Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

There are plenty of posters crying out with don’t talk about it. And ‘no one cares’.

Plenty ready to let activists continue, or encouraging it.

Fantastic post. This is blindingly obvious when it's spelled out.

The most chilling thing in RMs case was, for me, the colleagues censured (were they actually suspended?) for failing to report her facebook posts.

Congratulations Rachel and team. I was interested in the comments in this judgement which challenged the acceptance by Rachel's employer (Westminster) and SWE that Mr Wolcot's complaint was as a member of the public, without picking up on their history of trans activism and TRA social media public postings. Its incredible that these were missed by tghe investigator or in fact anyone in the profession given than Mr Wolcot was runner up for a Social Work award as recently as 2021 and appears to have led work in trans-affirming areas since 2014. This was a new award for 2021 (interesting title - see below). At the time Mr Wolton was working as CEO of Transplus (so I assume the award was for trans activism).

This the member of the public making the complaint was an award-winning Social Justice Advocate in the area of their complaint. Wow!

Social justice advocate award (supported by BASW):
Aedan Wolton, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (silver)

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/11/18/social-worker-of-the-year-awards-winners-unveiled/

We got here via a campaign of targeted witch-hunts like the one that Rachel Meade was subjected to by TRA campaigner Woolton, in workplaces and across political parties, along with media campaigns promoting the “most oppressed” ever rhetoric.

Late to the party, but bloody glad she won!

Yes, after one of them forwarded the SWE report on to more senior colleagues, they were suspended from early / mid November to Feb / March.

Up thread somewhere I’ve quoted the relevant paras from the judgment.

The most chilling thing in RMs case was, for me, the colleagues censured (were they actually suspended?) for failing to report her facebook posts.

It is like the Stasi, it really is. I'm almost surprised at this point that SWE didn't instigate struggle sessions for people who believe in biology.

That's probably part of CPD.

😂I'm laughing part of me wants to cry as I really wouldn't be surprised if you're right. There's someone in HR planning it as we speak.

By the way people have until 12th March 2024 to comment on the Government draft guidance to schools on these issues. The more people who comment the better ( and also see https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/12/19/gender-questioning-children-guidance-schools-colleges/ )

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/gender-questioning-children-draft-schools-and-colleges-guidance

The most chilling thing in RMs case was, for me, the colleagues censured (were they actually suspended?) for failing to report her facebook posts.

This would have been based on safeguarding training - and yes is extremely chilling but also illustrates how very deep the rot has gone from stonewall's brainwashing.

And also illustrates how much de programming needs to be done to undone this

And every time there is a win like this, or progress such as the trans guidelines and Kemi storming the house in a show of glorious talent on this subject, I then see what's actually happening on the coal / chalk face.

Far too many LAs, CAHMS, social work teams are so convinced of the ideology, to the extent that they are told to report on each other as a safeguarding concern, when the entire opposite is true, that it's clear we still have a very long way to go.

*undo this

When something becomes insitutionalised and takes hold it takes a long time for those patterns of thought and behaviour to shift. So even when these ideas are challenged at the root - the outer manifestations of that idea have already solidified.

Using the analogy of clothing fashion: every year designers in effect 'create' the following year's clothing trends and fashions and effectively dictate what is available to buy in the shops. They may design and come up with something new every year, but what you tend to see is that 'people on the street' are still wearing the clothing fashions that were on trend quite a few years before. They have become comfortable with a certain look and it takes a long time for them to move on.

Thanks for this, I’ve responded

Just generally I’m struck by the divergence with the SNP who, on another thread, are using the threat of parents committing a crime in the case of children and gender

Scary totalitarian stuff

I then see what's actually happening on the coal / chalk face.**

This ^^

The perpetuation of mindless repeating of #bekind isn’t going away anytime soon. On the one hand, professionally, in my place of HE, the campaigns and talks and boundary blurring increases day by day. One small example is how students are encouraged to and do increasingly and routinely share their pronouns and the LGB are only a passing mention in the LGBTQ+ talks.

On the personal side, I’m aware that a TW friend of DCs actively encourages other young autistic men they meet online to think they’re trans. Then they encourage each other to take CSHs secured online never seeing a HCP. In turn, they encourage others. All very stereotypical based.

It really is unnecessary for the keyboard warriors who like to jump into these threads to scold because, IMO, the ‘debate’ has been won by their side. There are tiny wins such as Rachel where legal lines are held, but those people in SWE or WCC won’t have had any changes in their thinking on the subject. They’ll only look for more subtle means to punish the infidels.

