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

Wreath21 is a great motivator. I'm not wasting my time arguing just digging.

I wrote to them after they used my blog as evidence of her wrongthink and said I would sue. They took down the reference, but still targeted Rachel! I'm hoping this makes a difference to her case.

Here's what I wrote to them.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that I have been defamed in public-facing documents relating to Case SW77554 against Rachel Meade.

I quote: Sharing a fundraiser on Facebook titled “Thank you to Glinner”. This post appears to refer to Graham Linehan who publicly denounces the rights of transgender people. The case examiners are aware that this individual was issued a police caution and cease and desist order relating to his harassment of a trans woman online. Concerns have also been expressed regarding his views of women which have been described as “misogynistic”.

This is untrue and defamatory. I would like a public apology from Social Work England or I will be passing this matter to my solicitors, who I include on this email.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Linehan

As I say, they responded by removing, but continued their action against Rachel

Removing the reference, I mean

From the Times article:

She adds that she believes that “biological sex is real, important and immutable and is not to be conflated with gender identity”, that “there are two sexes, male and female” and “that a person cannot change their sex”.

I agree - framing this as a "belief" seems odd. Anyway - if this "belief" is a problem then I've got one too - because that's what I "believe".

Am I allowed to believe it but not say it?
Or do I have to recant it?

Eppur si muove.

@Glinner

I wrote to them after they used my blog as evidence of her wrongthink and said I would sue. They took down the reference, but still targeted Rachel! I'm hoping this makes a difference to her case.

Here's what I wrote to them.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that I have been defamed in public-facing documents relating to Case SW77554 against Rachel Meade.

I quote: Sharing a fundraiser on Facebook titled “Thank you to Glinner”. This post appears to refer to Graham Linehan who publicly denounces the rights of transgender people. The case examiners are aware that this individual was issued a police caution and cease and desist order relating to his harassment of a trans woman online. Concerns have also been expressed regarding his views of women which have been described as “misogynistic”.

This is untrue and defamatory. I would like a public apology from Social Work England or I will be passing this matter to my solicitors, who I include on this email.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Linehan

As I say, they responded by removing, but continued their action against Rachel

Thank you for doing that for her.

Just a reminder that 'bigotted' means intolerance if others beliefs - for example a bigot may display an intolerance of GC beliefs and exhibit their bigotry by trying to get anyone with GC beliefs sacked or supporting those who do.

@Omicrone

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?

Jesus, are you really going to bring that one up again as an example?!

I mean, if barley wants to keep reminding us of this person, okay.

Let's not forget Monique's offer to show 'more boobs'.

@Plasmodesmata

From the Times article:

She adds that she believes that “biological sex is real, important and immutable and is not to be conflated with gender identity”, that “there are two sexes, male and female” and “that a person cannot change their sex”.

I agree - framing this as a "belief" seems odd. Anyway - if this "belief" is a problem then I've got one too - because that's what I "believe".

Am I allowed to believe it but not say it?
Or do I have to recant it?

Eppur si muove.

Its not just a belief Plasmodesmate its an extreme belief!

@Glinner We love you.

@Wreath21

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.

So people who support trans ideology need to shut the fuck up when talking to women? I've never seen anyone ruder than a trans supporter TBH and would welcome them being penalised for sending death and rape threats and talking about women as if our bodies are commodities. They are demanding the right to be rude according to their perspective with impunity.

More ridiculous nonsense demanding that women do the 'being nice' and not talk to others the way they are spoken to.

@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.

*"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”."*

If this is the case, I think it is correct she be suspended.

It doesn't matter if she made these postings in her free time on a personal account, if you are a professional in many jobs such as this one, you can be held responsible for what you post online in your free time. This certainly isn't the first time someone has been fired over posting stuff on Social Media in their own time.

(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.)

The view that gender is the same as sex, is allocated at birth and can change is highly contentious, not least for being counter to scientific knowledge. Do you think people should only do this under aliases? I'd welcome that as it would obliterate the anti women training being ruled out in the name of equality.

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

How can you possibly think this makes your side look good? I just don't get it. I'm starting to think you are a plant (not a mistaken consonant autocorrect - however tempting an assumption that might be)

Oh hi marg wondered how long it would be before you piped up. 🙄

Any ideas from Mr Blobby (real or identified) today?

As I say, they responded by removing, but continued their action against Rachel

No public apology then? What did your solicitors say?

She has a crowd raising site with information, it's in "crowdjustice" online.

I hope she wins!

@Glinner thank you 😊 I just donated to Rachel's crowdfunder. Céim ar céim. Step by step.

@RepentMotherfucker

Any ideas from Mr Blobby (real or identified) today?

Its the bloody stasi in this country but only it seems against women.

If this is the case, I think it is correct she be suspended.

It doesn't matter if she made these postings in her free time on a personal account, if you are a professional in many jobs such as this one, you can be held responsible for what you post online in your free time. This certainly isn't the first time someone has been fired over posting stuff on Social Media in their own time.

I was wondering why Rachel Meade hadn't appealed her regulator's decision but it looks as if the "warning" from SWE has come from case examiners rather than from a fitness to practice hearing. AFAIK I don't think you can appeal against a warning if it has come from the case examiners. For a registrant to be suspended they would have to have a full hearing with the opportunity to defend themselves and to appeal the decision if it is wrong.

Donated and text to all my GC social worker friends who will do the same

According to SWE case examiner webpage Rachel Meade would have had to have accepted that her fitness to practice was impaired and have accepted the warning. If she had not accepted it her case would have been sent to a full hearing. I guess it would be tempting to accept a warning to avoid a full hearing even if you think you have not done anything wrong. Full hearing's are really stressful and best avoided. But if the knock on effect of accepting the warning is that you lose your career that is a real blow.

www.socialworkengland.org.uk/concerns/information-for-social-workers-under-investigation/case-examiner-stage/

Do you know what, in a few years time people are going to be looking back on the way that women like Rachel Meade and Maya Forstater have been treated and absolutely cringe.

When society lost its mind.

Wreath21 is a perfect case study of a bigot who believes so much in their ideology that they feel justified in hating anyone who does not subscribe to it.