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.

Yep there were some absolute corkers today.

To paraphrase:

• I didn't suspend her. I extended her suspension.

• well I suppose we could have been a bit clearer in exonerating her (having issues no clarity at all).

• talk about the severity of her actions and high risk. You'd think she walked through the hospital with a tambourine yelling trans obscenities.

• conversation about the vulnerability of people who are suspended yet taking no action to recognise or support RM whatsoever- in fact the reverse.

• accept that being GC is a mainstream view but having no awareness that anyone in the whole of WCC held this belief and thus it didn't need protection

Today was a shit show for WCC.

Yes, it was horrendous and, just to be clear:

I AM OFFENDED BY WCC and SWE's treatment of Rachel. VERY VERY OFFENDED.

I await the suspensions...

This bit made me smile:

NC - given what has happened with RM, do you think your GC employees feel safe at work
CW - I don't think that RM's case is well known outside her immediate circle

Yes it bloody well is, look at the donors on her crowdjustice, and MN is widely read. Not well known my arse.

What happened with RM makes me, as a GC woman, feel unsafe with Social Workers who I now see have to believe in gender ideology or face persecution.

It's like McCarthyism - the vague handwaving 'some vulnerable person somewhere on some distant day might be offended' as a paper thin 'justification' to cause observable, real distress and harm to a real person.

Yes I should have added that to the "corker" list...

There were just so many to choose from....

It's like McCarthyism - the vague handwaving 'some vulnerable person somewhere on some distant day might be offended' as a paper thin 'justification' to cause observable, real distress and harm to a real person.

This really cuts to the heart of this case imho.

Ultimately they didn't give a shit (possibly even revelled) in persecuting RM over a very long period of time.

All because of a complaint from a person SWE admitted had posted trans propaganda on their SM that "wasn't good" (basically was far more offensive than anything RM did on a closed 40 person FB group).

Post Forstater instead of saying we got this wrong they doubled down an used the "might be offended" defence.

Well that cuts both ways.

It's like McCarthyism - the vague handwaving 'some vulnerable person somewhere on some distant day might be offended' as a paper thin 'justification'

Quite.

And yet a man can stand in front of a crowd and incite them to batter women, and the met say weakly that it's only theoretical and fine.

They've only taken action now after poking, I strongly suspect including from Downing Street.

It's a bit wicker man-y, they were gagging to sacrifice her on the Stonewall altar. That was the goal, everything else was retconned to get her there.

I've had to read it in short bursts again, goodness knows how Rachel is holding up, not only having to listen to that shit today but having had to deal with it for the last two years. WCC are a disgrace. Back to 'it's not the belief it's the manifestation'. I did enjoy the questions from the panel though.

It is true that SWs are absolutely unable to air their GC views at work. I do have to work closely alongside them in my role (which is likely why this is cutting so deep with me) and I am fully aware that the vast majority are in fact GC. There's become what's akin to a secret handshake, as ridiculous as that sounds, and so whilst views are not publicly aired, there are discussions behind closed doors. I'm aware that sounds slightly bonkers but the team I work alongside have been gently pushing from the inside by questioning training, forms etc It's been slow but steady because of the fear of the repercussions. There have been some small wins and Forstater definitely bolstered this.

Rachel, if you're reading, I have been thinking of you, as have many others I know. The SWs I have spoken to are so grateful to you for bringing this forward as they appreciate how harrowing it must be. We're behind you, even though you can't see us.

Reading that just further solidifies just how absolutely crucial the Forstater judgement was. Without it RM would presumably be out of a job right now.

It's a regular topic of discussion in my social work team and everyone in the team is gender critical although we don't call it that.

We call it basic fucking safeguarding.

The Forstater judgement probably changed the history of this country. Without it I dare not think how many more women would have been silenced or sacked.

I honestly think It's going to one of those cases that gets studied long after we are all long gone.

*The Forstater judgement probably changed the history of this country. Without it I dare not think how many more women would have been silenced or sacked.

I honestly think It's going to one of those cases that gets studied long after we are all long gone*

Absolutely

Yep.

Thank you Rachel for bringing the case. It deserves so much attention. I really want social workers to be able to discuss whatever they think is relevant without fear.

Obviously we are not party to all of the evidence or arguments, but it sounds like it is going badly for the respondents. The panel really do get it, so I am hopeful. I hope there's a written judgement setting out all the facts.

Membership of the stonewall scheme costs money but whenever managers are on the stand they always deny knowing anything about it. They never know about the training or what's required to be in the scheme when asked. Strange that.

