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.

Think so. How some bloke was treated?

The questions from the Panel members are good. I think (hope) they smell shonky practice.

Yes, the panel do seem to be asking good questions and he's really not coming across well at all. This must be hell for Rachel to take on not just her employer but SWE too. They're completely captured and ask for your gender identity on sign up, there's no option to say n/a. I'm so sad we can't watch this one!

This is the referenced Aedan Wolton, a transman and social worker at Sport England, who put in the complaint https://www.sportengland.org/blogs/why-being-counted-counts

It's interesting the complainant has been named, and those who carried out the 'investigation(s)'.

Thanks, ickky. A shame about the terrible sound quality hampering TT's ability to cover the hearing, especially at the end of this afternoon's session.

This afternoons TT thread

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230710162629/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678384390676553728.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230710162629/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678384390676553728.html

Do you think those witnesses are mumbling for a reason, e.g. so's not to be recorded / transcribed? Doesn't seem much like open justice.

I also saw this. However, I can’t find any reference online to Jack Aitken, the investigator who - it seems to have emerged later - knew Aedan Wolton.

In a previous post I was a bit scathing about LK, it crossed my mind then how the investigator was chosen. If someone with an interest had volunteered or been chosen. Then I thought, nah! That sounds like paranoia. Seems i should have trusted my instincts. It's not paranoia if they are out to get you.

And yet another employment tribunal had to recuse TWO panel members who volunteered themselves, due to their stated TRA beliefs.

Naomi Cunningham seems excellent btw (for RM), and on top of this so far.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong! This is all seeming a bit fishy at this point in the proceedings.

It's really frustrating we can't read what has been said properly - TT doing an excellent job of course and I'm absolutely sure they're speaking quietly deliberately because they know what they have to say will make them look awful.

What RM has been put through is utterly shocking. I thought social workers were supposed to care about people's mental health? It was abusive what they did to her and with no concern for her wellbeing at all seemingly. And no thought apparently at all that this could have been a vexatious complaint. I smell bullshit on that one, given the very troubled people they will deal with on a daily basis, vexatious complaints cannot be that unusual.

I'm also very frustrated that they're saying RM's social media posts could 'cause offense'. Well virtually anything - saying grass is green, water is wet (or men aren't women) - is offensive to someone FFS. If that's their standard then the constraints on social workers would be so great that they'd be forced to be hermits outside of their jobs for fear of causing 'offense' (and no-one would be a social worker).

From what I've read (and I'm sure I don't have the full picture), it seems to me that the things RM commented on or the petitions she signed were fairly common views, nothing transphobic at all.

I agree. Plenty of people think gay marriage is offensive, for example. There needs to be much more to an investigation than “someone is offended = further action is required”.

I was just thinking about that.

I completely agree @dimorphism - it’s the same with the non crime hate incidents - except of course it doesn’t count as offensive when women are threatened with rape or worse. My eyes have really been opened through all this to how misogynistic our society still is. 🥲

I have posted GC stuff on my Facebook but have it in a different name to mr sw one, however im now afraid to post anything relating to sw that could suggest im a sw. The bar is so low if anything that could cause offence can lead to investigation.

So sorry to hear this. Being a social worker seems hard enough (have a relative who was one) without walking on eggshells in a climate of fear.

Saying men can't be women shouldn't be a cause for censure. How come saying men are women isn't seen as offensive to women? It is. Yet we don't have TRA social workers put through investigations on this basis - am liking NC's questioning showing the one sidedness of it and asking if anyone has suffered similar to RM for wrong think about anything else. Seemingly not which suggests the idea sw can't respectfully express political views in their own time wasn't ever an issue until this.

Is anyone else seeing how this whole movement is like institutional coercive control? You can't respectfully say what you see, you're wrong, the evidence you have isn't good enough, you need to question your own reality, it's not acceptable to have your own opinions, you must be punished for things you never did.

The more I read and see, the more horrified I become. It is all so unfair. This poor woman, who is so clearly never wishing to cause harm put through years of hell because of a Private Eye cartoon., that makes a very good point, and it Doesnt matter if Huntley transitioned, there were lots of press reports that he was using a woman’s name, and intending to.

The thing is this case is, metaphorically, the cartoon come to life.

Does anyone have a bit more background to this (the recusals)? I wasn't able to follow that bit of the Tribunal Tweets fully (my fault not TT's!).

And yes to all the posts above ^^

It's like Mcarthyism / the red guard. The denunciation is enough for a world of pain, they don't bother with evidence or facts or considering whether the denunciation is vexatious / true / in good faith.

Hi all - has anyone been able to watch this remotely in the end or is it all in person?

All in person, @Buffypaws .