Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are hoping to live tweet the employment tribunal of Rachel Meade vs Westminster City Council today, from some point after 2 pm. See background and our earlier coverage here. tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/rm-v-westmin…

We will be applying for permission to live tweet (expected to be granted) and for remote access to the proceedings to facilitate the objectives of open justice. Assuming we are granted permission, abbreviations follow.

Claimant: Rachel Meade - RM or C
Barrister: Naomi Cunningham - NC
Respondents: Westminster City Council - WCC
Social Work England - SWE
Barrister: Simon Cheetham - SC

We hope to be back live tweeting from shortly past 2 pm.

We have been given permission to live tweet. Various procedural matters have been dealt with. Now discussing an anonymity order with regard to comparators. Various redactions, instructions to respect anonymity.

Employment judge - EJ Nicolle (presiding)
Abbreviated - EJ

EJ - copies of evidence bundles available in hard copy for inspection by members of the public attending.
SC - a concern over the anonymity and the extent of the redactions, we will come back to you on that, not going to be an issue today.
EJ - any other issues?

SC - I was instructed very late and I have a professional engagement on Tuesday,
EJ - we will rise at 12:15 that day. I am not available to sit on Thursday until 1 pm.
NC - the timetable is tight, is there any possibility to extend hours, sit earlier etc.
EJ - we will see.

EJ - over to the claimants RM - will you swear or affirm?
RM - affirm, (does so)
EJ - your first and second witness statements are in front of you, we will sit this afternoon with one short break. NC - do you want to introduce the witness statements.
NC - can you confirm name,

and employment,
RM - Rachel Meade, give employer name
NC - can you confirm your signature on your statement/
SC - organise my questions; a few questions on regulations and rules, then about your complaint against SWE and then WCC.
SC - can we begin at the beginning

and could you open Vol 1 of the bundle, page 204.
EJ - do the page numbers correlate to the electronic version?
SC - yes
SC - referring to employment contract, confirming details of employment. Are you highly experienced social worker?
NC - yes
SC - you are bound by contract

and by your professional standards.
NC - yes
SC - are you familiar with your professional standards in broad terms? I won't be trying to catch you out.
NC - yes, in broad terms.
SC - going to professional standards of SWE. See how they are set out, etc,

draw your attention to 2 para: 1) respect human rights, and 2) promote and respect diversity. Were you familiar with these standards?
RM - yes.
(Apologies, using NC instead of RM)
SC - now referring to prohibited activities including use of social media to bring social work

into disrepute.
RM - yes I am familiar with that.
SC - how do you stay up to date with prof standards
RM - we undertake periodic training
SC - now onto prof stand guidance, I'm not going to test you on it, are you familiar with this
RM - yes, I am
SC - would you have read this

RM - yes,
SC - referring to section on 'knowing the law' please read it to yourself, are you familiar with this
RM - yes
SC - now onto more guidance on social media, allows time to read, also tribunal members......
SC - and is this guidance with which you are familiar?

RM - its' guidance I should have familiarised myself with more frequently.
SC - now on to fitness to practice rules, would you have been familiar with these?
RM - unclear answer.
SC - going to deal first with complaints against SWE.

SC - page ref....reading... am I right that this is a complaint rec'd by SWE, we see that the complainant sets out a complaint and cross references to the prof stans we were just looking at? Suggest that the Tribunal reads the description of what happened -
EJ - agreed

(we do not have the ability to look at the bundle when live tweeting - apologies)

All reading complaint.
SC - we can see the refs to screenshots of online activity, some examples were provided.
RM - yes
SC - do you agree that on the face of it, this is raising sig concerns.
RM - if it is true, yes.
SC - do you also agree that it would bring you into

conflict or breach of prof standard
RM - if it was true yes
SC - do you agree that at this triage stage, there is sufficient to investigate
RM - but they were making various untrue statements and libellous comments about SfW and Graham Linehan.

