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

There's a distinction between holding GC beliefs and posting/re-posting something that is offensive (and doing so repeatedly).

This is true of course but also wide open to definitional issues. Every time someone puts their pronouns on an email, I find it offensive and I know I am not the only one. So should everyone who does that be taken to a disciplinary?

Her comment re: trans and paedophiles in scouts and guiding (which you commented on earlier) did not read as a slur on trans people to me. It read like a comment on the poor track record of safeguarding from both organisations and a comment that this should be born in mind when judging their current decisions. It did not read like she was saying trans women are any more likely to be a paedophile than any other male. So not offensive at all.

I do love the reasoned debate you get here, it’s ever so helpful.

I do agree that for me, regardless of whether I’m 100% aligned with Rachel, it’s worth paying for sunlight in this case, and as such I will be gardening (once I get paid-bloody January goes on forever)

Her comment re: trans and paedophiles in scouts and guiding (which you commented on earlier) did not read as a slur on trans people to me. It read like a comment on the poor track record of safeguarding from both organisations and a comment that this should be born in mind when judging their current decisions. It did not read like she was saying trans women are any more likely to be a paedophile than any other male. So not offensive at all.

The quote was:

“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 does imply that paedophilia is an identity, and can carry with it the suggestion that "identities" are somehow scurrilous. This may well have not been the writer's intention; she may have simply been seduced by the rhetorical neatness of the repeated "identity". But it is a reasonable position to find this offensive.

More important is that this is irrelevant. If this is what she was warned for, then fair enough. But the issue, as I understand it, is the separate one of suspension. As others have said, we need all the facts.

This does imply that paedophilia is an identity, and can carry with it the suggestion that "identities" are somehow scurrilous. This may well have not been the writer's intention; she may have simply been seduced by the rhetorical neatness of the repeated "identity". But it is a reasonable position to find this offensive.

Having an 'identity' has no basis in law. Nor is it defined in any consistent way. When rapists can 'identify' as women and subsequently be given access to women in prison, the concept of 'identification' itself could easily be argued as offensive.

And just to add the government produced a public consultation on self identification.

They were expecting as many people as were interested to talk about it. All of it. It's meaning, the implications, their opinions. The lot.

It was the whole point of the consultation.

Identities and identity politics are damaging for women and minorities and for society in general. Sue me.

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).

It’s not the power of the gun, it’s the intent. So even laser or water pistols that do no harm are not allowed if they are being fired at people/people shaped targets in a game.

Much more powerful weapons would be allowed as long as they are not being fired at people/people shaped targets.

Sulley posted under some of the photos about punishing people. That’s the difference.

Re. powerful weapons obviously in an environment set up for this with all safety precautions taken rather than say, in someone’s front room.

I'm so confused. So any campaign against gender ideology is bigotry.
So any campaign pro sex based rights is now bigotry?
Or is there a right way to campaign?
Should it only be done in private with less than 70 posts? Should we have been counting?
Or are we not allowed to campaign for sex based rights anymore without defamation accusations?
You lose your job if you campaign for sex based rights?

Pages in and I'm not sure wtf is going on!

This does imply that paedophilia is an identity, and can carry with it the suggestion that "identities" are somehow scurrilous. This may well have not been the writer's intention; she may have simply been seduced by the rhetorical neatness of the repeated "identity". But it is a reasonable position to find this offensive.

I don't agree with this though can see why you came to this conclusion. By claiming gender as an identity, gender ideologists have reduced the concept of identity to a meaningless 'anything'. So of course paedophilia can be an identity, as can any other fact that we choose to say is so. If it is drawing attention to the possibility of people deliberately identifying as the other sex in order to access vulnerable people of their choosing, then this is also not offensive as it is, of course, eminently possible, especially in organisations which have not managed safeguarding issues in the past. Whilst it's reasonable to find this offensive, that does not make it grounds for complaint because it's also entirely reasonable not to find it offensive - not because you are a bigot but because there are a multitude of other interpretations of this.

@Datun @Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Yes, most certainly yes, but....

By "reasonable" I mean "possible to take a reasoned stance on".

It is possible that circumstances may justify the warning, or that they may not.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

"Men that identify as...." I think does contain that implication.

Look, I'm being pedantic. Please ignore.

I don't know if she'll win the case but I want to see it go forward. We need to see the regulatory body's defence, and we need to see the 70 posts over 2 years. As datun says, where exactly is the line?

I agree there is a disconnect between the SWE report of the disciplinary process (worth reading, linked on an earlier page of this thread) and the description on the crowd funder. It could be her understanding of her own position has been developing, or that she apologised to avoid the next stage. I'm sure i would have apologised and done the training too. I don't know how that will play out. Exactly what's gone on will come clear in court.

