Thread by @tribunaltweets

Rachel Meade vs Social Work England and Westminster City Council resumes this morning at 10 am. Our previous coverage is here:
https://t.co/CVyBscLxuFtribunaltweets.substack.com/p/rm-v-westmin…

Abbreviations here:
J - Employment Judge Nicklin

RM - Social Worker sanctioned by SWE

NC - Naomi Cunningham, Barrister for RM

SWE - Social Work England

SC - Simon Cheetham KC, Counsel for Social Work England and Westminster City Council

WCC - Westminster City Council

JB - Julie Bann, solicitor for WCC

SC will resume questioning of RM, expected to finish by lunch time.

Waiting.

Resuming.
SC - letter explaining the process, is that correct.
RM - yes
SC - potential outcomes? and those are listed by bullet point. By this stage you had solicitors involved and acting on your behalf.
RM - yes
SC - confirmation of that from April.

SC - you became aware that SWE was appointing its own solicitors?
RM - yes
SC - a letter from your solicitors about process, witness info, says our client cannot give full info because she is not completely clear about the case against her. You were expecting a statement of case?

RM - yes
SC - you are not suggesting that they should not have served such a statement?
RM - no
SC - and you provided your statement of case (SoC)?
RM - yes.
EJ - checking date on next document
SC - your SoC is very lengthy isn't it? I'm not attempting to ridiculing you.

EJ - we have not read it.
SC - no, I don't expect that you have. Just drawing attention to its detail. To RM - you have now said everything that you wanted to say to SWE is that correct?
RM - yes, I have provided extensive detail in that document.

SC - at this point SWE thought that there was no realistic possibility that the case could be disposed of through agreement or acceptance and therefore SWE made an application to discontinue. Asking the tribunal to read that application.

EJ - as a general point, our reading time was somewhat truncated, can you direct us to relevant documents either in our own time or during the hearing?
SC - I've planned for you to take time to read during my examination.
EJ - that's fine but there may be important material

that we need to concentrate on.
SC - now reviewing the application for discontinuance, focusing on submissions for discontinuance application.
Disc = Discontinuance
SC - unclear question, additional material provided after the originial case - is that correct?
RM - don't know

SC - are you saying it's incorrect?
RM - I don't know
SC - fine if you don't know you don't know
SC - now going on to look at Facebook profile material, all reading. SWE submits that new information was provided about limited number of friends. Do you agree this was new info?

RM - I'm not sure that is new. I think I told SWE that I had a limited number of friends in discussion with them and that my Fbook was private.
SC - its not noted in your first or second lot of evidence.
RM - I'm sure I told them.
SC - now leading at grounds of impairment

SC - at the time of original case, RM accepted findings and made remedial actions. And in subsequent evidence provided info about day to day activities and practices on SM. Do you agree with me this is all new info to SWE?
RM - I had told all of this to WCC.

SC - that's your employer. We're talking here about SWE.
RM - my employer was talking to SWE, and they knew about this.
SC - are you saying that you did not give new evidence to SWE?
RM - I don't know what you're asking.
SC - is SWE right to say this is new evidence or wrong

to say this is new evidence?
RM - They should have looked at all this material, I presumed that they would have looked at the posts and I didn't need to provide all this material to them. I assumed that they were actually doing an investigation.

EJ - can I clarify - at this point in time were the posts taken down, how did SWE have the posts?
RM - they were given screenshots by the claimant.
EJ - if you had taken them down, then you wouldn't have had access to them.
RM - that is correct.
EJ - I think we have

established that the SWE did have copies of the posts and the links.
SC - Fitness to practice hearing did take place, and there was an application for discontinuance.
(fire alarm alert)
SC - disc hearing app, sets out,
Actual fire alarm 🚨 test.

Resuming.
SC - says fitness to practice not impaired, not appropriate or proportionate to issue a warning or sanction to RM and propose no further action. You were presumably pleased with that?
RM - yes, but they had wrongly sanctioned me and I was distressed.

SC - before we go on to your employer, i put it to you that SWE was following its processes and you agreed with those processes and accepted the outcome.
RM - yes and no. It felt to me that like if I didn't accept it, then something even worse would happen, I might lose my r

registration. I might lose my job. I panicked and I felt threatened by the whole process.
SC - I'm not challenging how you felt but nowhere in these documents is any threat from SWE that something worse might happen
RM - its hard to convey but I had the impression that there

was an implied threat.
SC - you were given a series of options, accept, reject or challenging weren't you?
RM - at the time it didn't feel like options to me.
SC - going to go back over something, apologies if this is going over ground I previously covered.

