Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. We're back for the afternoon of day 4 of Rachel Meade vs Social Work England (SWE) and her employer Westminster City Council (WCC).
The end of this morning's session is here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678714…

Resuming at 2.03pm

NC; going back to statement of case on p32, that quotation after the training we explored trans ally pronouns (for non trans) it's a fair summary, yes?
BR I think so
NC: Read the new patriarchy article final paragraph please, can you understand why ppl

might have concerns about raising legitimate SG concerns
BR: yes, in the context of robust convos about this topic
NC :Yes, but is more that one side tends to be very robust and no platform
BR I couldn't say as I dont know enough
NC: The last para is a shocking passage, dont u

NC: think? [describing men with erections in ladies areas] Are there any false claims here?
BR: As far as I know, no
NC Can you specifically challenge anything?
BR No, but we didnt like the convos re child abuse etc
NC Yes, but u haven't challenged as false?

BR I'm not in a position to challenge anything in the long passage in the context of this arguament re spaces. But the implication is that trans cld beinvolved in child sexual abuse
NC: But it's about creating opportunities for sexual abusers to use rather than trans ppl. Do you

NC accept the difference?
[missed]
NC: reads about the paedophile movement and seeing the same paralysis as with the gay movement earlier] So loopholes are created and anyone suggesting this is branded a bigot?
BR: I don't take issue if a SW says they have SG concerns.

BR: It's the manner in which they're expressed and public confidence. Concern is about inference that T members cld be assoc w child sexual abuse.
NC Where in the article/
BR We looked at the whole document.
NC Have a read of the whole article. take yr time

BR In the context of the live debate, is the reference to echos and providing paedophiles with opportunities. Inference can be drawn that there's an assoc w the TG community and offenders.
NC But no specific factual claim u can say is untrue?
BR Nots as far as I'm aware

NC: But you didnt challenge this?
BR We thought it was a reasonable position, and yes, we stand by that
NC: para 43 [reads re sexual fetish and AGPs using female spaces and a growing term on PornHub as 5h most popular, including porn in female toilets

NC: [the impact of TG porn has seeped out of the bedroom] Is there anything there u can challenge as untrue?
BR As far as I'm aware it's the inference that TG women is a manifestation of a fetish
NC Is any of this untrue?
BR I don't know
NC What about TG porn?

BR I don't know
NC If it's true, doesn't it need to be discussed?
BR Is possible to discuss SG implic without offending people. A SW responsibility is to be fair to all she comes across in her personal life
NC Is it the prancing about in women's knickers you dont like?

BR It's the manifestation as a sexual fetish we didn't like.
NC But if it is true, and u say u don't know we shld discuss, no?
BR [missed]
NC Can u think of a way AGP could be discussed without causing offense?
BR It cld have been presented in a more balanced way

NC: [re statements of facts re PBs and not being hate speech and how these could be classed as offensive vs treated as a woman for all purposes] You're saying it's wrong to say this and not just offensive [that a GRC changes sex]
BR Yes. My understanding was it meant

you were treated as the sex you wanted to be.
NC: In the terms of the EA it's not the same as it changes sex for all purposes
BR I accept that
NC It's ?? that a legal document changes reality, and what the world makes of words
BR Come back to profess standards and concerns

NC But it's not about the EA10 as the law cant change the world
BR I dont have the knowledge to answer
NC But you dont need extensive legal knowledge
BR But there's views on both sides
NC But can their actual sex change? It doesn't change their bodies. Nor does a certificate

BR: No

NC: [ reads about a Spectator piece - to summarise was a politician who was advocating for a candidate with multiple sexual allegations against them] Assumptions that Aimee Challenor is male. Correct?

BR Yes
BR agreed also to other Qs re the Challenors
NC None of those assertions are untrue?
BR No
NC But you say these are offensive?
BR Yes {I stand by that]
NC So an established journo makes true assertions the C cannot say that?
BR Need to go back to the whole case, spectrum

BR: here
NC: A no of other articles you consider may be offensive, a term freq used in this document, only twice can I see an attempt to refute anything. One is cartoon around a stake. You agree Huntley is a man and rumours was IDing as a man?
BR Yes

[correction = a woman]
BR: Was concerned re fake news but more about inference about T ppl and those that commit serious offences.
NC But there's no assertions like that
BR Inference in the context of this debate [repeated]
NC But its an illusion about a fake story and then

NC: accurate facts. I wont ask about GRCs in this doc. Is there any place where the C shared things that were untrue?
BR My focus wasnt on whether things were untrue or whether it cld cause offense.
NC That's the whole focus isn't it?
BR Manner in which draw attention is

BR important.
NC Can u think of a non-offensive way of describing how some trans ppl are fetishists and enter spaces for sexual gratification?
BR I'm not an expert
NC: [repeats the Q] Cld a SW say that?
BR yes I think so sbut there needs to be a balance.