The guides and scouts post also made me wince because though I see what she was getting at- a danger posed by self id policies, rather than by trans ppl - I don't think anyone not already versed in all the arguments would see it. Social media posts reduces complex things to something blunt, and professionals such as SWers have to consider how their posts could be interpreted (within reason).

Until I hear otherwise, I am going to assume that the examples the report uses are some of the worst ones, because i think they would cite more serious examples rather than the most mild. So it's unlikely that her 70 posts were full of nasty abusiveness, but rather represent the views of someone who comes down on one side of the political debate on sex & gender identity in law and policy, with some expressed non diplomatically. Although that apparently disagrees with SWE's chosen stance, it's a legitimate position to hold.

The report from SWE was enlightening from a freedom of belief, and freedom of speech angle. Higher courts have acknowledged there is a live political debate, with different legitimate positions, especially back in 2018 when the government asked us to discuss this. (Forstater, scottow, Miller). Harrop's tribunal recognised that Harrop and the women he argued with were both entitled to express their opinions. That tribunal didn't take a position on who was wrong and who was right, only on the way Harrop conducted himself in expressing his opinions.

The report from SWE gives a v different feel. It comes across to me that:

• SWE holds a particular view, and SWers are expected to agree. This view isnt set out explicitly because SWE take it to be true and neutral.
• They take her views to be discriminatory, but they don't set out properly what they think her views are.
• SWE either doesn't acknowledge that there is a discussion happening about the law & organisational policies, or they think social workers are not allowed to enter in to it (without saying so explicitly). Or that because one side is right and the other wrong, SWs can enter it on one side only.
• they don't realise that the beliefs that underpin Rachel's position are protected. They see their position as true & her position as erroneous. When in fact both are protected beliefs under EA.
• Simply sharing posts by WPUK etc (regardless of the content) is misconduct. I really want a court to examine this stance. It has to go. Either a SW can share posts by wpuk & fpfw, aswell as mermaids & stonewall, or none of them.

-SWE thinks "The case examiners note that it is unusual for social workers who hold discriminatory views to be able to put these aside when undertaking their professional duties. However, with regards to the social worker’s professional practice, no evidence has been offered that would suggest that the social worker acted in a transphobic manner whilst at work." This is contradictory and oppressive. The basis of our multi faith, multi belief, multi opinion society is that everyone can hold their beliefs as long as they do not act on them in a harmful way. SwE think she's prejudiced, but acknowledge it hasnt encroached on her practice. I think SWE are prejudiced against anyone who doesn't share their opinion, and I think it might encroach on their practice. Now what? It also contradicts what they say elsewhere- SWs should be careful what they say publicly. So they are asking ppl to hide their views, while also saying its v difficult not to let views encroach on practice?

• they cite the public equality duty to Foster good relations between those who do hold a pc, and those who don't. But they fail in it in this very document.

It's all a tricky business. If someone really had mistrust and dislike of a particular group it would be a worry that they would not be able to treat individuals fairly. Maybe the 70 posts will give that impression. But it also could be that SWE make the assumption that if you are concerned about gender identity policies it must be the result of a dislike of trans ppl, partly because they take their own pro self-id stance to be true and right.

Sorry about long post.

Es social worker here. Preparing to get out gardening equipment . Of course social workers can be professional while holding entirely different beliefs from their clients. Another witch hunt, which could happen to more or less any one of us here who refuses to accept re education.
It must be very galling for certain posters here to see that women and others are prepared to stand up and be counted, put hands in pockets and ignore the truly batshit beliefs that are being promoted by some.

I really appreciate so many thoughtful posts about this. Such a pleasure to read and think about rather than the "you're all old pearl clutching, straight and hateful women" posts that have recently been posted.

@Manderleyagain thank you!

I can totally understand why any professional would feel enormous emotional pressure to accept the reprimand and make it all go away. But, by doing so, she admitted that what she did was misconduct.

It seems disingenuous for her to now be saying that SWE "improperly sanctioned" her. It leaves me feeling really uncomfortable; like she told her regulator one thing and is fundraising by saying something else.

This is key. It appears she lied to the regulators about her beliefs (happily throwing gender critical feminists under a bus to do so) and lied about her attitude to the events she faced sanction for. She did this presumably to try and get herself out of trouble and avoid a full hearing. That is deeply worrying from behaviour from a social worker and what is equally worrying is the people on this thread claiming to be social workers who are defending it. Social workers who support lying to regulators to get themselves out of trouble are the real safeguarding risk here, and if a gender critical faction is emerging in social work who thinks this is acceptable then that needs to be clamped down on with some urgency.

Still going to donate to the crowd funder

The more times this stuff comes to court the better at the moment

This is key. It appears she lied to the regulators about her beliefs (happily throwing gender critical feminists under a bus to do so) and lied about her attitude to the events she faced sanction for. She did this presumably to try and get herself out of trouble and avoid a full hearing. That is deeply worrying from behaviour from a social worker and what is equally worrying is the people on this thread claiming to be social workers who are defending it. Social workers who support lying to regulators to get themselves out of trouble are the real safeguarding risk here, and if a gender critical faction is emerging in social work who thinks this is acceptable then that needs to be clamped down on with some urgency.

