Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

Haha, that description is hilarious - it basically boils down to 'waaaaah, you're all big meanies'..
The level of delusion is staggering, just because they shoehorn in a lot of big words, doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Surely now someone will name-change to VocalHateMovement?

No its where you go foe compensation for any misdeeds of your employer and now any professional regulatory body. The tribunal have set another date for the compensation judgement.

I'm glad I don't live in Westminster, they may be liable for a big chunk of council tax payer's money, aside from their legal fees.

The label anti-trans activist didn’t come up as a header for Wikipedia though. It came up as header for hiyamaya. Just wondered if that’s how she described herself if it’s her website? Seems a bit odd if so.

The "anti-trans" label, and everything else in that box, including the link to Maya's own website, is an extract from the Wikipedia page: it's not from hiyamaya.net, it just includes that link.

Wonderful news. Congratulations Rachel and your team.
I wonder if there is a way to tally up all the money that following Stonewall's advice has cost various organisations in court?
Mentioning legal wins to HR departments might be easily brushed aside,as they may have the attitude of ' we aren't like that,so that will never happen to us' But if one could prove that since xxxx date, following Stonewall's advice has cost British organisations £xxxxxx in damages/ court fees/ compensation,it may concentrate the mind wonderfully.

It’s from a comedy where someone made up their own yoga poses, one of them was the Sideways Otter. It tickled me

That's such a good choice of photo!

I know. And that was only just due to Maya Forstater

It could be, as many continually push for, a crime

Bloody hell

Reminds me of a regime - not sure what you can say anymore

That jumped out at me too, @AmaryllisNightAndDay. Two colleagues suspended for, presumably, not snitching on Rachel for what she wrote on her personal FB page.

I'd very much like to know if they are still suspended (surely not?), or how long they were suspended for, terms of their reinstatement etc.

This is a truly totalitarian movement.

Mentioned the outcome to a friend who was a social worker and it currently not working - makes her seriously re consider ever going back. She was appalled by the whole thing.

"Incompetent spurious bullies"

Also agree. Just as with Rachel Meade's case, the problem is not the malicious complainant trying to get her sacked - the problem is the institutional capture, the regulators, the professionals who are discriminating.

With children identifying with trans the problem is not them or their feelings, it's the adults/institutions/ideology that is letting them down and offering poorly evidenced 'treatment' and advice.

The Guardian's article is currently the ninth most-viewed on the whole site, despite being IMO hard to find without having a direct link. I thought Terfs were just three bots in a trenchcoat, but people are very interested in this story!

If the story is covered on the BBC website, I'm buggered if I can find it.

Swishy flounce....

tbh, I should probably take a class in how to do that without sweeping all my papers off my desk (and probably a tea mug or two).

If the story is covered on the BBC website

For both the flounce and the BBC's lack of Rachel Meade coverage, is it sufficient if I try for a Buttergasp in response? We'll be waiting for some time (Arabella, we'll need more chairs, thermoses, knee blankets and sandwiches) if we're hoping that Woman's Hour are pounding on her door for an interview.

https://tenor.com/bIk2l.gif

Aw, a wee Buttergasp. It's been ages. Bloody love that clip.

An interesting twitter thread from Jon Pike who's picked up Sharron Davis's demand that Sport England's misnamed "diversity" chief is sacked. He points out that they shouldn't be sacked for their behaviour that was so severely criticised by the tribunal, but because their behaviour is in open conflict with the stated values of Sport England.

"The Equality Lead at Sport England is strongly opposed to the position of the Sports Councils Equality Group".

https://twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1745058596260344071

This is the DM article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344759/Sharron-Davies-backs-campaigners-calling-Sport-Englands-diversity-chief-fired.html

Two things

Mrs Meade's solicitor, Shazia Khan, accused Social Work England of failing to uphold freedom of speech and called for the body to apologise to Mrs Meade. It declined to last night.

It seems SWE have learned nothing, the bastards.

And, I think this is the quote referenced by Jon Pike's tweets (I can't read the twiX thread)

Sport England said transgender inclusion in sport was a 'challenging and emotive area of policy we have always understood and accepted that there are a wide range of personal views'.

Which is just gobsmackingly at odds with what Wolton has been up to. Unless the sentence was cut off and it actually ended '....most of which we ignore.'

Sport England said transgender inclusion in sport was a 'challenging and emotive area of policy we have always understood and accepted that there are a wide range of personal views'.

Whether or not to include trans people in sport isn't, afaik, in question.

It's whether having certain feelings makes someone a different sex. I personally don't find that a challenging question.... maybe I should be the boss?

Sport England said transgender inclusion in sport was a 'challenging and emotive area of policy we have always understood and accepted that there are a wide range of personal views'.

Hmm personal views.

I agree. It's pretty straight forward.

Are women real humans who should get their own sport, or are they a NPC resource for male feelings and needs?

If you find that question 'challenging' and 'emotive' I would suggest that you're a misogynist twit.

