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

SWE have accused and found her guilty of blasphemy.

There is another reason (apart from naivity/incorrect advise from a captured union rep) for accepting the warning. Until the investigation had been finalised in some way she would not have been able to go to court. The 'open hearing' and the case investigation are internal actions and whilst under investigation it would be hard to prove discrimination as the investigation might find in her favour even though the investigation itself is discriminatory. By finalising the action she can now go to court. Also did she 'accept a warning' or did she accept that she had done what they accused her of? If the latter then the argument is not with her actions (presumably the bit she could contest) buy with SWE interpretation of those actions and their sanction. Like the difference between accepting that you did call someone a 'pig in a wig' and appealing whether you should have been taken to court or found guilty of a criminal offence because of it.

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.

I get this. She accepted that is was misconduct as she was told that it was. And she did do it. Obviously. But if SWE have acted improperly in the first place, and Rachel did in fact have the right to take part in a national debate and make (at least some of those posts) then should she have even been accused of misconduct in the first place? I think it needs to be investigated as to whether the allegations made against her was a correct and legal allegation to make in the first place.

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

I agree with this too. I think this would be a natural reaction of someone suddenly thrown into public view, particularly when their own regulator has told them they have 'done wrong' and they are about to lose their career and everything they have worked for.

@Lovelyricepudding

The SWE case examiners stage it outlined at www.socialworkengland.org.uk/concerns/information-for-social-workers-under-investigation/case-examiner-stage/

I think we can assume they followed their own guidance, otherwise RM would have noted it on her crowdjustice.

It says: 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 really does look, based on simply the documents in the public domain, that she agreed to this outcome. So it seems odd to now be trying to contest it.

@MrBIobby she could have argued at a hearing that, as her comments were part of a national debate, she was entitled to make them and that they weren't misconduct. She chose not to. Which is her choice, of course. But consequences flow from that.

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.

I suppose the question is, if there was discrimination at the start of this process, does the discrimination magically evaporate because a registrant has accepted that there was misconduct? Or does the fact that the registrant agreed that there was misconduct mean that the discrimination was never present. I mean couldn't you could have a circumstance where there was both discrimination by the regulator AND misconduct by the registrant? The registrant never agreed to be discriminated against.

Regardless of the result of this I think it will be a really interesting case.

I mean couldn't you could have a circumstance where there was both discrimination by the regulator AND misconduct by the registrant?

Quite possibly. The whole case needs looking at again. At SWE's conduct and whether their process was correct, biased, or just completely wrong, and then once that is evaluated, then the conduct of the social worker. An interesting case for sure.

I think you absolutely could. And, I don't know, random example... if they were actively trawling the records of black registrants and pursuing any misconduct they found then that would clearly be discriminatory*, even if all the concerns they found were valid.

But this was a complaint that came to them. Which they investigated. And in which the registrant admitted they'd behaved in a way which amounted to misconduct. And accepted their sanction.

Discrimination seems a hard sell.

(That's before you consider that she's taking this to an employment tribunal when SWE aren't in any conventional sense her employers. Which also feels like something of a difficult argument to make.)

We will see!

(*For clarity, I don't htink for a moment that SWE have done this!)

Just been looking up police cautions. These are more significant as give you a criminal record but like Rachel's one require you to admit fault. It seems there are a load of solicitors advising how to get these removed. No idea how successful they are but amongst grounds they suggest if it was unjust, were misled about repercussions, given incorrect advise by the solicitor, or because they only signed it to end the matter quickly despite a clear defence. (Seems you can try basically the complaint route then it has to be a judicial review so not easy and given the impact that doesn't really seem sufficient).

Discrimination would be because they have disciplined her for stating her protected belief on a private platform. It would also be an infringement of her human rights to freedom of belief.

I wonder what was said to her informally by SWE and her employer re the impact of accepting the warning, i.e. was it underplayed?

Now she is now subject to investigation, suspension and a warning she could lose her job where she has practised effectively for many years, according to her manager and I wonder whether it is this that prompted her challenge?

From the determination...

"The social worker states in their submissions that they support a feminist perspective and they reposted things that appeared to support their perspective.

The evidence of the complainant would indicate that they sought to provide an alternative perspective to the social worker. The social worker chose to block the complainant rather than engage in a wider debate. The case examiners acknowledge that it is within the social worker’s rights to engage with whomever they please via social media. However, they do wonder if the social worker had chosen to engage with the complainant, then maybe they would not have continued to act in a naïve manner, which could be deemed both offensive and discriminatory."

Strikes me that the case examiners are referring to the registrant's feminist perspective as being naive. And suggesting that she would have been better off listening to (and accepting) the alternative perspective of the complainant. Not sure it is their job to do this. This could be considered discriminatory if her feminist perspective is considered protected.

Since part of their case - as helpfully outlined here by one of our overlords - seems to be that she signed petitions I can't see how this could possibly have been anything other than unfair...

