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

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.

cor blimey, do you realise how bonkers this sounds?

there's no 'perspective' to male or female, you just are for heavens sake

where the heck do you people think babies come from? out of your 'perspective'?

i shall do some gardening when I'm paid next week. I bloody hope Rachel wins

Thank yoi for the information. Did some gardening

There is a shortage of social workers.

No wonder with this crap to deal with. Trans woman are trans women and trans men are trans men. It's biological fact that you cannot change your sex, your DNA, your chromosomes. You can pick and chose your gender to what you want to be but fact is fact and time to stop with this rubbish.

SWE was the first org I came across where staff had pronouns in their signatures. So the outcome wasn’t much of a surprise.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

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.

cor blimey, do you realise how bonkers this sounds?

there's no 'perspective' to male or female, you just are for heavens sake

where the heck do you people think babies come from? out of your 'perspective'?

Done a spot of gardening. Things come up so vigorously this time of year.

[quote OhDear2200]@ArabellaScott I think the suggestion is that if you’re GC you’re also a racist nazi?

Sigh. It’s all been done before and soooooo simplistic.[/quote]
Oh, right.

Nope, still not true.

Anyway, sounds like there is gardening to be done.

Have done a bit of gardening, removes the detritus and encourages the flowers to grow strong

You're welcome motherfucker!! I wish I could take the gin but I'm trying for a dry January. Reading something as shit as that article and even worse, something as shit as that article pretending to be insightful and in the least bit scientific does make me feel like I need a stiff drink though. I assume the author got through quite a lot of gin herself before writing it. I assume that is what made it impossible for her to sense-check her ramblings.

The opening to this post cracked me up. Only on MN would regulars know this was a warm acknowledgement of another poster, not the start of a flaming. I’m happy rude nicknames are permitted.

@Signalbox

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.

I didn't know, and went digging and found info on Social Work England's case examiner stage.

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

It's clear that in order for it to end with a warning at that stage, the registrant has to accept and agree it:

For an accepted disposal of a case, you must accept that your fitness to practise is impaired and agree to the proposed sanctions. If the case examiners find that you do not think that your fitness to practise is impaired, or you do not accept the proposed sanctions, your case is sent to a hearing.

It's very strongly implied in the determination that she did exactly that:

The social responded to the regulator and sent a signed disclosure form via email which was dated 07 July 2021. They stated that they had read the accepted disposal guidance document and understood terms of the proposed disposal, accepting them in full.

I think that would make it next to impossible to appeal the decision, even if there were a process to allow it.

Given that, I'm surprised to read on her Crowdjustice page, "I have been improperly sanctioned by Social Work England". And even more suprised that she's taking SWE to an employment tribunal. If she disagreed with their decision, wouldn't the right course have been to decline the Case Examiner's disposal and go to a full hearing?

I know nothing about this case beyond the links here, the SWE determination, and the Crowdjustice page. But, on the face of it, that's really inconsistent.

"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"

This only makes sense if you're tweeting "the tories are scum". Saying "Biology exists" and "sex is real" and "women matter" are not controversial opinions, shared as they are by most people except the tiny, unrepresentative media/cultural class on Twitter

As earlier posters pointed out, these aren't "beliefs". These are facts.

It's crazy when we know facts are facts, and pretending to be a woman when you're a man is actually lying!

If I pretend to be disabled to claim disability rights I'd be fined/arrested.

We just have to add it to the list. Currently working on about four actions at the moment.

doh, redundant language, sorry

I do admit that I was partly spurred on by the image of the gun-toting guide leader. I know a lot of people who own guns and NONE of them pose and post like that on SM.

It's very strongly implied in the determination that she did exactly that:

The social responded to the regulator and sent a signed disclosure form via email which was dated 07 July 2021. They stated that they had read the accepted disposal guidance document and understood terms of the proposed disposal, accepting them in full.

I think that would make it next to impossible to appeal the decision, even if there were a process to allow it.

Yes I suppose it's a bit like accepting a police caution.

I can't believe that SWE case examiners have the power to suspend a person.

It's interesting because Maya's case was handed down on 10th June 2021. Rachel's decision was made 8th July 2021. It was relatively new case law. I imagine that increasing awareness that being "gender critical" is a protected belief has prompted Rachel Meade to seek redress at the employment tribunal. If it wasn't considered for her case because it was so new it must be very frustrating.

@Glinner

"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"

This only makes sense if you're tweeting "the tories are scum". Saying "Biology exists" and "sex is real" and "women matter" are not controversial opinions, shared as they are by most people except the tiny, unrepresentative media/cultural class on Twitter

That's not what she has faced sanctions for as Social Work England's investigation made clear:

"There are multiple posts which could be considered discriminatory, the social worker has
posted on more than 70 occasions. The posts include: -
• The social worker supporting a petition to stop a charity supporting gender-
diverse children and young people, delivering training to the police, schools and
public services.
• Sharing fake news that a convicted child murderer was seeking gender
reassignment.
• The social worker sharing the following: - “Boys that identify as girls go to Girl
Guides...Girls that identify as boys go to Boy Scouts...Men that identify as
paedophiles go to either”. This post appears to be conflating being transgender
with being a paedophile."

Another important finding

"The social worker engaged in a pattern of discriminatory behaviour which
persisted over an extended period. 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. Case examiners are of the opinion that not only those from the
transgender community, but others, would have concerns about the social
worker’s ability to act in an anti-oppressive manner which values the diverse lived
experience of others"

Good to see this thread being kept at the top of the board.

@Goatsaregreat

Good to see this thread being kept at the top of the board.

Yes. I was prompted to donate too. Sterling work Barley!

@jellyfrizz

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/programme-and-activities/guidance-on-activities/prohibited-activities/

Girlguiding does not allow games where weapons of any form are fired at human- or animal-shaped targets. This activity is prohibited because it does not fit with the aims and objectives of guiding. However, paintball guns and laser guns are permitted if fired at other objects, for example, in a coconut shy activity. (My bold)

I know this is off topic but to clarify the gun the girl guide leader is holding in the photo is a BB gun. It fires small plastic ball-bearings and is legal (and would be permitted by the Girl Guides if used by their rules).

Yes. I was prompted to donate too. Sterling work Barley!

Hey gender critical people throwing their money into this car crash of a case is a win all round!

She's literally admitted the allegations, admitted they were wrong and apologised for them. She'll get massacred if this goes to court (which I doubt it ever will).

Loving seeing some fellow SWs here, like others I'm not very open in my views in work & have been careful, I am certainly not as brave as Rachel. Although a few weeks ago two young SWs started openly talking about how ridiculous they thought the GRA was and all the safeguarding concerns and we had a fabulous conversation and it made my heart very happy. Have just gone and done some gardening. We're standing with you Rachel.