Ms Rachel Meade V Westminster CC & Social Work England Employment Tribunal Hearing

[ickky]

The hearing starts on 1st December 10am at London Central.

If you want to observe please send your email request to

[email protected]

The email header should read

PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST Case NO: 2200179/2022 Date 01/12/2022 London Central Ms R Meade - Westminster CC & Social Work England

I just asked for the link and pin and I also included my name & address, but I'm not sure if that is necessary.

I believe as ever that veg still needs sowing.

Yes, she has some excellent videos on You Tube.

NC: U allude to 2 posts and say y're entitled to yr views but this is at odds w yr professional role, but now yr newspaper and crowdfunding makes these posts public, when they were private before. This is gross misconduct in yr opinion?
HB Yes

So. You can hold GC views as a SW but not express them publicly.

If you are sanctioned in any way, then making these views public in order to defend yourself is gross misconduct.

I'm lost for words...

Morning TT tweets

https://archive.is/uOJBM

No idea why that's hidden, it;s just a link to this mornings tt tweets.

I'll try this link, scroll down to 12th

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/rm-v-westminster-city-council-and-bda

I read this morning's tweets. Towards the end the panel asked insightful questions.

They picked up on how one letter said the posts 'could be' discriminatory, then the following report said they 'were' discriminatory, but it was unclear how that decision was made.

They picked up on how the witness was v focused on not causing offence, but asked about safeguarding - what happens to safeguarding if police or social workers daren't cause offence?

They asked questions to find out that the investigators & emoloyer or whoever decided the posts were transphobic, but the council had no definition of transphobia, the witness couldn't really explain what it was beyond a trans person feeling they'd been treated unfairly or offended, and couldn't really say how they would balance offence against freedom of speech.

From the tweets I get the sense that the panel really get it. I don't know if Rachel will win but the panel & judge can see what's going on.

@Manderleyagain ditto. That's how it came across to me.

The panel seem to have a better idea of what's gone in than the people involved!

Well quite.

You can't say anything bad about child rapists because it might offend paedophiles (sorry 'minor attracted people')- some of whom identify as part of the Q+ in the LGBTQ+ - how far is this 'we can't do anything that offends anyone' meant to go? Does it mean the police were discriminatory for arresting Amy / Andrew Miller?

I mean presumably rapists, robbers, murderers are offended by being arrested. So the police can't arrest them because to do so would be discriminatory? I'm sure plenty of them have protected characteristics.

It's bloody ridiculous, and renders doing social work entirely impossible. Anyone who doesn't want safeguarding to apply to them just has to claim to be trans and that they're offended - it can't be disproved.

This is basically the 2023 version of 'burn the witch'. And yes, to the PP who mentioned Lisa Muggeridge - she completely saw all this coming. She's the sort of person who needs to be in charge at SWE but of course she's suffered the 'burn the witch' treatment instead. She's far too clearsighted on what needs to be done to properly safeguard children for the likes of some people, I suspect.

Why anyone would want to be a social worker after this, I don't know. You basically can't have a life outside of work at all or your own opinions. I suspect especially if female (have any men received similar treatment to RM?).

The gall of them to say her attempt to defend herself - the only avenue open to her - was 'gross misconduct' when they'd discriminated against and hurt her so badly - far worse than 'offense'. The utter bastards. Might have to do a spot more gardening if the garden is still open.

https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1606335324149497858?s=19

The tweet links to the money doodah.

I'm having to read TT in small chunks because I can't believe what I am reading. It's sending me into a tailspin. They may as well have built a fire and chucked all the wrong thinkers on. The lack of analysis is painful and this reliance on 'not causing offence' has me perplexed. How the bloody hell do they think SWs do their job if not by causing offence? They don't aspire to upset people, that's not why they go into the role but in order to do the job effectively and robustly, unfortunately people are often offended. The job entails the picking apart of the evidence in front of them and asking the hard questions fgs. What are they prattling on about? Be careful you don't offend people indeed.