I understand what you're saying @RebelliousCow but it's not enough for children and keeping children safe.

This win, and the proposed trans guidelines (if they go though,) are significant for professionals and parents to be able to discuss opinions and points of view here, without fear of investigation, though fear of social backlash or being 'heard/ acknowledged' if surrounded by 'believers' could still be a personal issue that silences them.

It is still not a recognised fact in safeguarding statutory guidance, which schools and SW follow, and are trained in, that trans identities can be a safeguarding concern in themselves.

In that it could indicate grooming, csa, trauma and even bullying for gender nonconformity (I know of a teen who has done this thanks to years of being confused with being a boy simply as "it's easier.")

I'm delighted that Rachel won the case, obviously, as simply being able to discuss issues is well over due and hugely significant. it's the tip of the iceberg.

A fair and reasonable judgement for Rachel and I note WCC has apologised and will not be appealing. However the response from SWE is appalling (though given their previous disingenuous behaviour hardly surprising). Heads should roll - but doubt they will! If anyone needs retraining it’s SWE et al!

Is gardening still required for the damages hearing?

@DrBlackbird my school has recently switched from LA delivered safeguarding to a business who delivers it.

That's a fucking outside provider.

We've got to make this statutory. "Rights to a belief" isn't enough for the children. Both this and the schools guidance is for the staff, the parents and to remind everyone what the law actually is.

Unfortunately that can probably only come from a public inquiry.

Thank you. Absolutely horrifying.

Seconding how clearly this positions the imbalance that’s occurring in the workplace and how far it is from neutrality.

@WarriorN our training on human rights has also been outsourced and that company has incorrectly represented the protected characteristics with an a la SW version. However, I fully admit that I’d be too scared of the repercussions to send an email questioning the training. Not even sure who to question as it’s not evident which department in the university commissioned and approved the training. You’d hope the law department would have something to say but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

What is extraordinary is that first Liz Truss and then Kemi have been very vocal about the importance of protecting women's rights, and their desire to see Stonewall influence reduced. Boris, after a couple of U turns confirmed his support, and Rishi has been clear about his belief in biological sex.

But people within the public sector don't seem to be listening. Some will be "Tories are evil bigots, so automatically wrong" but the extent to which clear Government signals are being ignored is extraordinary. This cannot be in the interest of either the current Government or the "Government in waiting".

There is an apparatus. There is a Chief Social Worker for Children and Families. I hope she has read Cass. She needs to start talking to the regulatory bodies and they need to clarify their guidance so it is in line with both the law and with Government policy.

Yes Frood describes it really well.

Beliefs and opinions aren't going to keep children safe.

I think that's why I always had issues with Maya's win in terms of the 'belief' factor - whist being immensely valuable, it doesn't transfer to or directly impact child safeguarding.

It's a very important first step on what is a hike from Lands End to John O Groats. (And is likely to grind to a halt at Gretna.)

It's that distinction between academic freedom and 'free speech /debate' verses child safeguarding. The rules have to be completely different. Child safeguarding can't be theory based.

I'm in the same boat @DrBlackbird. It's really quite concerning.

I am very glad that this exists though, as it is an NHSE endorsed training module produced by the NHS and informed by the Cass review.

For under 18s, it is a change in direction from instant affirmation and includes the need to be mindful of underlying issues. Fairly In line with proposed school guidelines.

It's still not statutory safeguarding but helps to illustrate that these aren't "opinions and beliefs" of bigots but are nhs evidenced/ practise.

Apparently it's it's for all nhs professionals working with children and young people, as well as those working in education settings, teachers, education staff, parents and carers.

www.minded.org.uk/

www.minded.org.uk/Catalogue/Index?HierarchyId=0_59819&programmeId=59819

Crowd J indicates that RM is still >£70K from her stretch target so that is the current shortfall.

The judgement has landed and I am vindicated!
My employer, Westminster City Council and my professional regulator, Social Work England were wrong to have sanctioned me for expressing my legitimate views around sex and gender.
It’s been a very difficult and harrowing three years for me and my family. I would not have got to this point, come so far, or achieved justice without your incredible support and generosity. I cannot thank you enough.
But, we still need to raise funds to cover the shortfall in my legal costs and representation for the two-day remedy hearing in February. This is important not just for me, but for the whole social work profession, and everyone who believes in freedom of speech on equality and gender critical issues. I want to ask the tribunal to make recommendations that will help Social Work England and my employer to take the lessons from this process properly on board, and make sure that everyone concerned with managing and regulating social workers understands that we are entitled both to hold and to express sex realist views for the greater good, and to protect those who are vulnerable in society.