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've just been wracking my brain about where i know your user name from, and the penny has finally dropped!

If it's good enough for Robin Ellacot, it's good enough for me.

Yes, a great username!

The witnesses from SWE have been dire.

Utterly captured and no critical thinking.

It's almost like they were determined to make an example of her....

Hahaha yes same

I can't read yesterday afternoon's tweets, can anyone help? It might be my phone

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1678444184263352320?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

@BreadInCaptivity fabulous, thank you ☺️

Oh no still can't read the thread. I'll try on a different device later

In brief, Berry Rose (BR) for SWE is being examined by RM's barrister NC, and BR seems to be labouring under the 'Stonewall Law' misapprehension that RM is allowed her beliefs as long as she never expresses them.

This morning https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678689502997487616.html

Ends on a cliffhanger! Stonewall law?

And that the overriding consideration is not if an expressed position was true/factual, but if it had potential to offend a trans person.

That's me being sarcastic really, @IcakethereforeIam. BR didn't actually actually say 'Stonewall law' but I get the impression they've had the training iykwim. BR is now still banging on about it's not the views that RM has, it's the manner of her expressing them that's the problem as TG people could find them 'offensive'. Also saying 'I'm not an expert' and 'we need to be balanced'.

All we need for the bingo full house is 'more light and less heat'.

Yes, BR for SWE has actually admitted that this afternoon! I had to re-read those tweets a few times.

@AutumnCrow I'd missed your post, came up with Stonewall law from reading the tweets. Great minds after all and it's pretty damn likely, got their fingerprints all over it.

BR: a broad range of ppl, and must interact well with them. Our concerns is that GC views wld be considered to be offensive and a T person may wonder if they'd receive equal treatment

Oh the fucking irony

Indeed - it's a very myopic position to take.

Ah ok, got you! It's like the days of 'Maya Forstater can believe in eggs but that doesn't give her the right to talk about making an omelette at work' kind of thing.

I do urge those who can to read the Thread Reader for this afternoon when it appears. The apparent position of SWE is a real eye opener - it's coming across as trans-hegemony and fuck safeguarding.

What about offending women, or don’t we count?

NC: Reformulation was to bypass Forstater, no?
BR: That's not my understanding
NC: Made it possible to avoid Forstater now, and 1.2 operates via offending others
BR: Not my inderstanding
NC: Is clear that AW SM also fails this new test?
BR: I agree it's not good

This is very interesting.

Essentially the allegation is that rather than dropping the case post Maya, SWE sought to re-frame the allegations against RM, without consideration of the fact the complainant could be held in violation of the same standards.

This is potentially why AW was not called to give evidence.

Also pleased to see a P asking why the doc was titled misconduct due to transphobia. Rather leading isn't it....

Based on what I've read today - no.

Nor does flagging safeguarding concerns.

I thought NC could have pressed a bit harder on the extraordinary idea that at no point should it ever be possible to infer that a trans person could possibly ever be involved in child abuse or sexual offending. Totally pure . Always.
So the suggestion that paedophiles might pretend to be trans for their own advantage is transphobic because it places transpeople adjacent to paedophiles. So we do have SWE essentially believing that safeguarding cannot be considered in relation to self-identity or transgenderism, because that would offend transpeople. Single sex wards are an issue for social work in terms of how to support transwomen. Failing to ascertain that a Facebook account was set to private, or whether the holder was identifiable as a social worker, when deciding if those posts could cause a service user to lose faith in the profession is not a shortcoming in an enquiry of this type. The process was followed and therefore the conclusions reached were sound. I am so glad I am no longer a social worker. I could not allow myself to be judged by this lot. It is a scandal. May have to throw in some more carrots.

So after today I'm set the point where I think that they thought they had good evidence because of who brought it to them. Never bothered to see if the person complaining had ulterior motives or what their social media was like. they decided that RM was in their eyes an easy target because at the start she apologised and repented (not surprised she must have been so worried about losing her job) and decided to use her to shut up all other gender critical social workers.

Morning https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678714714128367616.html

Afternoon https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678750689957146624.html