BR [makes an assumption that many T ppl aren't fetishists] I stand by my statement and we must comply w our profess standards incl in social media
NC What we're seeing is a hecklers veto isn't it?
BR: I dont agree wit that. I know SW must comply w standards and engage with

BR: a broad range of ppl, and must interact well with them. Our concerns is that GC views wld be considered to be offensive and a T person may wonder if they'd receive equal treatment

NC: In conclusions now, [reading] all 70 posts from AWs dossier and you dont confine to the

offensive posts but all of them
BR: We wanted them to see if one or more could be found offensive
NC: Isn't this about the contents of the beliefs behind these posts?
BR: I don't think so
NC: Talking about statement that frightens and concerns re GC views

BR: A claimant has to understand the process...[missed]
NC It's not the content but the manner of her views, you're adamant about that?
BR Yes
NC [reads re damaging view of the profession and SM rules] Does that go too far re freedom of speech for SW?

BR: No I don't think so
NC But implies any views amay cross the line
BR No, need to be mindful when interacting online
NC: Issue [reading re disrepute] Are you content with your point here?
BR No, we shld have been clearer that ait was about the manner of expression

NC: [reads poster expounds GC views / variation and nuance within those views]
BR I was content when I wrote this and signed it off. I still think it's reasonable but I now accept it's ambiguous
NC But it's clear it's the facts and views you take exception to?
BR I dont accept

BR: that
NC: [reads on multiple GC issues} You seem to be implying it's illegitmate to call for these things?
BR: No. Thinking of expectations of treatment that T person wld receive?
[missed]
BR: Concern is re expression of the views
NC: Isn't it obvious what the C is arguing for

BR: We cld have been slightly clearer but it made clear what our position was
NC: Look at para 96 [reads re some insight about causing offence/ training/RMs reflective piece post LGBT training and how radical feminism cld be unfair to the trans community]

BR: it could be other things that demonstrated RMs new insight than just those
NC: Do these demonstrate insight if taken at face value?
BR Clearly a reflective piece, esp the final sentence
NC But later you seem to be reversing this opinion [reads re bad faith complaints]

NC Y're suggesting they're an aggravting factor?
No, I think the complainant positiion has changed
BR: No. she's changed her position
NC: You didn't give her a chance to clear her name as she wan't unrepentant?
BR No, we followed the regulations as it has to go to a hearing

BR: we set out the case we wld put so she had a chance to respond
NC: It's obvious we're seeing the terrified recantation of a heretic?
BR No
NC Is it acceptable to get SWs to repent?
BR No, I dont beleieve we did this
NC There's not much discussion of this issue amongst SW is

there?
I can't possibly say. We weren't trying to supress discussion.
NC: The truth is the entire profession has been frightened into silence?
SC: Asks for a rewording...
NC: Are u aware of any debate re this?
BR It's not something I've followed so no

BR: I just want to clarify that I haven't followed the debate, but I am aware of it
J: Clarify that you are aware rather than engaged w the debate?
BR: Yes. I might overhear someone talking about it.
NC Y're not a SW yrself?
BR: No, I'm not

NC: Turning the claimants statement, have u any comments on it? Specifically from p28 and para 45-51.
BR: Do u want me to read them?
NC: Yes please [reading]. Are u in a position to comment on that?
BR: No I dont think so. I have no signif or expert knowledge

NC: It's shocking that she's unaware of discussion re the Cass review isn't it? It's of considerable salience to SW
BR: My role is about profess standards in SW only.
NC: Back to continuance, para 18. Explaining yr decision [reading about implications for her practice]

BR: No u cannot confer that. Her FTP is impaired, but good SW practice herself and her testimonials were relevant.
NC: Are GC salient to a hospital setting, where she works?
BR: I don't undertsand the relevance?
NC: [describes males on female wards]
BR: I would expect the SW to

respect the trans persons views
NC: A SW who says it's bigoted to see distinctions between women and TW - do you get this?
NC: Is it yr position that if a woman is upset on a ward, a SW should not insist that a woman was being gaslit?
BR: Is a difficult position [missed]