SC - but the truth of the statements would emerge in an investigation
RM - speaks to statements, EJ interrupts and says that for later.
SC - but sufficient evidence for the criteria for the case to go forward for investigation, do you agree, it met the triage criteria

RM - I see the criteria
SC - do you agree with me that on the face of it, that meets the criteria for investigation.
RM - I disagree because much of what is written is untrue.
SC - you may well be right but until a matter is investigated there is no way to no whether it is

true or untrue?
RM - they could have looked at the various groups referred to and check if they seemed to be a hate group, they did not have to proceed to an investigation
SC - however, investigators were appointed, referring to letter to RM, complaint requiring investigation

SC - grounds for the panel to be engaged, including misconduct, and gives notification to RM of the complaint and what she needs to do.
RM - yes
SC - you provide a response to this, RM's comments. I want to look at this carefully, there is a section to add your comments on each

concern raised and you have the opportunity to respond.
SC - tribunal can read and then I will ask questions.
(Reading)
SC - my question is - do you agree that your first response to your regulator is not that it was false but that you had been naive and you were apologising.

RM - I was very upset and shocked when I got the letter, my professional body was criticising me.
SC - but you did not say that the claim was untrue but that you were taking remedial steps.
RM - I was responding to my professional body and I had no idea that such posts

could be considered discriminatory.
SC - but you were accepting that you had done what you were accused of doing.
RM - I was responding to my regulators;.
SC - but you're not saying that it was all lies were you
RM - I had not seen the posts at this stage

EJ - clarifying, you are saying you hadn't seen the posts.
RM - I didn't know which posts were being complained about.
SC - but you removed them all?
RM - yes, I just panicked.
SC - but you accept SWE would take what you said at face value.
SC - moving on.

SC - one of your complaints was that the investigation was prolonged. Now I'm going to go through things in a systematic manner.
NC - interrupting, I'm not going to put any questions to the SWE witnesses that the investigation was prolonged. We accept the time frame.

SC - that's helpful, let me make a note.
SC - now referring to training that RM referenced in her response to SWE. You have training booked on working with gender diverse and trans people, in January, lets agree what we're looking at - it is the CPD entry for the training above.

CPD - continuing professional development.
Pause while all read the description of the training.

SC - did you expect your regulator to believe your feedback on the training you had?
RM - this was training feedback, not part of the investigation.
SC - is the answer to my question yes, that they would believe your feedback was genuine.
RM - yes
SC - in 1st para

you describe having a much greater understanding, what did you have a greater understanding of?
RM - we were talking about identities in the trans community and the experiences of the trainer
SC - you refer to your reduced understanding of LGBT people, did you feel like your

understanding had increased?
RM - yes the trainer was very open and honest about her experiences.
SC - now ref to an email to RM, 'I have gathered all evidence available, here's the bundle, here's your responsibilities', we can see that there is a summary, and we reach

your responses.
Now, before we look at your responses, when you read the report did you conclude that anything was inaccurate as a record of what had been done and gathered? Was anything wrong?
RM - I felt it was quite difficult, it didn't feel right and it felt uncomfortable,

it didn't feel an accurate reflection or with context, and the context they'd placed on posts etc.
SC - if you thought they were getting it wrong, why didn't you raise it?
RM - it was a really busy time, it was lockdown, I was in a very busy time, I had many things in my

personal life, I tried to get my union involved, they wouldn't responded, I just wanted to make it go away, and I wanted to get on with my job.
SC - I'm not challenging your feelings or the pressures you were under. Ask you again if you agree with me - you did not communicate

that to your regulator?
RM - (sounding distressed) - it was all very difficult, such short time frames and they were asking me some factual questions but then putting awful interpretations on them
SC - do you need a few minutes Miss Meade?
RM - apologises for being emotional

EJ - (offers break, declined)
SC - you see that it says you shared posts unethically,
RM - I admitted I shared posts
SC - you admitted that they were shared unethically
RM - but I pointed out that I didn't think they were discriminatory
SC - but you admitted the regulatory

concerns and described the remedial actions you were taking
RM - yes
SC - do you not agree that you were agreeing with the concerns of the regulator about your conduct
RM - I was agreeing with them that I needed to do something.
SC - but you agreed with them

