Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

Looks like the person to contact is the (interim) Chair of the Board of Social Work England, Dr Andrew McCulloch.

'Contact us:
1 North Bank
Blonk Street
Sheffield, S3 8JY
Telephone: +44 (0)808 196 2274
Email: [email protected]'

It's the Chair's job to hold the CEO to account.

https://www.socialworkengland.org.uk/about/board/board-members/

Remedy judgment has now appeared on RM's Crowdjustice page.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:0cc63664-02e2-4708-b95a-f546d81eef51

Contempt of court?

Farrell gets a good kicking… judge held on “spiteful”, “vindictive” behaviour!!!!

@SaffronSpice @Snowypeaks The wording was “recommended that”

But advised Meade should be sent training materials. So no sanctions possible, and SWE can and probably will ignore that.

However, i doubt they will risk such a partisan approach in future complaints.

I don't think judges toss words like 'spiteful' and 'vindictive' around lightly.

I have very low tolerance for legalese, but I read the judgement. Much of it fell out of my head, pretty much as soon as I'd read it, but SWE seemed to be roundly criticised for their intransigence following the original judgement.

They deal with some of the most vulnerable people in the country. They receive a lot of money from the taxpayer. Shouldn't the minister responsible for them be saying something?

They won't risk such an OVERT partisan approach. They'll be more subtle. Most women pushed out because they believe in scientific reality won't take a case to ET - you need to be enormously resilient to do so.

Surely judgements such as this do need to at some point make Ministers wake up and realise what happens when people adhering to one non-evidence based cult all end up in senior leadership positions in an organisation and are determined to push things that are against safeguarding law. Surely some senior managers should be held accountable for this pretty damning loss? Why has no-one lost their job? The non apology word salad in response is not good enough for a start.

Brilliant news. RM deserves double. I hope she manages to do something nice with at least some of it.

And yes, worrying that these organisations are so captured they will resist any of the remedy attempts, doubtless convinced that they have the moral high ground while they do so.

The exemplary damages are great for the message they send, but very little in terms of money-to-live-on. On her Crowdjustice page (with the link to the judgment) Rachel has pointed out that the Tribunal did not award costs and so there is a shortfall that she still has to find.

It seems odd on one hand to have such an excoriating judgment and on the other to leave the person who has obviously been so badly treated with legal debts.

According to the update on her crowdfunder page she still has a substantial deficit for the legal fees so that £58K will be swallowed and she still needs more.

ETA: xd with Mmmnotsure

Oh, that is satisfying.

I didn't realise @RethinkingLife. Think I might need to celebrate with some gardening if the garden is still open

Yes. Could she pursue for costs?

No - costs have not been awarded (and will not be). The process as a punishment will likely be successful unfortunately!

Damn.

thanks, I shall.garden a bit more.

I could be incorrect but usually in such cases the complainant can get an indemnity policy to cover legal costs, of proceedings, that are not covered by other sources ie fundraising.

What, it seems to me, was at issue was, costs incurred at having a legal representative during the investigation process which from what i can gather could not be claimed.

This is what grips my shit with the 'The GC movement is funded by the Alt Right' narrative. Rachel's EA has been crowdfunded by 5446 pledges totalling £139,345. This is an average of £25.58 per pledge. This is women digging down the back of the sofa to support a sister who is being fucked over. She still needs to find £60K. Time to dig down the sofa again.

We have to divvy up because otherwise the Rachels, Mayas, Alisons Jos and, ultimately, all of us, will lose.

Thanks.

para 86, on Social Work England

“We consider that the Second Respondent’s actions constituted a serious abuse of its power as a regulatory body. We accept Ms Cunningham’s argument that the Second Respondent has allowed its processes to be subverted to punish and supress the Claimant’s lawful political speech, and to do so on grounds of her protected beliefs. In doing so it has violated her Convention rights to freedom of belief and expression and combined that violation with unlawful discrimination. “

Para 81 on her employer

“We consider that the comments made by Ms Farrell on behalf of the First Respondent in the investigation report dated 6 December 2021 were spiteful or vindictive. We refer to paragraphs 219-221 of the liability judgment and particularly to her contention that the Claimant’s change of position raised serious concerns regarding her integrity and honesty and further that the Second Respondent may wish to review its outcome in light of the Claimant’s current position. We consider that this was vindictive and was predicated on Ms Farrell’s personal opinion that the Claimant’s gender critical beliefs were unacceptable.”

RethinkingLife · Yesterday 17:57

According to the update on her crowdfunder page she still has a substantial deficit for the legal fees so that £58K will be swallowed and she still needs more.

It's a travesty that in such an egregious case of sustained harassment and bullying does not have to be paid for by the guilty party. It's absolutely sickening. Why are the perpetrators still employed - it beggars belief. Surely it's misfeasance in a public office?

Agreed.

Suzanne Moore has covered this in the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/04/30/stonewall-guidance-no-basis-in-law-gender-critical-tribunal/

https://archive.ph/1qhL2 bypass the paywall

I'm glad she mentioned 'looked after' children. If anyone has a subscription, assuming it hasn't already been done and the rules allow, please consider mentioning the shortfall in the crowdfunder in the comments. It might bring in a few quid.

https://archive.ph/1qhL2

Thank you for the link, that's a powerful article. "Banal McCarthyism" succinctly pinpoints what has been happening to professional women.

New SWE statement. Still no apology and quite a lot of guff.

www.socialworkengland.org.uk/news/further-statement-on-tribunal/

Note:

This will be delivered by an external legal provider within the next 2 months

Garden Court chambers for the win??