Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

426 replies

ickky · 20/11/2022 13:52

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
26
KiteofUncertainty · 12/07/2023 19:07

Zebracat · 12/07/2023 18:35

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.

Me too.

I think they (or whoever coached them) are under the impression that if they give no firm answers and claim ignorance or inability to act, the Tribunal will not be able to come to any conclusions as to whether they were at fault. I think they will be disappointed.

Zebracat · 12/07/2023 19:46

@KiteofUncertainty . I hope so too.

Zebracat · 12/07/2023 19:49

And I want to know why the 2 people who did apparently progress this crock of shit, Jack Aiken and Chanel H? Have managed not to be called and questioned

Signalbox · 12/07/2023 20:00

I think also what’s frustrating is that they are all maintaining their position of having done the right thing. I mean why does it take a court case for people to reflect and say “perhaps we were a bit over zealous in that situation”

dimorphism · 12/07/2023 20:08

KiteofUncertainty · 12/07/2023 19:07

Me too.

I think they (or whoever coached them) are under the impression that if they give no firm answers and claim ignorance or inability to act, the Tribunal will not be able to come to any conclusions as to whether they were at fault. I think they will be disappointed.

Show quote history

They identify as innocent, they identify as competent whilst in reality acting in the exact opposite way.

It is absolutely disgraceful that several of the people who were critical in decision making are simply not there over several days. It should be unacceptable.

AutumnCrow · 12/07/2023 20:23

Are the judge and panel members at employment tribunals allowed to draw an inference from the absence of witnesses?

dimorphism · 12/07/2023 20:28

AutumnCrow · 12/07/2023 20:23

Are the judge and panel members at employment tribunals allowed to draw an inference from the absence of witnesses?

It would be weird and unfair if they couldn't. Could the employer just not bother sending anyone who was involved in a situation? Is that allowed? That seems wrong. Where's the line?

Boiledbeetle · 12/07/2023 20:59

dimorphism · 12/07/2023 20:28

It would be weird and unfair if they couldn't. Could the employer just not bother sending anyone who was involved in a situation? Is that allowed? That seems wrong. Where's the line?

Show quote history

on this subject I want to know if the panel and judge can ask for someone who really should have given evidence. E.g. Honeymoon person to actually make themselves available to be questioned.

TheBiologyStupid · 12/07/2023 22:05

One prick and it falls apart, as demonstrated recently in Scotland.

Is that a reference to an infamous pair of pink leggings?!

IcakethereforeIam · 12/07/2023 22:22

Maybe....<cagey>

Yes!!!

AutumnCrow · 12/07/2023 22:38

I googled 'adverse inference of absent witnesses', and it could be that yes, the judge can draw an inference. (But I am so far from being a lawyer that we're measuring it in light years.)

AssumingDirectControl · 12/07/2023 22:48

Boiledbeetle · 12/07/2023 20:59

on this subject I want to know if the panel and judge can ask for someone who really should have given evidence. E.g. Honeymoon person to actually make themselves available to be questioned.

Show quote history

I know in family court the judge can issue a witness summons. I’ve no idea about tribunals.

Zebracat · 12/07/2023 22:50

The tribunal did seem to be asking SC to get someone back, but they couldn’t be contacted.

Boiledbeetle · 12/07/2023 23:28

Boiledbeetle · 12/07/2023 20:59

on this subject I want to know if the panel and judge can ask for someone who really should have given evidence. E.g. Honeymoon person to actually make themselves available to be questioned.

Show quote history

It seems they may be able to:

  1. The Tribunal may order any person in Great Britain to attend a hearing to give evidence, produce documents, or produce information.”
Ms Rachel Meade V Westminster CC & Social Work England Employment Tribunal Hearing
Manderleyagain · 12/07/2023 23:29

I'm not a lawyer but in the last few years of following tribunals I have learnt that the panel can't insist that someone gives evidence. Each party chooses their own witnesses. But the panel can infer whatever they like from the fact that a key person hasn't been put forward.

I think Rachel's barrister stated how many times the person's name came up in the bundle (hundreds of times) compared to witnesses who are giving evidence. She even asked a witness outright if it was true that the person wasn't chosen as a witness because they knew it would be a nightmare & made the witness deny it. Drawing attention for the judge I think. Surely it doesn't look good.

Manderleyagain · 12/07/2023 23:32

Ah I see I'm wrong that they can't insist someone is a witness but it obviously isn't that common as there have been other examples even in the tribunals I've followed on this issue.

nothingcomestonothing · 13/07/2023 07:43

Zebracat · 12/07/2023 22:50

The tribunal did seem to be asking SC to get someone back, but they couldn’t be contacted.

Where's he on honeymoon, Jupiter? 'Couldn't be contacted' standing as a synonym there for 'couldn't give evidence without making it crystal clear that we are all Stonewalled idiots and therefore unable to fulfill our function'. I hope the judge makes lots and lots of inferences.

Manderleyagain · 13/07/2023 08:53

I think the person they were trying to get back was someone who had already given evidence.

dimorphism · 13/07/2023 09:18

nothingcomestonothing · 13/07/2023 07:43

Where's he on honeymoon, Jupiter? 'Couldn't be contacted' standing as a synonym there for 'couldn't give evidence without making it crystal clear that we are all Stonewalled idiots and therefore unable to fulfill our function'. I hope the judge makes lots and lots of inferences.

Show quote history

Yep, post Covid 'couldn't be contacted' basically means 'refused to give evidence'. So there's no possible way to have a half hour video call for something this important given the timeframe of several days of the case? Pull the other one.

BreadInCaptivity · 13/07/2023 16:38

Well worth a read of TT today.

WCC not coming out of this well imho.

Honestly what they did to RM is a disgrace.

OP posts:
HellonHeels · 13/07/2023 17:59

This afternoon's tweets. I could hardly believe what I was reading. The witnesses seemed bizarrely disinterested and unconcerned about what they had done. Do you think they really have no idea?

KiteofUncertainty · 13/07/2023 18:07

HellonHeels · 13/07/2023 17:59

This afternoon's tweets. I could hardly believe what I was reading. The witnesses seemed bizarrely disinterested and unconcerned about what they had done. Do you think they really have no idea?

I think they are dissociating because they do know deep down how badly they have handled it.

I like the EJ's and panel members' questions.

FriendofJoanne · 13/07/2023 18:20

stealtheatingtunnocks · 12/07/2023 18:29

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

That would depend on whether you are identifying as trans - they are very very vulnerable after all…..female victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence and death threats, not so much.

I wonder if I complain to SWE that I’m offended by their treatment of RM will they investigate themselves?

BoreOfWhabylon · 13/07/2023 18:32

Yes, I think the judge and panel members have a very clear understanding of what has been going on. Poor Rachel. I hope she receives massive compensation/damages/costs.
Someone should report that vindictive witchfinder Aedon, who reported her in the first place, to the regulators too.

MNHQ this link doesn't direct to the Crowdfunder

Rachel Meade crowd funder appeal

The story of Rachel Meade's shocking treatment by her regulator and employer. Help defend free speech.

https://youtu.be/2UTTOkV1c_I