Here’s what the ET Judgment says about the events.

“This Claimant’s response to the complaint dated 23 November 2020

61. The Claimant has said that she was naively unaware that any posts she had shared or liked, any petitions she had signed, or any organisations to whom she had donated, were discriminatory or offensive. She said that she had not fully read or analysed the content some of the articles or links before posting. She acknowledged showing a lack of judgement in her use of social media. The Claimant said that she had removed all posts and unfriended any organisations or friends that may share posts to her Facebook account which may be seen as being critical towards minority groups. She said that she intended to access training around LGBT+ issues.

62. Attached to the response was a statement from Jackie Gilroy, the Claimant’s Team Manager (Ms Gilroy), to say that she was confident that the Claimant had never practised in a discriminatory way and that her work with minority groups was exemplary. Ms Gilroy said that the Claimant had readily and unprompted acknowledged that she now realised that her posts on Facebook were ill considered, but she understood that she was taking part in a wider debate and it was never her intention to discriminate against any group. Ms Gilroy said that the Claimant had now assured her that she had removed these posts and that her profile does not reveal her profession in any way.”

And then this…

“The First Respondent becomes aware and concerned

95. On 22 July 2021 Ms Gruska, who had replaced Ms Gilroy as the Claimant’s manager, sent Ms Barry the Second Respondent’s letter confirming that the Claimant’s case had been closed without a hearing with a warning apply to her registration, and attaching the decision and the investigation report. Later that day at 16:06 Ms Barry sent the investigation report to Senel Arkut, Director of Health Partnerships (Ms Arkut) with a covering email indicating that the Claimant’s immediate managers had no concerns about her practice. Ms Arkut forwarded the email at 16:07, without comment, to Ms Flaherty and Ms Ffrench. The Claimant was asked to attend a Teams meeting that afternoon and suspended on gross misconduct charges.”

And then

“The Claimant’s letter of suspension dated 22 July 2021

98. Mr Arkut advised the Claimant that she had been suspended with immediate effect pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation under the Council’s Disciplinary Code. The Claimant was advised that the serious allegations could, if substantiated, constitute gross misconduct under the Council’s Disciplinary Code on the grounds of: • Bringing the Council into serious dispute. • A breach of trust and confidence. The suspension letter echoed the charges brought by the Second Respondent. Ms Barry was also suspended that day.”

And finally

“Lifting of the suspensions of Ms Gilroy and Ms Barry by the First Respondent

127. Ms Barry, who have been suspended on 11 November 2021 and Ms Gilroy, who have been suspended on 2 November 2021, on the grounds that they had failed to report concerns regarding the Claimant’s allegedly discriminatory posts, were informed that their suspensions would be lifted and that Ms Barry could return to work on 2 February 2022 and Ms Gilroy on 10 March 2022.”

Particularly interesting is this section of the Tribunal judgment.

“Mr Noyce’s evidence

88. At paragraph 10 in his witness statement he says that Case Examiners do not make findings of fact but instead apply the “realistic prospect” test. At paragraph 12 he said that they took account of the fact that the complaint itself demonstrated that the Claimant’s social media posts had caused offence to that individual (Mr Wolton).

89. In response to a question in cross examination Mr Noyce appeared to accept that Jack Aitken, investigator (Mr Aitken) and Mr Wolton were known to each other and had a shared social history but he made it clear that this was not known to him at the time. He retracted this statement during re-examination. Nevertheless, we consider that the initial response given would appear to indicate a level of awareness by Mr Noyce that there was more than a mere professional acquaintance between Mr Aitken and Mr Wolton.

90. In response to a question in cross examination Mr Noyce stated that he and Ms Martin had not discussed the Forstater case as their role was to examine the Claimant’s beliefs in relation to this case.

91. He suggested that a particular concern regarding the Claimant’s Facebook posts was that it included the Claimant’s children’s school. However, we consider that this represented a significant and inappropriate heightened concern regarding the nature of the Claimant’s posts. It should have been apparent given the limited number of the Claimant’s Facebook friends that the communications were solely in respect of her children’s schooling rather than any intent by her to proselytize her gender critical views to schools more widely.

92. Mr Noyce said that there was no evidence that Mr Wolton was a trans activist. However, we consider that this represented a failure by Mr Noyce and others to undertake an appropriately balanced and objective assessment of the complainant’s motivations, in the context of the offence he claimed to have experienced, in respect of the Claimant’s own posts. For example, no research been undertaken online as to Mr Wolton’s social media posts.”

127. Ms Barry, who have been suspended on 11 November 2021 and Ms Gilroy, who have been suspended on 2 November 2021, on the grounds that they had failed to report concerns regarding the Claimant’s allegedly discriminatory posts, were informed that their suspensions would be lifted and that Ms Barry could return to work on 2 February 2022 and Ms Gilroy on 10 March 2022.”

Those are long suspensions and for what? Not behaving like the Stasi basically.