Yes it is unacceptable that any registrant of any professional organisation cannot participate in public debate through fear of being sanctioned by her regulator. It is unacceptable that a registrant has to hide what they believe when that belief is a protected belief under the Equality Act. It is absolutely unacceptable that this woman felt she could not state what she believes to be true for fear of the consequences from her regulator. It is authoritarian.

I am a registered HCP and I believe that trans women are and will always be of the male sex. Thanks to Maya I can now say this out loud without fear of sanction. Perhaps Rachel did not realise at the time that her beliefs were protected because Maya's case was very recent. Perhaps she attempted to "re-educate" herself with courses and for a while convinced herself that she had been wrong. Perhaps people can make themselves believe all sorts of nonsense if the consequences of not going along with it are loss of livelihood.

I echo those who are grateful for the thoughtful and considered posts on this thread, from all perspectives.

I understand entirely @Manderleyagain's concerns about the overall 'feel' of the SWE determination. It does read as if the starting point is that any GC views are transphobic.

That's something I disagree with. Being largely GC, I would say that! But, whilst I do think it's possible to express GC views in a way that is measured, considered, and respectful, its equally possible to do so in a way which is bigotted and hateful. As has been said, it shouldn't be about which position on a contested debate is wrong and which is right. It should be about how a professional expresses their beliefs which matters.

But the reason the determination is written in the way it is that RM admitted that what she said and how she said it amounted to misconduct. She could have, as Harrop did, gone to an open hearing. She (or her lawyers) could have argued that her posts were reasonable in the context of what is a polarised debate. That they were not misconduct.

She chose not to do that.

Like others, I would have liked to see this go to a hearing so that debate could have happened in public. If necessary, I would have liked it to go to appeal, so that the right for professionals to hold and express GC views could be established (or not!) as precedent.

I can totally understand why RM chose to take the warning and run; I'd have been sorely tempted to do the same. But she has a reprimand on her record not because SWE imposed it improperly, but because she agreed that her posts were so inappropriate they amounted to misconduct.

With that finding, of course her employers are investigating. How could they do otherwise?

@barleybadminton has very neatly encapsulated my concerns here. It does indeed appear that she misled to her regulator in order to make this go away. And is now trying to argue they acted improperly. That leaves me feeling really uncomfortable.

Manderleyagain very thoughtful and well considered post.

And is now trying to argue they acted improperly. That leaves me feeling really uncomfortable.

I think there is good reason to think they have acted improperly. And Rachel has admitted the ',charge' against her. Of course. She did make the posts. But the real question is did she have the right to share those posts and express her views. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. But the question is not whether she did these things, but whether she should have been sanctioned for doing so.

And clearly SWE did not take into consideration the fact that gender critical views are a protected characteristic. I see many posts on social media where some social workers are coming down heavily and aggressively on the side of transactivism. Is this right? Well it's certainly can't be if Rachel has been sanctioned for opposing views. Perhaps I should report them to social work England and find out. Although personally I think people have the right to discuss and debate, even if they are in disagreement, without the sanctions of losing their work registration and employment as a result of it.

@MrBIobby

And is now trying to argue they acted improperly. That leaves me feeling really uncomfortable.

I think there is good reason to think they have acted improperly. And Rachel has admitted the ',charge' against her. Of course. She did make the posts. But the real question is did she have the right to share those posts and express her views. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. But the question is not whether she did these things, but whether she should have been sanctioned for doing so.

I agree entirely with your last sentence. But, as I'm reading SWE's rules, by accepting the Case Examiner's decision and not going to a hearing, she accepted not only that she posted as she did, but also that it amounted to misconduct and also accepted the sanction.

It's hard to reconcile that with the CrowdJustice page.

I don't want social workers telling bare faced lies to the regulator either. But she doesn't need to have lied.

If my instinct was on one side of a political or religious divide, and I was told by those in power over my future to do training to change my opinions, I may well do the training and try hard to take on the new point of view, and see the 'error of my ways' as required. It's what training for atittude & 'values' is for, to change minds. There's no reason to assume she wasn't telling the truth when she made those statements not long after the training.

Even if the way she expressed her views went against the sw code of conduct,(idk) thed isciplinary process didn't take into account the fact that she had a right to hold her views. An appeal tribunal had said they are protected beliefs. So the process didn't take account of her rights under EA, or her right to exercise her freedom of speech and whether restricting that was proportionate. I am not a lawyer but I am interested I freedom of speech. Harrop's tribunal acknowledged his right to take part in this online 'debate' as a starting point