Sorry, I'm just having my own wee rant. I find the lack of definitions infuriating and it's painfully clear that they're struggling to explain why they did what they did so they're relying on the 'it's not the belief which is the problem, it's the expression' TRAspeak 101. I don't know how many times I donated to this one but I'm very glad I did.

Thanks @Boiledbeetle very helpful. :)

I think the 'very, very vulnerable' refers to the ideology. Which is as cohesive as a soap bubble. One prick and it falls apart, as demonstrated recently in Scotland. Unfortunately, people through ignorance (usually wilful) think that this applies to the espousers of the ideology and act accordingly.

Afternoon TT tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1679109590019874818.html

You do have to wonder how many potentially abusive situations are not being properly dealt with atm because SW are too scared to raise safeguarding issues in cases that involve males who claim to be a women. It really does appear that there are no conversations going on in the SW world and this case really highlights why that might be. GC SWs must think they have to be completely in the closet or risk losing their registration.

I might need something stronger than tea before I face this.

I have no support tunnocks teacakes either. I hope Rachel is ok.

Graham Noyce is the only one from SWE who is a registered SW. Shame on you Graham. Even a cursory look at his responses suggest he's breached a few swe standards
1.7 Recognise and use responsibly, the power and authority I have when working with people, ensuring that my interventions are always necessary, the least intrusive, proportionate, and in people’s best interests.
2.4 Practise in ways that demonstrate empathy, perseverance, authority, professional confidence and capability, working with people to enable full participation in discussions and decision making.
2.5 Actively listen to understand people, using a range of appropriate communication methods to build relationships.

https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/umbraco/surface/searchregister/socialworker/SW32715?from=multiple&keywords=SW32715

It is really difficult. A colleague of mine asked for my advice recently in a case where gender identity was a disputed issue. I’m not sure why she asked me in particular but the first thing I felt was panic.

As it is, I advised her to read the Cass report and gave her some of the edited highlights. I reminded her that there are two sides and it’s important to listen to them both and look at the evidence about what might be going on with a clear eye. Just because something feels uncomfortable it doesn’t mean there aren’t valid reasons for concerns.

She understood.

the impact of deadnaming was emphasised in the training I've had

I bet it bloody was. Such scandalously incurious useful idiots, burning the witch just as they've been trained to do.

I am finding this so hard to follow. I have so many questions.I really cannot believe that reposting a cartoon of Voldemort saying “ I identify as the hero of-this story “ can be seen as gross misconduct. Who was the investigating officer who found RMs views bigoted? It seems incredible that none of these people have properly looked at the content of Rachel’s posts. They dont even seem embarrassed by their lack of critical thinking , professionalism or empathy. This really is an object lesson in how bias, and groupthink can completely undermine a process intended to be fair. I am so so appalled.

Its as if they decided she was guilty just on the say so of her 'friend' then made the investigation fit the guilty verdict.

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1677340612465504256?s=19

If I complain about a SW because they offended me would that also land up in a tribunal?

I’m also intrigued by the absolute consistency of the replies from both SWE and WCC. Not knowing anything about the debate, not having been the person who made the decision, not having seen the offending articles, relying on the previous person. Reminding everyone that transgender people are very very vulnerable, and that any manifestation of views that they could be offended by was unacceptable.
I would have so much more respect for them if they would just admit that they treated a long-standing, dedicated , exemplary worker with absolute contempt because a transman told them to. They failed Rachel , and they need to make sure in future that decisions are properly made and scrutinised, and that dissenting views are heard. It’s what makes for good practice in social work too.

Just caught up on the tribunal tweets and this thread. I’m utterly sickened by it - you’re right pp who said no convos about it in social work. The only GC sw group I’ve found is Ebswa and they don’t often update.

i started my own blog about it, shared it with old colleagues and all have stayed conspicuously silent. No feedback either way

To have silenced the profession of social workers, the safeguarders in law, is a startling example of the chilling effect - and I hope it's one that makes its way into textbooks very quickly.