SC - what were you providing which was additional at this point?
RM - one of my lawyers went through the posts and wrote commentary.
SC - I'm not making myself clear, if the tribunal read the detailed statements they will find quite a lot of context around the posts.

EJ interjects and says that the discussion of the posts and context provided is not germaine at this point. SC agrees they can read the material.

SC - now moving on to WCC and will again focus largely on the procedural aspects. Going to documents. WCC code of conduct. Were you familiar with the code of conduct.
RM - yes, in an abstract way but I didn't study it.
SC - directing attention to heading 'professionalism'

SC - actions outside of work should not undermine public trust and confidence. Do you see that?
RM - yes.
SC - we know from yesterday that SWE notified your employer of the outcome of the warning.
RM - I notified them myself.
SC - one way or another they were notified.

SC - looking at the process that was then followed. You had a letter explaining the investigation that was going to occur and the process. It seems from that WCC was relying on info from SWE, you hadn't provided info to them. But you would welcome the opportunity to do so?

RM - Nothing about this was welcome.
SC - change in investigators, repeats everything you've been told before. By then (everyone reading) we see the letter of suspension and refers to fitness to practice investigation, but it says 'if substantiated' these matters could amount

to misconduct. Do you accept that?
RM - that's what it says, I don't know if I accept it.
SC - email from RM to WCC employee - RM says 'I welcome the opportunity to make my case'.
RM - yes.
SC - investigation interview you attended with your union representative.

a difficulty arranging at date everyone could attended.
We have the draft minutes of that meeting. The draft minutes are sent to you for your comments a week later, you were then chased for your comments a week after that, reply to her comments 'your comments were additional

information, context and you did not confine your comments to the meeting that occurred.
RM - Yes,
NC - comments are in a different colour on the computer
SC - some of us are more Luddite and use hard copy
EJ - we can just disregard the earlier version and use the final

SC - yes. Looking at the amended minutes, 'what are your reflections about yourself and your actions since you've been investigated', please can everyone read that?
(reading)
SC - heading 'do you consider the posts discriminatory or offensive', RM had brought screenshots

SC - up to this point, you had not provided screenshots, but now you were asked to do so.
RM - I don't remember being asked.
SC - this is the start of the investigation, there were a number of matters
RM - I told my manager, she was in contact with SWE about were there any

complaints about my work or my practice. And so I thought the investigation had started.
SC - I can't ask about that, I have no information. But you were asked to provide the screenshots, did you so so.
RM - yes I did.
SC - it was after Christmas, but the meeting was October

SC - you say that the meeting was hostile and confrontational? I don't see that mentioned in the minutes. Did you complain about that in the meeting or afterwards.
RM - no, there seemed no point.
SC - but WCC staff deny that was the case. Did your union rep say anything?

RM - officially, no but unofficially to me yes.
SC - I suggest that they would have said something in the meeting if that was the case.
SC - now the WCC investigator commenting that RM's initial acceptance of the findings and then refuting them in the meeting calls into

question RM's honesty and integrity? Can you see that there were genuine concerns?
RM - No, I've tried to explain what's was happening and the environment, and it was a process of realising that I hadn't done anything wrong and that I was in the right.
SC - do you not see that

there were 2 versions, one of acceptance and one of rejection.
RM - yes but I've attempted to explain that
SC - I'm not alleging that you're a dishonest person but do you not see that the 2 versions give rise to significant concerns.
RM - I had told them that at the beginning

that I was asking for a review and that my position had changed over time. I think that calling me dishonest was wrong.
SC - she didn't call you dishonest, she said the circumstances gave reason to worry about your honesty.
RM - it was painful.

