Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

Helleofabore · Today 09:16

Ah yes, the putative vocal chord surgery, it's coming back to me now.

In 1990 I had a beloved career taken away from me because I was trans…[Deleted sensitive material.]…Some days I didn’t get out of bed. But with the help of dear friends I pulled myself round.

https://twitter.com/moira_robin/status/1668375859672100865

It's quite extraordinary that, given that experience, RMW seems to lack insight into the emotional devastation and loss of career that Rachel Meade (and so many others) have faced. And that they were unable to grieve but had to endure these long out processes and financial jeopardy in order to face down people like RMW and achieve their vindications.

The sizes of awards are negligible relative to the harms that these women and their families face during these processes.

The sizes of awards are negligible relative to the harms that these women and their families face during these processes.

This is so true, we just have to live in hope that one day there will be a proper Post Office style reckoning where the brave women who've stood up for safeguarding* will be properly compensated.

*because being able to discuss changes in the law and how it impacts vulnerable people is part of being able to safeguard effectively

All of this. 100%.

So many captured institutions and the civil service is just as bad.

There need to be prosecutions for those in management - they have failed to be impartial and they have failed to discharge their duties. This behaviour will have harmed end users of the service. I am sure there will be vulnerable people supported by Rachel whose support was just taken away when she was wrongly suspended. I wonder what has happened to those people.

Meanwhile, in the Meade case the tribunal found that she didn’t bring her views to work, nor did she identify herself as a social worker on social media

So does this mean that the complainant (the one complaining about the social media) was wrong to complain and it should never have been entertained?

Or were they right to complain even though she didn't bring her views to work etc?

Same chambers as Ben Cooper.

https://oldsquare.co.uk/people/robin-white/

This case, despite its significance being downplayed as was anticipated, is a very clear warning that all those who are making complaints to workplaces about what is posted in private fb groups are very much in the wrong. However, I would expect that this case will be used to support future claims where the boundaries will be tested regarding social media interactions.

And that premise that it is not unreasonable for someone to have a discussion about something that is topical even if the view is opposing the popular opinion will surely have weight in cases in the future such as James Esses’ case and the like.

There are many points relevant to the case that can be used in the future.

Not if your entire department and/or service is adhering to their stonewall training like good little bots.

i think it’ll take a decade to unpick and during that time people will leave jobs because of this sort of thing.

it seems to me that Rachel Meade was a good SW. it seems to me that everyone ho lands up in trouble over gender is good at their job, and those who champion gender are more often than not, well, not.

<bites tongue about legal profession>

it seems to me that Rachel Meade was a good SW. it seems to me that everyone who lands up in trouble over gender is good at their job, and those who champion gender are more often than not, well, not.

I have noticed an abundance of evidence that supports this.

Gender ideology is not only causing direct harms but also indirect harm in the amount of pointless time it causes public servants to spend following incoherent McCarthyist thought processes. ANYONE who thinks what happened to Rachel was reasonable really should not be in a position where they can adversely affect the lives of vulnerable people.

Surely that won't be possible any more? They must follow the law, in their professional standards and practices. Won't a judge look at such a case and say, "Haven't you learned from the last one?" and be punitive?

The case wasn't about person-facing practice. It was about Rachel's personal beliefs and the emphasis was that she did not bring these to work.

Blackpool is an epicentre for children's homes. Someone made an absolute fortune setting them up there than selling the company on. I think lots of former b&b and holiday apartments just needed a few tweeks and they were good to go. The council, last I heard, were going to change the planning laws to stop any more being set up. Kids were (are?) being bussed in from miles away because there was a bed for them in Blackpool.

I don't know how such an impoverished LA could afford the infrastructure to support these kids (many of whom will be miles from their families). Or how they could attract high quality staff.

I suspect a motivated tra SW would be there for loads of kids. They don't have to do anything difficult, they just affirm and sprinkle glitter.

Meanwhile, in the Meade case the tribunal found that she didn’t bring her views to work

I don’t really understand the relevance of this. Even if Rachel had brought her views to work so what? The workplace is awash with gender ideology so why shouldn’t GC be equally acceptable? Also aren’t we supposed to be bringing our whole selves to work or does that only apply to men who want to masturbate in a rubber gimp suit in the ladies but not to women who recognise that there are 2 sexes.

Children in foster care were one of the first target groups for trans activists to make money out of, producing reality defying, dangerous policy for staff and even for young people. Once you look at the way vulnerable children & young people were the priority to be targeted for re education, you can't unsee it.

Reading more I can understand what motivates RMW but that doesn’t mean the legal advice is sound and that failure is costing money and impacting the lives of women such as Rachel

And many more generally

We need to disconnect Stonewall advice as it leads to damages

Children in foster care were one of the first target groups for trans activists to make money out of, producing reality defying, dangerous policy for staff and even for young people. Once you look at the way vulnerable children & young people were the priority to be targeted for re education, you can't unsee it.

Yep. Children longing for love and attention and to be special in someone's eyes ...

I don’t really understand the relevance of this. Even if Rachel had brought her views to work so what? The workplace is awash with gender ideology so why shouldn’t GC be equally acceptable? Also aren’t we supposed to be bringing our whole selves to work or does that only apply to men who want to masturbate in a rubber gimp suit in the ladies but not to women who recognise that there are 2 sexes.

The workplace sees gender ideology as good practice. SWE seems GCF as bad, discriminatory, phobic practice.

It is a pure double standard but therein lies the difference.

And remember social workers work with people. This is not about Jill in Accounts having particular beliefs.

Pronouns

There need to be prosecutions for those in management - they have failed to be impartial and they have failed to discharge their duties.

As I see it, they have been actively malignant, rather than failing to act impartially. That's far worse than being slap-dash and negligent in their duties.

But also that every single post she made was not transphobic and that it is unreasonable to consider gc to be transphobic.
And that it is not equivalent with racism.
Those are major major findings. The not bringing to work is not relevant? It was found what she said did not bring into disrepute.

They talk about it in this way so they can continue to claim that manifesting your gender critical beliefs in any way in the workplace isn't allowed, and you are only allowed to be silently "transphobic".

Ignoring that both Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey did express their gender critical beliefs in the workplace and were discriminated against and the tribunals found in their favour. As did Denise Fahmy at the Arts Council.

I think so too. This case is great news, and the tide is turning, but there will still be much work to be done on the back of it.

Ignoring that both Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey did express their gender critical beliefs in the workplace and were discriminated against and the tribunals found in their favour. As did Denise Fahmy at the Arts Council.

They did but not in the same way that those in the health and caring professions are likely to in working with vulnerable children and adults.

I looked at SWE twiX account yesterday to see if they'd posted anything about the case. But I'm not on twiX so i wound up scrolling through an assortment of elderly tweets. Iiuc SWE was set up around November 2019 to replace a previous body. It will have been a plum time for gender ideology to be hardwired into it.

Put another way, it's one thing to express CGBs to a colleague and quite another to someone you have a worker and client relationship with.

The Meade judgement did not test this.