Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

Does anyone have a link to the remedy judgement?

Here you are…

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/607d6cba0ef43a2dbb27df45/t/65a00a0f1492d57d53820bba/1704987151937/2200179+2022+-+Judgment+11+1+24.pdf

The infiltration of ideology into our institutions is real cause for worry. They are so entrenched that accepting the judgment which runs counter to their ideology is difficult.

It seems all institutions and trade unions have just done a hook, line and sinker with no debate. A sign of things to come, if you think Labour will have rolled over and accepted GC views, think again ( I have always voted left, like many of you). This is left ideology with people leaving Universities and running institutions without knowing what is happening out here. They haven't got a clue. I am angry. When will it become obvious that we are protected, are they just hoping we'll run out of funds and they can then call it a win because no more court cases. In whose world is that justice.

Monday morning rant

@Signalbox Thank you

I suspect it will be the same as the Jo Phoenix judgement - silence.

Now that ‘message’ would be much more likely to sink in with HR and EDI staff. Otherwise I just can’t see this having any impact on HR in other sectors. Maybe if it was the front page of a professional journal but even then, I’m not convinced.

Edited to add this ruling is nevertheless welcome and a vindication for Racheal. Can’t believe how many supposedly intelligent people are ready to engage in this witch hunt of silencing those who deign to believe in sex over gender.

Worth every penny of the funding.

The implications of this ruling and the ET's recommendation for retraining needs to spread.

It will be interesting to see which organisations are employed to deliver the training.

😁 joyous!!

I'm glad Rachel was awarded the money.

I hope the message it gives to other organisations along with the judges words give them pause for thought and that other organisations and HR departments everywhere start to give their head a bloody good wobble.

Huge congratulations to Rachel. Hope she does something relaxing with her compensation.

I have tried to find the remedies judgement, does anyone have a link? The link above is for the judgement.

I hope Rachel spends some of the money on a lovely holiday.

Have any of the opposing counsel twiXed anything?

I won't hold my breath.

Just realised this is the wrong determination. I can't find the remedy judgment.

Being presented by RMW must be like Jessica Fletcher turning up in your vicinity.

Anyone employing RMW for a case linked to trans ideology should be aware that their barrister as a huge conflict of interest. They see the law through their very specific perspective and are likely to push to fight cases that would be in their interest.

I can't find it either, maybe it has not been published yet.

I hope the civil service are taking note.

Ooh, unfair. It might be the kiss of death, but at least you'd get to meet lovely Angela Lansbury.

Fair point. The difference is the lack of positives in the first scenario!

According to LegalFeminist on Twitter the remedy judgment won't be available until tomorrow.

Any proper journalist ought to be tripping across to Sport England to ask them about their EDI and whether there are any lessons to be learned.

I wonder what happened to the original whistleblower (who I seem to remember didn't have to testify)?

Congratulations Rachel. £58k isn't much for two years of hell, but every penny is fully deserved.

Sooner or later, organisations have to start joining the dots made by this steady flow of victories at ETs / EATs over the right to state our beliefs, and open their eyes to the fact that Stonewall's guidance is not just worthless, it's actively damaging to their reputation and their bottom line.

Here's some training for free, SWE: read the Equality Act, note what is and what is not a protected characteristic, and remember that bullying women for reiterating biological facts is an expensive mistake.

Fantastic for Rachel and very well deserved vindication.

However, the bigger issue IMO is that SWE are absolutely captured, even their latest statement makes this clear.

Do we really think 58K is going to change anything? It's clear they have an agenda very different to their actual supposed function, but who is going to hold them to account? Where's the Minister for Social Care in this?

Penalising social workers for talking about the reality of biological sex not only is against their free speech but renders it impossible for them to properly do the job they are supposed to do. Sex is important for safeguarding. If you can't name it, you can't safeguard effectively.

SWE seems to be captured by an ideology to the point that their main aim is the furtherance of that ideology not the protection of those needing social workers. The fact that WCC issued a much more gracious apology and indication they would learn from this is good - but SWE are meant to be the ones holding to account, not the one forcing front line workers to adhere to an evidence free ideology that can be harmful to vulnerable people (as we've seen in Cass).

What's actually going to make them change? I'm sure by now it's only true believers in positions of power in SWE and their lack of apology to RM couldn't make it clearer that they fully intent to ignore the court. Does anyone think they're going to do proper training about belief (not 'stonewall-like' fantasy training), or even better how the inability to challenge beliefs renders safeguarding impossible? I.e. renders social workers unable to do their job?

Who's making sure they change? Because from where I'm sitting it's no-one, and safeguarding is the casualty.

Are there sanctions if SWE don't (for example) get the training sorted?
Has this case drawn attention to some breach of their statutory duty?

I've just read the whole (excellent) judgement but was struck at one point - both @LoobiJee and@Karensalright noted the judge being "surprised" that trans issues were apparently not discussed at either the council nor at SWE.

Judge Nicolle was an associate, then a partner at Dentons from 2001-13. I know the Dentons pro-bono report on trans stuff wasn't published till 2019, which probably means their relationship with the trans organisation they were working with started around 2017-18. He then went on to be a partner at the litigation specialist firm Stewarts until he left to become a judge in 2019. Stewarts records on its website not just the annual celebration of Pride, but also LGBT+ History Month (https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/stewarts-celebrates-lgbt-history-month/)

I can imagine that coming from his own work experiences, he would have sat through endless DEI trainings and HR-led diversity, pride and LGBTQ+ visibility events. I'm sure he found the assertion by the council and the SWE employees that it just wasn't discussed or talked about at work to be "surprising" aka. judicial language for total bullshit.

Sport England's strategic lead for equality, Aedan Wolton?

Any reason to think AW has moved on? I'd like to think Sport England is considering the impact of AW on SWE and WCC, and, to some extent, enabling them to bring themselves into disrepute but I see no evidence of that degree of reflective capacity.

'Looked after' children are over represented in identifying themselves as trans. I don't have a link but one of the Julies (not Andrews) has talked about this. Considering how captured SWE is, this is hardly surprising. I wonder which is chicken, which is egg? Are SW allies influencing their vulnerable kids or vice versa, or a bit of both.

It's hard to think of a cohort of children more marginalised and vulnerable than those in care, especially if you throw in abuse and/or disability and/or ND. If one of these kids falls in with a glitter family there could be literally no-one to apply the brakes for them. The SW will be either cheering them on or too scared to do anything about a possible car crash.

Haven't there been instances of SW threatening families who have been reluctant to affirm when a child has claimed to be trans. Even threatening to remove them from their home?