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

Why is challenging gender stereotypes, questioning self ID, protecting the rights of women and girls, questioning the genuine harm transitioning can do to young people and advocating for safeguarding as more important than the beliefs and feelings of a minority, consigned to being "bigoted"?

@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?!

TBF someone who openly parades their sexual kinks should probably be highlighted and prompt a discussion about how their social life sits with safeguarding

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

You think people who publically post their support of gender ideology should not work in social services, police etc,? The ideology certainly is contentious and deeply offensive to many people.

Why do I actually think that you mean views which you personally consider offensive and sod anyone who sees it differently.

@Lovelyricepudding

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?

I think if a registered social worker had a twitter feed full of attacking 'terfs' and posts which could be construed as conflating gender critical people with paedophiles that would be equally problematic.

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.

It's not a bad thing at all to accept a warning! If you recognise you've done something wrong, then it's a great thing to admit it, because that allows you to put it right.

What is potentially a bad thing, or at least an inconsistent thing, is to admit you did wrong, accept a warning, and then fundraise on the basis that the warning was unfair.

There's a real gulf between the account in the SWE determination and that on the Crowdjustice page. The reality is, from the outside, none of us know where the truth lies. None of us have seen the 70 or so facebook posts to know whether they fall into 'reasonable speech, protected in law' or 'things no professional should have said'. But RM on the face of it accepted the SWE decision, including accepting that her posts were unacceptable, so it's now odd that she's taking a different line on Crowdjustice.

She was on the route to an independent tribunal which would have weighed up protected vs unacceptable speech. She chose not to take her case there. At least in my profession, the cost of her lawyers there would normally be covered by the professional's indemnity insurance. Instead she's chosing to go to a different tribunal that she's had to fundraise for.

It's all an odd way of approaching it. I suspect there's a lot we're not hearing, which would give some context to that.

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.

///// Thanks Datun, this is where I am too. If we look back at how these situations literally turn into public witch hunts I can honestly say my first instinct would be for eons of socialising to kick in, hearing how I'm being unkind, unprofessional, need some training to correct my wrong think. It would be easy to second guess yourself and give in. You'd be very scared of the consequence of not.

I think if a registered social worker had a twitter feed full of attacking 'terfs' and posts which could be construed as conflating gender critical people with paedophiles that would be equally problematic.

How about tra social workers attacking legitimate organisations such as the LGB alliance and WPUK? Do you see that as problematic?

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.

BS. Everyone has the right to engage in active social discourse in public spaces on issues that have to be resolved politically and socially.

The other option is that people in certain types of work don't get to speak out on certain topics. And do keep in mind that does not just mean the topics you would like them to be silent on. They also would not be able to push in any way for your preferred perspectives.

Keep in mind, this is not like a person talking at work or even in a newspaper. It's FB with a selected group of people, not clients. Not public in the normal sense at all. And it's also pretty disingenuous to call material from mainstream political groups offensive. Would she have been too contentious had she posted something from the Labour Party instead?

Members of the police are certainly within their rights to state on their FB pages to people that they know that they have concerns about neomarxist analysis being part of BLM if that is what they believe to be the case. As a number of black American members of the police have in fact said publicly.

What is potentially a bad thing, or at least an inconsistent thing, is to admit you did wrong, accept a warning, and then fundraise on the basis that the warning was unfair.

Although potentially she could have thought that what she had done was wrong, because her regulator told her that. And then, realising afterwards, particularly in light of Maya's case, that it wasn't wrong at all, and that the regulator hadn't taken this into consideration.

I'm sure it will all come out in due course though.

I think if a registered social worker had a twitter feed full of attacking 'terfs' and posts which could be construed as conflating gender critical people with paedophiles that would be equally problematic.

What about if they called gc beliefs naive and sought to ban them for signing a petition that criticised an organisation with well-documented safeguarding concerns who illegally promoted off-licence medication and recommended an organisation run by a suspended GP with a criminal record? Or who called someone transphobic for raising safeguarding concerns regarding men self-iding into female spaces? Remember we are talking social workers here - the very people for whom 'safeguarding' should be a watchword and who must be alert to those who use any means or cover to try and undermine it.

Remember we are talking social workers here - the very people for whom 'safeguarding' should be a watchword and who must be alert to those who use any means or cover to try and undermine it.

Indeed.

I think if a registered social worker had a twitter feed full of attacking 'terfs' and posts which could be construed as conflating gender critical people with paedophiles that would be equally problematic.

Irrelevant as that's not what she did. She talked about safeguarding concerns.

A better analogy is putting your pronouns on your emails IMHO which is clear sharing of your view being one extreme side of a controversial women's rights debate - for which no-one is ever disciplined.

It's all an odd way of approaching it. I suspect there's a lot we're not hearing, which would give some context to that.

I agree, there's a lot we're not hearing. But it was the same with the Marion Miller issue. No one knew what she had posted, outside of what they could see, and it turns out it was Jack shit.

This is happening too many times, is what I'm saying. Women are being told they're wrong, they capitulate, and turns out they're not wrong.

She may well be wrong. She may well have written stuff that was absolutely unacceptable.

On balance, I think she probably didn't. Call it experience. But it's all conjecture!

Either way, I would like to see it played out in the public sphere. What is acceptable and why, and what isn't, and why.

And I will definitely contribute financially to that end.

Course, if the likes of badminton feel that she went beyond what is acceptable, they will also be contributing, in order to nail her.

Sunlight works both ways. Doesn't it 😁

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

I think if a registered social worker had a twitter feed full of attacking 'terfs' and posts which could be construed as conflating gender critical people with paedophiles that would be equally problematic.

Irrelevant as that's not what she did. She talked about safeguarding concerns.