RM - I was viewing it in a different way.
SC - now I want to look at several examples of the posts. And you'll see why that is. I'm going to ask you about 3 or 4 posts, not to challenge your beliefs, I'm seeking clarifications.
1st post - about swimming, participation of

TW in women's sport.
RM - yes that is correct
SC - does this post fit in with GC beliefs or is it separate?
(not able to see the post)
RM - don't understand
SC - I'm less clear about how this post (not the swimming one) fits within GC beliefs.
RM - I can't remember

the context of this post, its by Transgender Trend so I assume it's about children and young people.
SC - another post, much debated issue......
SC - I'm less clear again (new post) how this reflects gender critical beliefs, reference to pedophiles, I don't understand

RM - its about the predatory nature of pedophiles, that they will seek out loopholes and opportunities to access vulnerable children. Not specifically about trans people but about men.
SC - case moves to case examiner - were they following the correct procedures? It was the

correct procedures because you did not challenge the previous findings against.
Rising for afternoon break.

We have returned.
SC - now submitting an additional page of the bundle that is redacted. Given to EJ, with copies to participants.
EJ - shall we proceed?
SC - we left off with the investigator moving the case to the case examiner? Let's pick up there.

Letter to you, matter been seen by 2 case examiners, and they have recommended for it to proceed.
Pause for reading.
SC - they say that there are 3 options available, accept, propose amendments and reject. Did you accept the proposal
RM - yes
SC - accepted disposal, had you

done that?
RM - yes
SC - did you understand the terms and accept them?
RM - yes
SC - do you accept that you gave no indication to SWE that your acceptance was not genuine.
RM - no
SC - you agree
RM - yes
SC - by this stage, you had not defended your actions and you had

accepted the sanctions imposed.
RM - I didn't defend my actions, but I did say that I didn't understand how they were discriminatory, I tried to make my case about evidence based social work,
EJ - clarifying it was a letter from RM to SWE
SC - we are looking at your regulator

And you had accepted everything by this point?
RM - yes
SC - case management decision, role of case examiners, decision summary, complaint, regulatory concerns, preliminary issues, realistic prospect test, lengthy section setting out evidence, public interest, accepted disposal

SC - a warning order, you've read all of this when you got it, and on the last page, the response from RM and the case examiners response and final decision. Was there anything in that which was factually inaccurate?
RM - in what way, factually inaccurate?

SC - what you had said to your regulator
RM - no, what I had written was what I had written
SC - and had they followed the process properly
RM - there were many things that weren't as I thought them
EJ - we may be conflating process and facts
SC - clarifying

SC - was there anything wrong with the process/
RM - at the time or now?
SC - at the time
RM - no
SC - now moving on to the facts, had they got anything wrong?
RM - after I had signed this and they sanctioned me, and I had reflected and the Forstater judgement had come out

SC - sorry that's not what I was asking you. But do you disagree with the facts and information provided in the summary?
RM - they took different bits and presented them in the summary and chose what to put it, hand picked what information to put in to present a picture.

SC - but what information had you provided to say that you did not accept the disposition.
RM - they did not include my views that what i had said was not discriminatory
SC - I put to you that this is an accurate summary of what you had told them.

RM - I had posted articles from newspapers and I did not understand how that was discriminatory, but my professional regulator had said it was discriminatory, but once I had time to reflect I disagreed.
SC - I didn't ask about that, so lets go on to what happened next.

SC - you asked if you could appeal, pointed out that you had been suspended by your job, I feel quite traumatised by the process. I read that as your employer has acted now you want to appeal.
RM - no, I just wanted the SWE process to be over, I accepted the sanction and it

would be over. I accepted it, and then I was suspended out of the blue but I had kept my line manager informed.
SC - it was the action of your employer that made you reflect
RM - no
SC - now moving on, 'fitness to practice process is run in accordance with our regulations,

there is no route to reopen a case that has been closed by the examiners because the decision has been accepted by the social worker'. So there is no appeal.
RM - yes, I see
SC - you ask for a review based on new evidence, you're now requesting an early review

you're asked to submit the evidence and request a review. There's no suggestion that they are discouraging you from seeking an early review.
RM - yes.
SC - now to RM witness statement, withdrawn that question, back to the narrative.

