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.

Judge asked if its a problem for Social Workers to express their personal political views on Social Media. LK from Social Work England said it could be, it depends whether the view is expressed respectfully or not.

Part of the complaint was that Rachel shared petitions on Facebook which 'pursue discriminatory goals', however the investigators did not bother to look into what the petitions were actually for.

Adjourned till Monday 10am

One big worry for me (beyond the fact that I share gender critical stuff on Social Media!) is that one of the goals of Social Work is social justice, and that goes for everyone, not just the very special tiny group of 'most marginalised ever'. We work with a lot of very vulnerable women, if we can't stand up for women's rights without being dragged over the coals this is really a terrible state of affairs.

Why is it that the other 8 protected characteristics don't get a look in, why does Gender Identity trump all? (rhetorical question, I know the answer) 😢

I’m gobsmacked at the inadequacy/incompetence of SWE’s so called investigative process and procedures. No attempt was made to determine the veracity of the complaints or the motives of the complainant. What a nightmare for Rachel.

Naomi Cunningham is doing a sterling job exposing the ideological bias and the Judge and Tribunal members are asking some very pointed questions. This is a hugely important case for SWs and other HCPs and the like whose regulatory bodies are likely to equally captured. I’ve already donated but am just about to do a spot more gardening.

Maya did lose her job, of course.

I'm not doubting the courage of any of these women - they are exceptionally brave. But I think going to court against your current employer (or chambers, in Allison's case) is particularly gruelling.

So frustrating. I saw this mornings tweets but cant access those from this afternoon. I think that what happened to Rachel is absolutely appalling. They just condemned her without any examination of the facts. The anxiety and upset of being in such a process cant be overstated, and it’s still going on. I wish I was brave enough to publicise this on my social media , but I’m not. I have contributed though.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677317583035420673.html

I will link to the TT tweets once they are up.

It beggars belief that the sum total of the investigation was to wave it on through and do fuck all investigation.

Also the it is okay to have those beliefs but the way (tone) she expressed them was wrong bollocks we have all heard before.

Hope you can relax this weekend Rachel, you have right and truth on your side.

SWE are not fit for purpose.

Surely the purpose of the investigation is firstly to assess whether FPFW are discriminatory. It's not for Rachel or the complainant to make that judgement. The witness was out of her depth.

This is worrying, that a judge thinks hormones and some plastic surgery would mean a man does not ‘have a male body’, I wonder if he received that bench book training too?

including a petition to prevent TW from competing in women's sport.
EJ - asking if NC means after any surgical interventions and hormonal treatments.
NC - term refers to people who were born male
EJ - they may not have male bodies at the time,
NC - clarifies, born male
EJ - born male but currently identify as women
NC - we are not talking about female people to be clear,

God, if that's what SWE consider an investigation then I shudder to think about the quality of the social work they oversee. Surely a procession for which rigorous investigative processes are absolutely essential.

@Signalbox thank you for linking. SWE seem poorly prepared. And the Judges question shows no understanding at all about the issues in womens sport. Impressed by NC though.

An investigation just seems to be rubber stamping whatever the complainant said.

Surely, social workers have to be aware that people are not always completely honest and may have an agenda. They sound so naive, craven. Happy to avoid doing proper investigative work and go along with their own prejudices.

The EJ's questions around sport are definitely a worry. I'm not sure why it is even relevant. Shouldn't the judge accept that GC means that people think you can't change your sex? That would include those men who have had cosmetic surgery to appear female.

So if all comes down to whether you actually believe that a male becomes a female if you cut his bits off?

fundamentally, you either think women are almost as good as a man without a penis, or you think it’s just bizarre that anyone would think a penis less man is anything other than a mentily unwell or porn addled man?

Also the it is okay to have those beliefs but the way (tone) she expressed them was wrong bollocks we have all heard before.

There is no way to express those beliefs that would be acceptable.

This is 'don't mention reality because it's too upsetting to less than 1% of the populace'.

Even if this means denying people equality, safety, privacy, dignity, freedom from rape and assault, and access to justice, public services and health care.

This is abysmal. It is bloody shameful, and it needs to fuck right off, now.

So the professional body for social workers just believe whatever bad thing anyone tells them about social workers without actually checking if it's true? That's....an unusual way to operate, given that social workers often have clients who don't like or want them, and may not necessarily be forthcoming with the truth.

All of these so-called professional organisations just lose their fucking reason as soon as someone says the magic words, don't they? Organisational psychology PhD students will have field days with this stuff in the future, when everyone finally acknowledges that the emperor is starkers

It is the crucible.

Some twit says 'I did see Goody Meade dancing with the devil by moonlight' and they all scream and string up nooses.

7th Morning tweets

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230707182751/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677239561930375168.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230707182751/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677239561930375168.html

7th Afternoon tweets

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230707181437/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677317583035420673.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230707181437/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677317583035420673.html

It’s absolutely shocking isn’t it? The state of SWE. Following this with great interest.

Organisational psychology PhD students will have field days with this stuff in the future

In future may be, at the moment they would join in shouting ‘burn the witch!’

Archive of morning session tweets
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230707182751/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677239561930375168.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230707182751/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677239561930375168.html
and afternoon session
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230707181437/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677317583035420673.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230707181437/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677317583035420673.html

This is truly shocking behaviour by SWE

Sorry, don't know what happenned there. Here's a link to Tribunal Tweetssubstackwhichcontains links to the archived sessions
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/rm-v-westminster-city-council-and-bda

I followed the live tweets. Thanks Tribunal Tweets! Don't TT do an amazing job.

The judge's questions sbout tw in women's sport are quite concerning but I think it's quite a 'normie' starting point - 'well if they've gone to the trouble of having the op....', 'well they're not male any more cos they've had the op....' for some ppl that's where they begin. There were decades when 'sex change' was the main colloquial terminology. But making the distinction between tw with 'male bodies' and those who've had surgical and medical transition isn't currently the done thing for believers, so it suggests to me that the judge isn't starting from the activist position. But it also shows he or she doesn't know that tw don't have to have surgery before they can plan in women's sport so that's not something that the social worker would be arguing about.

Many of the other questions were very sharp though and suggest the panel can clearly see the issue with the investigation, and are asking all the right questions.

So swe think that sw can comment on controversial things & share opinions only if they do it respectfully, but don't seem to be saying that Rachel worded it disrespectfully, but rather that the things she was sharing andvsigning were discriminatory in themself. But they hadn't investigated whether the petitions or organisations were in fact discriminatory. And the witness has obviously never considered whether it would be OK for a sw to sign a petition giving the opposite point of view.

As a social worker I would like to understand if I would find myself hauled in front of my regulator if I expressed any other views that others may disagree with?

I have a SW colleague who regularly posts 'fuck the tory bastards' type posts.

Another who support hunt sab groups quite publicly

What if I decide to post something 'pro life' or 'pro choice'

What if I have views about euthanasia?

What if I support a local petition to stop building new houses?

Who decides what is right think and wrong think when it comes to disrepute?

I can't find the answer in my professional standards

100% @IcakethereforeIam - why are they taking everything at face value? Total lack of any critical thinking. It's how we (the whole of society) got into this mess; too many organisations and people thinking 'oh Stonewall are a good charity, so whatever they say must be right...' without using their own thinking skills.