A better analogy is putting your pronouns on your emails IMHO which is clear sharing of your view being one extreme side of a controversial women's rights debate - for which no-one is ever disciplined.

I don't think any tribunal in the land would consider someone putting their pronouns in an email equivalent to posting messages which could be construed as equating a protected group with paedophilia.

I'd also like to add that what's acceptable works both ways.

So if you get aerated and unfairly criticise people for holding trans ideology beliefs, and are punished for it, then the opposite is also true. Let's nail all those fuckers who send death threats and rape threats to women holding gender critical beliefs.

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

Accepting a warning isn't bad and may be the right decision.

I can fully appreciate that at the time she thought this was the best forward path and has only reconsidered due to the disciplinary being invoked by the LA or an enhanced understanding of her rights (or both). But that doesn't change where we are now.

The problem is she didn't defend herself on the basis that she was legally entitled to those beliefs or that what she posted wasn't unacceptable (and personally I think the examiners were on shaky ground with a number findings against her).

She agreed with their findings and said, "I feel that I may have been swayed by the mistaken view of other prominent feminists who felt that promoting transgender rights would impede on women’s rights. This was a gap in my knowledge base and this training has shown me how to work in a much more inclusive way".

That's very different to what she is saying now and I'm struggling how further legal action will square that wrt to her case because if she doesn't believe the above does that mean she was not honest in her evidence to the examiners? That's a very serious breech of the code of practice in itself.

Upshot is her strategy (or the advice she's been given) has been flawed.

The time to fight this was not accepting the findings of the examiners and proceeding to a full hearing.

I do have concerns with the findings against her and absolutely want to see sunlight re: SWE's position and potential capture but this is a pretty messy business and imho far from an ideal GC test case - and because of that there is a risk that it might backfire.

@Datun

I'd also like to add that what's acceptable works both ways.

So if you get aerated and unfairly criticise people for holding trans ideology beliefs, and are punished for it, then the opposite is also true. Let's nail all those fuckers who send death threats and rape threats to women holding gender critical beliefs.

Absolutely and I think this is something RM should have used in her defence if she could have found examples of SW's posting such material without censure.

That wouldn't automatically mean that what she posted was ok, but it would potentially expose any ideological bias.

I don't think any tribunal in the land would consider someone putting their pronouns in an email equivalent to posting messages which could be construed as equating a protected group with paedophilia.

From what we have seen Rachel did not do that. Suggesting paedophiles might use trans to access children is basic safeguarding. Not considering the opportunities presented to men, who may or may not be trans, afforded by allowing them access to spaces where females are vulnerable is a failure of safeguarding. Allowing transgendered individuals to be considered a sacred caste is a failure of safeguarding. Such failures are not compatible with being a social worker.

I don't think any tribunal in the land would consider someone putting their pronouns in an email equivalent to posting messages which could be construed as equating a protected group with paedophilia.

I'm not suggesting that they would. You compared what she did to attacking terfs and comparing GC people to pedophiles. I don't think her post did equate trans people with paedophiles and I think to interpret it like that says more about the reader than the writer. By my reading, her post better equates to pronouns in emails - both cause offense to people who take different stances regarding whether gender ideology is a threat to women.

That's very different to what she is saying now and I'm struggling how further legal action will square that wrt to her case because if she doesn't believe the above does that mean she was not honest in her evidence to the examiners? That's a very serious breech of the code of practice in itself.

Although continuous reflection is a core part of social work values and practice, and it could be argued upon reflection, that she didn't respond in the way she now feels she should have, partly (possibly) because she didn't have all the facts. In which case it wouldnt be a breach of the code of practice, and completely in line with social work PCFs / social work England standards, practice and values.

The time to fight this was not accepting the findings of the examiners and proceeding to a full hearing.

That's easy to say but disempowered people aren't always able to fight a system which does not care to examine its power base.

That's easy to say but disempowered people aren't always able to fight a system which does not care to examine its power base.

Very true. And a concept all social workers should be aware of, bearing in mind the client groups they often work with.

Well, no.

(1) Higgs v Farmors School got their first.

(2) And WHERE and HOW you express those views will be important. It’s not an unfettered right.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

The time to fight this was not accepting the findings of the examiners and proceeding to a full hearing.

That's easy to say but disempowered people aren't always able to fight a system which does not care to examine its power base.

I agree with you.

It is easy to say, especially with hindsight.

I honestly not trying to argue that I think all the findings of the examiners was right.

The problem I foresee is that in their defence SWE and the LA will say "but she agreed her actions represented mis-conduct" and if that's not the case she lied to the examiners - serious misconduct again.

Her position can only be that she's changed her mind for xyz reasons. That she didn't lie but she now feels differently.

She can also of course suggest she felt coerced into accepting the findings as a result of the anti GC sentiment (she would need to prove) manifested by SWE and LA.

But, again it's messy....and hence not an ideal test case imho and there is a risk the focus of the case becomes about the right to change your mind after an examiners review and not so much GC rights being protected.

As I pp'd I've still dug even with my misgivings, because I think the actions of SWE and the LA warrant investigation, but in all honesty I would have preferred a case that didn't have the issue of findings being accepted to contend with.

And WHERE and HOW you express those views will be important. It’s not an unfettered right.

Yes everybody here knows this Robin. The continuous repetition of this point is becoming somewhat tedious. And the same principle should apply to trans activists. Maybe a few tribunals for some of those in public facing roles, who find it acceptable to be aggressive and offensive to those with gender critical views may set the on the path of correct thinking right?

And the whole point of this case is to ascertain whether the where and how actually was appropriate, particularly in light of recent rulings.

Are you now an expert on the social work code of ethics?