No I don't mean unfair. I mean a huge violation of her human rights.

The underlying problem is that you cannot have a functioning liberal democracy where people can lose their jobs for having views on contentious social issues.

And this is a contentious social issue, whatever her employer chooses to think. Employers do not get to decide that certain live questions around things like political policy are suddenly socially required beliefs that no one but bigots disagrees with. If they did, it would be a very bad thing for society as a whole.

This is why the push to get this stuff codified under the radar - to be able to claim that it is the widely accepted normative belief and it is sensible to expect everyone to accept it. The fact that the organizations she was retweeting are mainstream show the lie in that, all the polling on these questions shows it, the controvery over it shows it.

I'm probably missing something here, but it would seem eminently plausible to me that she was told she was being transphobic and it was wrong, and here are all these rules to back them up, and she is being warned. Because it's not like we haven't seen that played out a hundred times. She accepts it, worried, goes for training, etc.

And then finds out that they're talking bollocks, and it's Stonewall law.

And what does listening to the complainant in order to be persuaded that the complainant is right and she's wrong, mean?? What on earth authority would the complainant even have?

I know, we can't know everything until it's all out in the open. But I don't understand why it's such a bad thing to have accepted a warning, as she was frightened, because they were potentially invoking Stonewall law.

And clearly SWE did not take into consideration the fact that gender critical views are a protected characteristic

Some people seem to be under the mistaken assumption that just because Maya's quite measured beliefs as she explained them in court were ruled protected that means that anything a gender critical person might say is equally protected. That is unlikely to be the case - humans can't change sex is fine, trans people are perverts being funded by Jewish billionaires to undermine child safeguarding and lower the age of consent probably not so fine.

The underlying problem is that you cannot have a functioning liberal democracy where people can lose their jobs for having views on contentious social issues.

There is a difference between holding views and broadcasting them to the world on social media. Social work is not like many jobs - they have the power to remove children from their parents and are frequently called upon to give evidence and make statements to the courts. Imagine one of those parents is trans - that might have nothing at all to do with any child protection concerns raised but that wouldn't stop their barrister making mincemeat of a social worker whose social media page was full of anti-trans posts which could be viewed as deeply offensive in some cases (whatever the intent behind them). It would be the same if a copper was involved in prosecuting a black protester and it turned out they had a twitter feed ranting on about BLM being society destroying cultural marxists - it hampers their requirement to be seen as unbiased and at worst could crash a court case.

Not all jobs are the same and if you feel the need to publicly post contentious and potentially offensive material on a deeply controversial social issue then perhaps social services (or the police, or any other job with statutory legal powers) isn't the right job for you.

And what does listening to the complainant in order to be persuaded that the complainant is right and she's wrong, mean?? What on earth authority would the complainant even have?

Yes it’s a weird thing to say in a determination. They’ve basically made an assessment of the various perspectives. I bet the complainant was dead chuffed with that.

Not all jobs are the same and if you feel the need to publicly post contentious and potentially offensive material on a deeply controversial social issue then perhaps social services (or the police, or any other job with statutory legal powers) isn't the right job for you.

There's a big difference between actual offensive material, and someone who is determined to be offended. Hopefully this case will be able to clarify that for both social workers, and the general public. And once that's established, then maybe those principles will be carried over to trans activists working in social services (or the police, or any other job with statutory legal powers) so that they can conduct themselves properly in public too. Or take the consequences. ☺️

maybe those principles will be carried over to trans activists working in social services (or the police, or any other job with statutory legal powers)

cor that would be nice wouldn't it? if someone could have a quiet word with the intern running various police forces's twitter feeds and advise them to dial down the cheerleading for gender woo, that would be ace. It certainly undermines my trust in the police when they pretend they can't tell what sex someone is

and I think the word 'offensive' is key here

I don't think ANYTHING from WPUK could possibly be deemed offensive. And yet they're cited in the complaint. Define 'offensive'.

That's before you consider that she's taking this to an employment tribunal when SWE aren't in any conventional sense her employers. Which also feels like something of a difficult argument to make.

This would be a bit like the Allison Bailey employment tribunal where both her chambers and Stonewall are respondents. Stonewall are not her employer but have (allegedly) had a hand in her being discriminated against.

Yes it would be nice if these groups of people could stop being actually offensive to women. And if they can't, be held accountable for it. It should never be a case of one rule for one group and a totally different set of more favourable rules for others.

I don't think ANYTHING from WPUK could possibly be deemed offensive. And yet they're cited in the complaint. Define 'offensive'.

Exactly. This only works if the definition of offensive means anything the offended wants it to mean.

There is a difference between holding views and broadcasting them to the world on social media. Social work is not like many jobs - they have the power to remove children from their parents and are frequently called upon to give evidence and make statements to the courts. Imagine one of those parents is trans

Imagine one of those parents is GC and SWE are disciplining any social worker who does not follow gender ideology?