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.

Ah OK thanks. Does that count even though neither were giving evidence? Did any of the witnesses answer positively, saying they knew that the 2 did know each other?

He’s trying to minimise his clients’ inevitable losses, after seeing what just happened in the Allison Bailey case re the fragrant Garden Court Chambers, and the consequent maximum award and pejorative comments?

’At least my clients were disturbingly frank, your honour. Surely we should commend them.’

Maya the Forstater be with you. 💪

Brilliant @ickky you win the internet today

Maya the Forstater be with you

Sublime

+1

I would love to take the credit, but I saw it on Twitter and thought it was brilliant. 😁

Wow! Employment Judge is on the ball! Asking some very pointed questions re Stonewall Law, institutional capture etc.

Also, can someone please explain for me what Glinner's involvement in all this is?

Ouch.

the barrister for WCC and SWE is doing their best to offer mitigation rather than anything resembling a genuine defence.

They know they've lost.

Does anyone know if it is usual to schedule a remedies hearing before the judgement is out?

Memory is a bit hazy as it was a while ago now but I think it went something this l(happy to be corrected).

In the original hearing against RM, some of the evidence against her pertained to posts she had shared on FB re: Glinner.

To bolster the case witch-hunt against her he was painted out to be a pretty nasty character.

He threatened to sue so SWE had to apologise and drop the Glinner related evidence against RM.

I think that's broadly right.

That was my impression based on the tweet summary.

You were absolutely correct, ickky!

Good question! Not in my (limited) experience of following these cases, but I could be mistaken.

Thank you @ickky and, if you're reading this, TT.

There's so much from this, I'd be duplicating TT if I tried to put it all down here. But from SC's closing statement

I was struck by the fact that all witnesses have given evidence in a helpful and open way.

Really now!?

Glad the non-availability was pointedly flagged, the relationship between the complainant (a tra) and investigator, and so much more.

I think they will try for contributory fault . If Rachel hadn’t published the dreadful mainstream articles and then apologised and then brought it all to a wider audience by crowdfunding etc. But it’s thin. They have been really really horrible over a long period of time, simply because of her gender critical views. The wounds will be very deep. She will feel that she was completely abandoned by longstanding friends and colleagues , her self image must have fallen through the floor. I bet she felt that she was such a horrible person, she deserved nothing. Even answering the phone or opening emails will have become terrifying.. There was 1 lovely friend in the video, I’m sure she will have had lots of other support too. The strength she has shown to go into work and endure this is quite incredible, but It Is impossible to overstate the damage this will have caused her personally. There is no cap on costs in discrimination cases. I’ll just leave that there.

There is no cap on costs in discrimination cases. I’ll just leave that there.

Fingers now so crossed that they are unusable. Until 7th & 8th November? Or hopefully mid February?! Help!

Well said.

I think the word discrimination is too mild in this case.

RM was relentlessly persecuted for over 4 years.

The first two being her SW "friend" whom despite being so offended by her SM spent 2 years screenshooting "evidence" against her in order to use her regulator to punish her for GC views.

No attempt to engage or discuss. Just an ongoing determination to build up enough "evidence" to try and sink RM's 20 year career.

Then another two years of scrutiny by SWE and WCC the latter of which decided to double down even further than SWE.

There are imho definitely people involved in this case who deserve to be sanctioned for their behaviour.

RM is not one of them.

Thanks for the explanation re Glinner, @BreadInCaptivity
I'm sort of hazily remembering it all now.

I think it's probably normal. Everyone is there, and so they can all consult their diaries and discuss dates and schedule a date in case it's needed The Tribunals are very booked up, and so are the lawyers.

Here's one of Glinner's posts about the situation: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/rachel-meade-needs-your-help

No problem.

If the respondents are claiming contributory fault, that is just yet more abusive and gaslighting behaviour.

I have been extremely shocked at SWE and WCC campaign to shut down any discussion around gender issues from a critical point. It’s key to safeguarding that social workers can have open , challenging , discussions. Aidan Wolton clearly behave appallingly and discriminatory. I hope SWE will investigate him for discriminatory behaviour……

The Risk assessment. That risk assessment was a joke. Immediate High risk of causing serious harm!!! Naomi Cunningham challenged that well asking for specifics about what harm and to whom. The long pause said it all. They should all be sacked , those who were involved in this witch hunt against Rachel, for gross professional misconduct. Which social worker would want to work for Westminster city council unless you’re a TRA !