Let's look at the case examiners re-issuing their report. A report that sets out all the same sections, a letter from the case examiners, you wouldn't have been aware of this at the time, (reading 2nd para) and the last para refers to correcting the fundamental facts

It has been pointed out to the case examiners that some of their evidence, about a 3rd party, was factually wrong. That's why we have another report, we have the response from case examiners, considering appropriate means of disposal, do you say that based on the mistake they

should have reconsidered the entire case against you?
RM - do I say? I think that they should revisit what they've written because some of the evidence was incorrect.
SC - but they have turned their minds turned to it. They still think the sanction is appropriate.

RM - but the Forstater judgement had come out, protecting gender critical beliefs, and they should have been aware of it and given consideration to it.
SC - but on the factual basis, they had no reason to reconsider, the case examiners had an accepted outcome.

RM - But they should have reconsidered the characterisation of various groups, including Fair Play for Women as a hate group.
SC - but the examiner will give evidence that he had no idea that you had asked for an early review and were contesting the outcome.

SC - you requested an early review, based on new evidence.
RM - ys
SC - it wasn't new to you, you were drawing it to the attention of SWE for the first time.
RM - I had done a lot of research and work in the meantime, so much of it was new to you.

* not you me
SC - you requested an early review, receipt was confirmed, but decision will be forthcoming.
RM - yes
SC - do you agree when you bring this new evidence to SWE attention they don't shut you down, they say lets review this. Now they have in front of them

things you wanted to say at the time.
RM - yes
SC - response with conclusion, instructs everyone to read, they tell you what happens next, you were presumably pleased to hear that there was going to be an early review hearing in front of adjudicators?
RM - yes
SC - do you agree

that was the correct process from SWE.
RM - yes
SC - did you have trade union support? Who was your trade union representative? Neil.
RM - Yes, I spoke with him at the beginning, and he suggested I apologise to SWE, and then I got in touch with the union again for support.

SC - a letter that sets out why you weren't getting union support.
RM - yes.
SC - we have a list of issues, one of the issues is that there was a failure to set aside the decision when presented with new evidence. What did you mean by that? Are you telling the tribunal

that it should have been set aside without adjudication?
RM - I don't understand
SC - I'm trying to clarify what your complaint was if there was a complaint at all.
RM - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.

SC - well lets move on.
SC - 19 Nov letter, all instructed to read.

SC - the letter is telling you not that they were reversing their decision to grant early review, but that they were putting it on hold whilst getting legal advice. You will agree that it is important to follow the right route, albeit frustrating?
RM - yes.

SC - further letter from SWE, the examiners have the opportunity to reconsider their decision. The case examiners were not aware of your correspondence with further evidence and your decision to disagree. That was a mistake, it has now been referred back to the case examiners.

RM - yes
SC - it's no part of your case that the mistake referred to was deliberate or done on purpose.
RM - No, but they did not properly look at the evidence, they hadn't considered information in context, looked at the posts.
SC - the mistake is that they hadn't been told

about your request for review.
RM - no, I don't think that was a deliberate mistake.
SC - referring to short executive summary. All reading.
Usual sections, conclusion, the case examiners have reviewed the additional reasoning and evidence, they now refute the complaint.

SC - you no longer accepted the disposal of a warning?
RM - yes
SC - the fact that you didn't accept it set this complaint on a procedural path to a hearing.
RM - yes but I'm not sure
SC - that's why they say, the route they had to follow.

SC - you say this referral was discriminatory and resulted in harassment?
RM - SWE refusing to acknowledge that gender critical beliefs are valid, their position didn't change, and they are still following this process against gender critical posters.

SC - tell me where in any of the documents it suggests that SWE does not accept gender critical beliefs?
RM - it was their whole process and approach, they never looked at the posts properly and considered them, I judge them by their actions.
SC - is that a good point to stop?

EJ - pointing out that the landscape, environment and public climate may have changed substantially in the meantime.
SC - that is often the case.
SC - good news - I'm on track and hope to finish cross examination by lunch time.
Court rises.