What's also scary is the mild nature of the posts that were supposed to be over the line. A private eye cartoon and a petition on a matter of public policy, shared to 40 ppl only. I think the main peition might have been a parliament one, but was shared by fpfw. The witnesses are terrifying in how blasé they were, and are, about such a serious thing they have done to this woman. No one taking any ownership of decisions. All their evidence sounds the same. The forstater judgement has forced one to say 'we respect her gc views' but nothing she said or did before or in giving evidence suggests that's true. But even then she doesn't have to respect anyone's actual beliefs, she just has to respect the right to hold & express them within reason.

It's terrifying that such an important sector is managed by these illiberal fluffy dingbats who are going on an inclusion journey.

I inherited a trans teenager and had loads of dealings with all the agencies. With only one exception, they all let me understand without words, that they would not allow the trans stuff to obliterate all the other issues, and it all went away after 2 years, for the child, altho one of my others believes I did conversion therapy and has cut contact to the bone, which really hurts.
This has affected social workers, and others so badly, and it is absolutely apparent that it was done deliberately. Graham Noyce is clear that they wanted to make an example of her.
Thank heavens Glinner complained. I so wish all the others like FairPlay for Women etc had also complained. This lazy insistence that being pro woman and single sex spaces is anti trans does my head in.. I don’t think children and young adults should be told that they will be happier if they opt for a life time of medically augmented pretending, and I don’t want a man in the bed next to me in hospital, but I don’t hate anyone. I know some young transgender people, and I really want them to be happy. Sadly, after a few years, the cracks are stating to show. And the rising testimonies from detransitioners, who don’t seem to be accepted under Stonewall or Mermaids wings, show this. I would love it if either launched a service for detransitioners. I mean, as I recall, the little mermaid found life on earth very difficult.
sorry, so long. I have been so affected by this.

I have just caught up with the tribunal tweets. As my username suggests, I live near the hospital Rachel Meade worked at. I am shocked at how … well … dodgy (or possibly incompetent) my local council’s HR and senior officers appear to be. Even before the tribunal when Rachel and her legal team were pointing out the problems with what the council had done, they refused to accept they had been wrong and refused to apologise. It’s very worrying. It makes me wonder what else they are doing behind the doors of the council offices that’s also plain wrong.

Graham Noyce is clear that they wanted to make an example of her.

Yes that was clear, and yet:

CW - I don't think that RM's case is well known outside her immediate circle

Although I donated, I haven't seen everything to do with the case, and that's the first time I've watched Rachel.

She's not at all how I imagined. I've become quite used to seeing the term strategic litigation, there's nothing strategic about that woman.

Perhaps they thought she'd be an easy target which was their strategy.

How bloody wrong can you be 💪

Also, the reluctantly accepted suggestion that most people are gender critical.

If you accept that, what the fuck are you doing hounding them?

Just watched the video. Rachel canes across as lovely. The sort of person who clients would warm to and trust. The sort of person you would want in a crisis.

And, as we can see from her pursuing something that is not easy, she is clearly principled and tough. Where was Westminster’s HR department?

She’s exactly the sort of woman I want as a social worker. Thinks about others and their needs. This case is madness

Yes someone who is prepared to raise safeguarding concerns regardless of the risk to her career and reputation.

it's completely insane isn't it?

This ideology and its disciples are all about silencing anyone who raises safeguarding concerns.

Agreed it's insane Bernard. As* *@Manderleyagain pointed out:
"Membership of the stonewall scheme costs money but whenever managers are on the stand they always deny knowing anything about it. They never know about the training or what's required to be in the scheme when asked. Strange that".

That was clearly evidenced by Garden Court Chambers who sounded clueless about the demands Stonewall made of them to behave in a discriminatory way. As do many police forces every time one of their captured officers behaves in a discriminatory way towards women. Teflon Stonewall demand so much from companies in terms of creating a hostile workplace for women and girls, yet this is all "forgotten" or eaten by one of the support animals when the courts come calling.

SC seemed to concede the case in his closing submission. No ap ology of course. Naomi Cunningham is amazingly clear. It seems that Aedan and Jack-are friends, possibly partners? That really is a scandal but it does explain what NC calls a “woefully inadequate” investigation. Having watched Rachel# video, I think an apology would mean so much to her. And if she ever reads this, she should know that we all see that the Ian Huntley cartoon was astonishingly prescient. I hope she gets the highest possible damages. I really don’t see how she can lose.I would love to see screenshots of AWs social media.
Rachel, I hope you can feel the sympathy and love here. I am so sorry this happened.

Are there tweets from today anywhere? Crossing everything for you Rachel…

It’s rolled into yet another pay month, with the only benefit being that I can make a further pledge to her fighting fund