted some more carrots.
I understand that bundle has been up to their usual time wasting again so more digging is needed