Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

I can't believe they haven't apologised.

Brilliant I’ve been thinking McCarthyism too

Hmm i noticed at the end that he stated that they were still considering their options regarding the judgement ergo an appeal.

Probably to do with tribunals jurisdiction. Could be interesting …

OU VC initially made out that OU would consider their options re: the tribunal findings from the Jo Phoenix case.

CGD made noises about contesting the final Forstater judgment.

GCC made noises about the Bailey judgment.

I hope it's the same rattles from SWE although, as PPs remark, it may be indicative of just how captured an organisation they are. Not unexpected when Lord "please come to tea at the House of Lords and address us, Karen Jones" was Chair of SWE until March 2023 but still tiresome.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3180059-To-think-if-youve-killed-raped-women-we-dont-give-a-flying-fuck-what-you-think-on-any-given-matter

it may be indicative of just how captured an organisation they are

and the conflict of interest of their barrister…

This make me wonder at what point authenticity and commitment and lived experience turns into conflict of interest.

A question for every organisation that swallowed whole the guidance and training they took from LGBTetc groups.

LGBT groups are clearly conflicted. They are activist groups pushing for their own priorities. Something that everyone seems to have forgotten. We don’t invite other activist groups to set agendas/write policies that affect everyone like this. Hence their guidelines never balance competing rights; women and girls are simply a resource to be used.

They are still focusing on the 'how to raise concerns about social workers' use of social media correctly' aspect, as though everything would have been hunky dory if only they'd had a slightly different process for dealing with complaints.

They are completely blind to the fact that there was no justification for raising concerns. Rachel was absolutely entitled to use her social media in the way that she did, in order to express her protected and WORIADS belief. Their mealy-mouthed nod to that belief being protected doesn't mitigate against the core of their statement which is essentially "next time someone says something we think is twansphobic we'll make sure we have a process in place to nail them to the wall more firmly and precisely".

What a bunch of captured, led-by-the-nose barnacles.

Barnacles?

You mean the biggest dicks (proportionately speaking) known to nature?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080206150703.htm

Haha! I don't think I knew that, or if I did I'd forgotten. It was just the first word that came into my head but turns out it's entirely apposite 😎

Interestingly this hasn't been reported in Community Care, the main social work magazine. I've helpfully sent them the remedy link and drawn their attention to the comments in the aggravated damages section.

Community Care just released an article.
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/05/03/social-work-england-committed-abuse-of-power-in-punishing-practitioners-gender-critical-beliefs/?utm_campaign=CC%20Snapshot%2003%20May%202024&utm_content=Top%20story&utm_term=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.communitycare.co.uk%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2Fsocial-work-england-committed-abuse-of-power-in-punishing-practitioners-gender-critical-beliefs%2F&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Community%20Care

Love this paragraph:

"The Professional Standards Authority, which oversees Social Work England, said, in a statement: “Through our performance review process, (in which we assess regulators against the Standards of Good Regulation), we will monitor how Social Work England responds to the Employment Tribunal judgment and its recommendation. Social Work England’s performance review period runs from January to December and we aim to report on this by the end of March each year.”

Beautifully put. 🎯

And it's their skewed interpretation of the law, as well.

Useful reminder from Marzipan that Rachel still needs to defray the costs of winning this case (yes, our various justice mechanisms are expensive even for people who win).