Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1744697995822526961?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

“Disappointing from a Diversity Champion.”

But entirely on brand for a trans activist.

The Fox Botherer definitely has a dopey 'trans kid'

This is a very unkind comment. Of the many trans identifying kids that I know, none are ‘dopey’.

Most are on the spectrum and feel ‘other’ for one reason or another. Many struggle with wider issues.

ALL have been severely let down by the responsible adults who should have either better supported them or worked to limit the influence of others with a darker agenda when they started questioning their identity.

Imagine trying to argue for fairness for women in sport at Sport England with them hovering in the background waiting to report every perceived wrongthink to the bosses. No wonder women's sports have been so easily dismantled in favour of men.

Yes I agree on this

None are ‘dopey’

They have bern severely let down by the adults who promote this ideology though and disallow other outcomes

And aside from the lack of tolerance for diversity this shows, and the clear inability of this person to respect all protected characteristics (which should make them unqualified for their role), why would you want someone who goes out of their way to report on supposed 'friends' in this Stasi-like way in your organisation? Everyone will be watching their back, the atmosphere must be awful.

Absolutely this ^^ is who should be held accountable for the untold damage (and growing) being done to young vulnerable people.

Could any of the clients Stonewall advised have grounds to sue if that advice led them into legal difficulty? I suspect that advice comes with disclaimers, caveat emptor and all that, but I don't believe this is a bullet proof way of keeping out of the legal weeds.

Who is the Fox Botherer?

We've yet to see that tested. But we have seen Stonewall shrug in court and say they can tell their clients any old bollocks and if the clients don't bother to check it and work out for themselves that it's illegal it's nothing to do with them gov.

Brilliant news, I saw this earlier on LinkedIn and it is just…😁’chef’s kiss’!

But poor Rachel going through this for so long.

As for someone quietly noting down comments from a ‘friend’s’ private social media and then reporting them to their professional regulator, well…we are but a telescreen away from living in fear of the Thought Police.

I have noticed that a readiness to weaponise official processes is a trademark of those who adhere to identity politics.

@IcakethereforeIam @Froodwithatowel That is an interesting question. When one sells goods and services there is a duty under contract and Torte law, to deliver said service with reasonable care and skill.

so if a company gets in trouble in employment law based on purchased advice then in theory the company could seek damages

I cannot imagine anybody would bother though.

Probably just get rid of them

They could try. If it could be proved that Stonewall had a duty of care which was breached it might be successful.

Jo Maugham, part of the Good Law Project who have pursued a series of unsuccessful, vexatious legal cases, and who posted a bizarre tweet claiming to have killed a fox with a baseball bat, while (iirc) wearing his wife's kimono.

Woolton | Wolton and the documentation and complaint without the courtesy of talking to RM is very disturbing and I'd be very sorry to think that Sport England signed up for this when they made this appointment.

I wrote this on the Bragg thread but it's applicable here to Wolton and those who think this is any way to treat colleagues/friends or to run an effective workplace rather than one where people must be apprehensive of saying anything. In retrospect, Woolton has more than a touch of Allison Bailey's SWP-history roommate in chambers, David Renton (the one who made notes about her phone calls and reported them).

I'm tempted to branch out into whether BB realises that he's straying far from the path Justice Julian Knowles outlined when he declared (in re: Miller): “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."

Yet, here BB is. Monitoring MN to find material for disapproval and witch-finding. Labelling MN as Nazi while refusing to link, using dubious screenshots, and positively encouraging an Orwellian society and his own persona Cheka and Stasi-like reporting mechanisms. (I'm thinking of the infamous claim that 1 in 6 people in East Germany were reporting on their neighbours. Some say it was 1 in 60. However, it seems the Stasi had files on 5.6M people.)

https://thecritic.co.uk/bad-law-project/

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-right-to-be-gender-critical/

Michael Foran’s article about this in the Critic discusses the holding and manifestation of a belief.

In order to be part of their schemes and receive the golden opinions of Stonewall firms have to chant the mantras, disabuse other staff from thinking or saying anything contrary to the Stonewall mantra and implement policies and practices in line with Stonewall advice.

Stonewall advice is, and has been proven to be on many occasions, outside the Law as it stands and in breach of the EQA, therefore imo Stonewall are culpable surely?

Although, firms, public sector institutions, etc., who are stupid enough to not do due diligence on the advice they are receiving from Stonewall because they are more interested in having a shiny Stonewall certificate deserve everything they get when it all goes awry.

Even more scary bit "Two of her colleagues were also suspended for failing to report her “discriminatory posts”

Thanks for posting that article @Justme56 I didn't know two of Rachel's colleagues were suspended for failing to report her. Stasi-like is not hyperbole in this case. That was a dreadful thing to put on Rachel's conscience. I hope those colleagues, at the very least, receive an apology from their employer. They called it right. They didn't report, because there was nothing to report. Something it took a long and expensive court case for SWE and the CoW to learn. Assuming they have learned.

There are a few good articles in the Critic at the moment. One on stereotypes by Victoria Smith and Jo Bartosch on the current police shitshow.

That is utterly chilling.

Holy fucking fuck.

I wonder what has happened to the colleagues in the light of this decision.

Will they be eligible for apologies and claims for unfair suspension? I know that ET actions need to be started within a set time-frame but would waiting on the outcome of Meade's ET seem reasonable?

' investigators describing her Facebook posts as transphobic ... independently constituted harassment, a finding that should be taken very seriously by employers '

Labelling 'gc' views or feminists 'transphobic' can constitute harassment.

Good to know.

I saw that in the judgment - that two colleagues (i think one was her manager?) were suspended. I don't know if it's too late or if they would want to but I hope they persue this amd settle out of court for a massive amount and a very public apology.

I am so glad Rachel has won and that the judgment is so good. In some ways it's a horrible read because of everything that happened, but its also a brilliant read because of how it sets out the principles, the case law, and the criticisms of the two organisations.

I wonder if it will be the remedies hearing that will have an effect on HR departments. Perhaps organisations will start doing training on pluralism and respecting a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Perhaps there will have to be a new approach that acknowledges that rights come into conflict sometimes, and one protected characteristic is no more important than another, so just having training on a couple of protected characteristics by themselves won't cut it.

Definitely.