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.

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.

This is currently not being modelled in universities though as part of their education. Instead, it is all about right-think and advocating (uncritically) for the most oppressed minorities.

It's interesting how WCC and SWE are willing to completely abandon safeguarding in order to prevent 'offense' to a group of ill defined people. With 'offense' itself not defined either.

AND YET they're willing to subject a woman with an exemplary social work record and long career to abuse, mistreatment and the total destruction of her life and mental wellbeing on such a flimsy basis. For YEARS.

So the potential (not actual) 'offense' to one tiny group is SO IMPORTANT

but the DESTRUCTION of a real person's life is irrelevant.

It's like they've taken instructions from the Taliban or something.

I don't think safeguarding is possible at all with a culture where people are walking on eggshells in case anyone is offended. Frankly, the whole POINT of safeguarding is causing offense - if you can't speak up and raise a concern which WILL be unpleasant for the person accused and their colleagues/ family /friends then you can't safeguard. Someone could be 'offended' by being asked for a DBS - 'how dare you question my suitability to work with children'.

Paedophiles are no doubt offended when they are called out / caught. If there's a group that can't be offended that anyone can self ID into, then why wouldn't predators do this? This doesn't help trans people.

I think it's also worth noting that some of the people who will be failed by this inability to safeguard will be trans people and in particular trans children. Is not being offended really a good enough trade off for not having safeguarding apply to you?

This is a culture of silence, it's antithetical to a safeguarding culture. WCC and SWE are entirely unfit for purpose based on this tribunal and I honestly think the government should step in.

If there's a group that can't be offended that anyone can self ID into, then why wouldn't predators do this? This doesn't help trans people.

Exactly. I think very deep down, this is the tiny "thought-grenade" that will eventually blow the whole rotten edifice right open. Unfortunately at lot of vulnerable people will be put at risk as a result, and a lot of gay and autistic children will have been irreversibly harmed.

“I don't think safeguarding is possible at all with a culture where people are walking on eggshells in case anyone is offended” I totally agree and think the govt should step in as this is highly dangerous practice . SWE are not fit for purpose.

Does anyone know who we write to about the dangerous culture within SWE - as evidenced in this trial?

I was thinking the same ?

There is much evidence in serious case reviews that not enough challenge, social workers taking things at face value, fear of challenging parents etc contribute to serious incidents. Social workers should not be constrained for fear of offending , no matter who the the client is . Welfare of the child is paramount .

I’m going to write to my MP but am undecided whether to wait for the judgement.

alternatively SWE are overseen by https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/

It's depressing that nothing has changed since Justice Hayden highlighted how child abuse by a mentally unwell mother continued when social workers (and others) were in thrall to Mermaids and the ideology rather than prioritising the safety and welfare of a child. Here's his judgement from a case back in 2016!. Presumably SWE not only ignored the judgement but ensured that social workers were not allowed to read it:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

From the Professional Standards website.

• Concerns: unfortunately, we cannot deal with concerns or complaints about individual health/social care practitioners (find out more about who to get in touch with here if you are considering complaining about a health/social care practitioner). However, we would be interested to hear your experiences of a regulator or accredited register by using our Share your experience function or email [email protected]

Thanks for this, alongside the evidence from RM's trial it doesn't paint a very good picture.

This is interesting thanks for sharing.

Here's a slightly easier to read summary of the case. Part of me wonders if this case would even make it into a court room now. I'm not confident that any of these agencies (below) would be raising safeguarding concerns for a child in this situation now. I wonder how this case finally made it into a courtroom? Presumably it was down to the one social worker who "took over the case".

"Further concerns were sent by doctors, the police, the NSPCC and the council’s housing department, adding to what the judge described as “a clamour of concern” around the child."

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/10/27/judge-calls-review-social-work-response-boy-lived-girl/

Yes - an interesting question. Would these safeguarding concerns have been picked up in todays climate or would every professional involved have been too worried about 'offending' adults to safeguard the child?

The Victoria climbie inquiry report addressed the impact of fear of being called racist on practice , highlighting care and protection of children is paramount and should not be impeded by fear . Pages 345 - 347 “working with diversity”. Section 16 , 16.7 of the harrowing report into her death, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273183/5730.pdf

Any fear of being called a bigot can impact on protecting children .