SC - now look at report from WCC investigation.
EJ - interjects about reading - do we need to read now.
SC - when RM has finished evidence, we can look at the timetable.
Various timetable discussions.
SC - suggestion to RM, not disputing how upset you felt, there's nothing

in this report that suggests Ms F has any personal animus or contempt for you.
RM - I did feel that her views were very much different from mine and that came through in the report.
SC - we will have to differ on that. Going to report summary/conclusion and each allegation

is dealt with and there is a recommendation. Quickly look at the recommendation. From investigator, sufficient evidence to warrant a disciplinary hearing. Now you were expecting to move to the hearing phase?
RM - yes.
(Some bundle switching)

SC - email from RM to union rep. 'I won't have a job at the end of this, they are out to get me, I look forward to taking them to a tribunal'.
RM - I did not want to take them to a tribunal but I knew that's where we would end up.
SC - invitation to disciplinary hearing...

letter to RM, 6 Dec, received report from invest officer, inviting you to a disciplinary hearing. Are you suggesting that any of these procedures were wrong?
RM - I don't know, I would rely on legal advisors to tell me.
SC - I'm not going to ask you about any legal advice

I'm only interested in what you have to say.
SC - you requested an adjournment, taken legal advice,
need time to prepare, 17 Dec, then a letter from RB at WCC on 22 Dec, can we say a copy of the letter from SWE, you sent the letter on 24 Dec

SC - letter from HB on first working day in January, hearing is still scheduled, then later that day, I agree to adjourn. I've gone into this in such detail is because one of your complaints is they didn't agree to adjourn until the day before the hearing.

And that timing straddled the Christmas period. Are suggesting that had anything to do with your beliefs?
RM - pause....No.
SC - suggests morning break, gives something to Tribunal to read, they've read it.
15 minute break.

Resuming
SC - 24 jan - email asking for permission to get further info from SWE.
You granted that permission.
RM - yes.
SC - She now says that she's see all the materials and refers to the Forstater decision, and she now says that some of these posts have crossed the line.

Making a distinction between those that have crossed the line and those that haven't. In my opinion, some are discriminatory and offensive.
SC - rescheduled hearing, invites you to the hearing, 3 May, you may not recall the date.
RM - yes.

SC - focusing on the chronology, that hearing is again adjourned. What I want to look at now, we're still in the preparation stage for that disciplinary hearing, now we get the response you prepared to the allegations. Sorry, Tribunal don't need to read it now.

SC - response from RM, invite the Tribunal to read it later. Hearing relisted for 28 June. This time it actually takes place.
RM - yes
SC - in addition to your earlier response, you provide a further response, 1 1/2 pages, providing some additional documents. 3 articles from

the Times.
SC - did you feel that you had the opportunity to present everything to WCC that you wished to present?
RM - I believe so.
SC - the minutes of that meeting
RM - at the meeting, my witnesses weren't really allowed to speak. I brought the information but I felt very

critical about the meeting.
SC - you were represented by Mr H. I note what you say about your witnesses. Were you or your representative restricted from speaking.
RM - my witnesses were.
SC - But did your solicitor say anything about this?
RM - the approach was it's taken a

long time, we don't need to hear from witnesses, lets focus on the posts, etc.
SC - did your solicitor complain about that approach.
RM - no, it seemed the expedient approach.
SC - outcome of that hearing - a final written warning, and your suspension was lifted.

SC - is that correct.
RM - yes it is.
SC - you sought clarification on 13 July and what you sought was the 'further conduct' would result in further disciplinary action. And the explanation was that it was 'standard practice'. Did you accept that it was a reasonable explanation

RM - it was an explanation,
SC - was it reasonable
RM - I can't say
SC - now on return to work, notes of RTW meeting, heading 'wellbeing' a paragraph of discussed boundaries around behaviour, shouldn't discuss with other employees. You refer to this meeting as a continuing

restraint on your freedom of expression. Is that correct?
RM - I honestly can't remember, but my speech and behaviour were constrained.
SC - moving to email following meeting, 'happy to meet you, appreciating the support, etc'. If you had been unhappy about the meeting you

would have said something.
RM - it was a very emotional meeting, most of it was crying.
EJ - you were crying?
RM - yes, also other staff member cried.
SC - moving on to RM's appeal of the outcome of hearing, various criticisms. The things with which you were unhappy?
RM yes

SC - there was an appeal hearing on 15 Nov, and the decision was to overturn the sanction.
(some discussion about what the tribunal has and has not read)
SC - sets out why the process has taken so long, sets out grounds for appeal, and sets out considerations and says the

sanction is lifted. You were happy about this?
RM - to a degree
SC - you say it conveys continuing disapproval can you explain how it says that
RM - I thought WCC was supposed to be doing its own investigation but they kept relying on SWE and they called me to a meeting and

they didn't accept my views were legitimate. It was clear to me that WCC would disapprove of my Facebook posts and of sharing my gender critical views.
SC - can't argue with your feelings, but there's nothing in the letter that says that.
RM - its implied.

