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.

It simply flies in the face of Open Justice.

It really does. It makes it so hard to follow when you cannot see what they are talking about.

Did the Judge give a reason for no online viewing?

Well that went as expected.

Just caught up with tribunal tweets. Looking forward to NCs questions tomorrow

Here are TT's live tweets from today.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230706162033/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1676935570583351300.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230706162033/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1676935570583351300.html

Thank you, @ickky

Yes, thanks ickky!

Best of luck for tomorrow Rachel. Let's hope for common sense and justice to prevail on behalf of the whole social work profession.

Hear, hear. Really hoping for a positive outcome for Rachel and for social work.

I really felt for Rachel, reading TT’s transcript, and admire her so much. If you’re reading this Rachel, good luck and thank you for doing this hugely difficult thing.

Thinking of Rachel again today

+1
At least Rachel's own barrister will allow her to get across the points she was trying to make when it their turn to cross-examine her.

It’s so obvious reading the transcript that Rachel is a reasonable person who if told she has done wrong , feels concerned and tries to remedy it. The barrister was presenting that as something completely different, that she accepted she was wrong and then changed her story because she didn’t like the entirely justified consequences. Gaslighting. Same tactics come up again and again. I was told I’d hurt someone’s feelings at work once,I apologised, said that was never my intention and tried again to explain the difficulty I faced, to be told thatId admitted I was at fault, there was never an excuse for rudeness and they weren’t going to listen. It was only then I realised that I hadn’t been rude. I’d been ordered to do something very difficult at short notice and legitimately and politely asked the support staff for support.
My heart absolutely is with you Rachel. I was also in social work. Us female people pleasers , with our pesky socialised desire for compromise and harmony, and horror at causing offence or hurt, are so vulnerable to gaslighting. I’m trying to stand my ground now, saying NO more. Feels quite good actually.

I'm also a social worker. Fair play for Rachel for putting herself through cross examination. Not a pleasant experience.

So believing in biological reality is transphobic...a woman's career & reputation can be trashed because she acknowledges sex is real....that pedophiles will abuse any loophole in safeguarding.... this is horrific. This case is so vitally important, SWE needs to reflect on what they have done to an innocent woman.

I’m a social worker too. It could so easily have been me in Rachel’s shoes. Enormous sympathy for what she’s having to go through.

Sounds like a really gruelling morning for Rachel
https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1677239561930375168?s=20

I'm a bit worried about this case... obviously I am v sympathetic to Rachel but I don't quite understand why she's brought it given that she is still employed (I think?) so isn't making a claim for lost earnings etc. Of course brave to make a stand but is it really worth the personal and financial cost to her as an individual?

Bore How can I see the tweets from this morning? I found yesterdays but not on your link. Can you sum up why it was difficult today?

I guess only she can know if it’s worth the personal cost but It’s a pretty important case in terms of regulation. Some of the regulators are stonewall champions and I suspect until recently would have just taken their stance uncritically as correct. Whatever happens with this case it will hopefully be a wake up call that women are allowed to have unfashionable opinions on sex and gender without being sanctioned or cautioned. I imagine all the regulators will be paying close attention to the outcome of this case.

@IrenetheQuaint another SW here and this case is hugely important for the profession, and I for one am immensely grateful for Rachel taking this stand.

Yes SWE did drop the case against her last year, and she'd finished her 1 year suspension, so yes, she's employed, but I'm guessing she wants to 1) be completely exonerated of any wrong doing and 2) expose any issues with SWE's ability to maintain an unbiased approach to investigating and passing judgement on Social Workers.

Maya Forstater took a huge risk when she took a stand, without these brave women, we (as in women and men who believe in reality) would have no legal right to state facts such as there are 2 sexes.

I agree Rachel is not just doing this to restore her reputation she is doing it for all women and girls.

Her courage, along with Allison, Maya, Kathleen Stock etc. are what will change the narrative. These are not radicals but women who understand the importance of our sex class and defending our hard won rights.

There are so many of these cases in 2023 that by 2024 the narrative will have changed. The war is not over, some battles we will win some we will lose but Maya’s EAT was a key turning point.

I know the Civil service well enough to know that they do not want case law (EAT or higher) based on a gmt dept losing any case, let along a GC case. They will be looking at the cases and the £100k and slowly their internal narrative will change.

Wow I feel a bit sick to read that the SWE witness does think it's misconduct for Rachel to have signed the 3 petitions; 1 against TW being included in women's sports, 1 against TW in women's prisons and 1 against Mermaids providing training in schools.

How is that misconduct? What about safety and fairness for women? We work with so many vulnerable women, this from our regulator is shocking.

SWE witness currently being questioned by Rachel's barrister Naomi Cunningham. Has basically said that they took everything the complainant said at face value ie that Fair Play for Women is discriminatory, that Standing for Women is discriminatory. They didn't look into whether Rachel's posts were public (until last Autumn which is when they dropped the fitness to practice against her)

Really interesting. I can see that if someone agrees with the complaint it could be possible just to move on to the next thing but....its a regulatory body with enormous consequences for people.
And fairly basic social work is to interrogate the facts, not accept them at face value.