There are subsequent white papers to the Climbe inquiry investigating, why following the 'lessons learned' and policy built on her death, serious case reviews keep on coming back with pretty much the same problems identified. The knowledge is there and yet practitioners keep on falling into the exact same holes leading to serious injury or death.

• Fear of being unkind/insensitive to the adults involved in the situation or the family's vulnerabilities and culture (Baby P, be kind to a young woman with a lot of difficulties and vulnerabilities, don't impose middle class values etc)
• Becoming over invested in needy and attention demanding/time consuming adults in the situation at the expense of the child in need of protection through a desire to help and support
• Unwillingness to say the unsayable or think the unthinkable - aka always being highly cynical and considering that you may be being groomed by someone manipulating you as opposed to being told the truth - because Not Nice or Kind to the adults involved in the situation, and not wanting to be the nasty bigot who thinks nasty things
• Not wanting to be the professional in the situation who takes responsibility and blows the whistle and is prepared to take all the flak - hoping instead that if you hover around and wait someone else involved will do the dirty work/step out of cover into fire
• Being afraid of adults in the situation whose behaviour is challenging and difficult and threatening at the best of times, and acting mostly to not provoke them and thereby personally avoid being their target

All of this applies. What is needed as part of changing this is robust training to all public servants in working with people with personality disorders, behavioural disorders, and much stronger training on being alert to and dealing with potential grooming behaviour, plus much much stronger back up for professionals to protect them against behavioural backlash from a displeased service user. Particularly when that backlash may be against the organisation as a whole from a rich tax payer supported political lobby who wrote some of your policies to enable themselves.

Being afraid of adults in the situation whose behaviour is challenging and difficult and threatening at the best of times, and acting mostly to not provoke them and thereby personally avoid being their target

with an enthusiastic parent of a ‘trans’ child this is a serious risk. And in the current climate, officialdom is most likely to side with the parent. What a mess

Another great post Frood.
The frustrating thing is that all our institutional memory / data / case reviews etc detail what happens in terrible detail. Yet the very organisations responsible for the safety of our children have closed their eyes and allowed organisations predominantly focussing on queer theory, adult fetishes & age inappropriate ideology to dictate policy and practice relating to children in this area.

Despite the small steps we're taking I am so often filled with despair.

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/02/04/rotherham-social-workers-discredited-information-child-sexual-exploitation/

Rotherham scandal is another terrible example of social services not doing their job, because of, amongst other things 'political coreectness'.

Fantastic post @Froodwithatowel , I really despair at how SW has been captured. Where are the critical thinking skills? I know there is a high turnover which doesn't help as a lot of experienced SWs leave, but people who really should know better don't. I think its easy to just go with the prevailing discourse, and trust in the institutions like Stonewall and Mermaids.

I'm reminded of the Orkney business a few years back. SW were captured in believing in people practicing satanism, and found evidence for it in the Church of Scotland minister having a black cloak (used for funerals in weather) and Quaker meetings arrangd in circles. And they could not be shifted. Easter cards from the families were not delivered because they might contain coded controlling messages. A brother at Durham was refused to give evidence, reason unspecified. I would have thought, in their world, he was either a victim or a perpetrator, so should have been interviewed. But no.
The matter was eventually closed, but the degree of belief in the SW was extraordinary. Almost as if they had been brainwashed.
And now we have a much wider state of belief in unreasonable stuff, with no entertaining of argument.

Update from RM's crowd justice page

Just to let you know that we have heard from the judge and they hope to be in a position that the judgment is finalised and ready to be announced in early/mid-December.
Fingers crossed it will be good tidings.
Huge thanks again for all your continued support it makes such a world of difference.
Rachel

Thank you so much @ickky

Thanks for the update

Thank you.
Regardless of the outcome, I have had at least two openly GC conversations at work recently (as a children’s social worker) which I would not have felt brave enough to have before. I’m still not as open as I’d like to be, but I have found at least one colleague who feels the same as me about the safeguarding implications - in fact she spoke to me first, so I guess I must’ve given a vibe. I’ve also raised a concern with my manager about some training.

Really hoping for an update soon!