SC - similar to SWE there was a process that was followed, and you were not sanctioned.
RM - hugely long, complicated emotional process, that never should have happened and it was very expensive and difficult.
SC - but it happened because you accepted the findings

of SWE and they conveyed that to your employer.
RM - yes, but they didn't give regard to what I was saying about my appeal and review request.
SC completes.
EJ - 10 minute break.

We're back. Questions from tribunal members to RM.
Trib - an allegation about failure of SWE case examiners to be trained on GC beliefs, what were the detriments and what other consequences are there.
RM - not just the case examiners, but the triage team as well.

They did not take in account anything at all about the posts, just accepted that they were transphobic, and didn't give respect to my beliefs.
Trib - your response to the complaint before you accepted the findings, did you submit anything else, you referred to a letter from

Society for Evidence Based Social Work (?). In relation to that period it was only that document.
SC - that document was submitted when RM requested a review, not earlier.
Trib2 - you said that the lack of regard that gender critical beliefs were not valid to SWE

RM - as a regulatory body, they just seemed to take everything the complainant had said, at face value, that it was discriminatory, that I shouldn't have said it. They gave no respect to my beliefs or that my beliefs had merit. It's in the Eq Act, belief is protected.

Trib2 - you've told your employer about SWE referral, what information did you have about the process and the consequences of the investigation.
RM - I told them what was going on, they told me nothing about potential consequences to me. Nobody ever suggested that anything

untoward would happen.
Trib 2. Yes. You said you felt hostility, how did that manifest itself.
RM - it was in the way she conducted the interview, and when I tried to speak, she cut me off and it was clear she didn't want me to discuss. And she implied for example that I was

against training and I wasn't, I was against Mermaids doing training. .....RM apologises for rambling.
Trib2 - you receive the investigatory bundle from (SWE) is that the time when you first saw the documents that had been the basis of the complaint?
(some back and forth)

RM - yes it must have been the first time I saw the bundle.
EJ - now asking about Facebook. You have 40 followers (friends) and it's a private account so only people you invited could see this content. How many worked for WCC.
RM - 12 I think.

EJ - there were 17 posts considered by SWE, over what period was this.
RM - from 2018, say 18 months.
EJ - presumably, you had social content etc on your Facebook page. What other non-social content did you post?
RM - yes, other current events, topical matters.

EJ - with your Facebook friends was it an ongoing dialogue or was it just you sending things out or were others sending things to you?
RM - with Facebook if you like certain things, it brings more of those up in your feed, so it was giving me more of the same thing.

EJ - was your content being served up by Facebook?
RM -yes, certain GC pages I was following, etc.
EJ - did anyone on your Facebook complain or ask not to see such content.
RM - no.

EJ - how much did you analysing these posts, one about deadnaming, how much did you look at this before sharing this on Facebook.
RM - JK Rowling was being heavily targeted at this time, I think this is in reference to that. It wasn't really about trans people.
EJ - thank you

EJ - another post, did you read this, did the reference to men who identify as pedophiles concern you?
RM - at the time, I was thinking about self id and about how predators could use that
EJ - did you see any link between transgenderism and pedophilia.
RM - no

EJ - did you think it was humorous?
RM - it was a serious issue but humour can be used to highlight very serious issues. Example of scout leaders abusing boys in their care.
EJ - where do you see the link to pedophilia?
RM - a lack of safety checks, DBS, lack of privacy

RM - I'm not explaining this well, but its a breakdown of boundaries
EJ - are you a member of any feminist organisations.
RM - just a member of Evidence Based Social Work,
EJ - and what is their remit
RM - I don't know their remit but there is a lot of focus around

children and families and the inability to do proper social work.
EJ - Thank you.
EJ - any further questions from counsel?
(none)
EJ - RM, your evidence is finished.

Further discussions about timetable, witness availability and documents that the tribunal members should read.
We are breaking for lunch. Reading time being agreed.
Resuming at 3 pm.