NC: Go to p1602, [reads re discontinuence]. Did u sign this off?
BR: Yes
NC: discussing the new evidence that changed everything
BR: Yes it sets out our case
NC The new info had 3 aspects: full posts, that FB was private and more testimonials
BR Yes was specifically new info

BR: The new info was that only 40 ppl in the FB group - that was the new info. Miss Lee confirmed this in Sept 2021 and this info was now available. It hadn't been available before.
NC: p367 RM's initial response to the complaints. We see email from J Kilroy, line manager, giving

a ve positive testimonial, which u didn't take up
BR Yes, that's my understanding
NC Info wasn't volunteered to them. The examiners didn't have it at that point. 6 Sept 2021 her page was private. Jack should have done his job properly and looked at her FB status

BR: Yes, could have been looked at. It's a 2 stage process of initial investigation which isn't as extensive as a later invest. Is normal to conduct further enquiries at a later stage.
NC: for 6th July statement a lot of good was undertaken by you?
NC: Extensive barrage against C

BR: I wldn't say that
NC: Enormous effort against the C pulling together a case, but with little analysis, but on 26th Oct the whole thing stopped abruptly
BR This is a standard case wrt length and thoroughness. Followed our rules and we cannot stop cases unless there is new info

BR: In July I acknowledged new info and felt no longer getting a good chance of getting unfit to practice. Lots of positive testimonials and full contents of posts. This is very procedural
NC: An uninformed person looking in wld say this is a work of advocacy tryint to throw the

book at the claimant?
BR: [missed]
NC: Looking at these articles, in the context of the new evidence u relied on this doesn't stack up?
BR I took the view that it was. Is there a realistic prospect of finding impairment to practice? And other areas

BR: Cld they find 1 or more post offensive? Re discontinuence, the only new evidence was the full post content and this didnt undermine the realistic prospects. My view was the new info changed the prospects so we thought it appropriate to discontinue

NC: New evid wan't anything new though?
BR: There was no route to change earlier
NC: Someone cld have looked for this info earlier? Only new testimonials and finding the no in the FB. That changed everything?
BR We cldn't use this info before. No opportunity to rely on this info

BR The clarif of FB nos did undermine the findings of fact re public confidence but also relaistic finding on impairment to practice. Testimonials altered the personal element
NC Isn't it the case that this is a face saving pretext with out admitting a mistake earlier on?
BR No

BR This was a decision of the adjudicator and not SWE.
NC But u needed a justifier?
BR We don't discontinue lightly, and we have oversight by another body. It's the right and fair thing to do.
NC :Can you be brief please? Reality is this shldn't have got past triage?
BR No

NC Case examiners shld have said was baseless?
BR Cant say
NC Shld have been dropped?
I disagree
NC They had no choice but to go to the adjudicators?
BR I disagree
[missed a bit]
NC Once referred had to be adjudicated or
BR Only new evidence can change things

Nc: U could have admitted defeat?
BR: I've never seen this happen
NC: If u decide y've got it wrong isn't it better to not prosecute and get it dismissed?
BR I disagree that we got it wrong. We followed our process and then got new evidence
NC New evidence was from RMs statement

NC: on p1700 of C's statement re AW (Aedon who made the complaint to SWE) who was expected to give evidence at a hearing?
BR: Yes
NC: [discussion on pages and reading of Claimant's quotes para 78-86]
NC: The C sets out evidence about AWs SM activity which is consid more intempora

intemporate than hers?
BR I dont agree
NC: [reading AW mocks GCs and tweets... TERFs at Pride etc] Considering the language in that tweet, in his own words, d o u agree that his SM output is more intemporate?
BR She hasn't sworn. It's impolite but might not be unacceptable

BC: U know terf is a slur? And can be assoc w violence?
BR Yes but didn't know about the violence link
NC Nothing causes more concern than RMs posts?
BR Both ppl can be offensive
NC [Reading He wld be found offensive by GC ppl etc] She's right that they both need protection?

BR We expect compliance re views and SM
NC Isn't it true that this finally awoke SWE to what was happening? And that y'd prev found her views intolerance?
BR No, we followed the process
NC U realised AW wld be a disater as a witness so changed yr mind?
BR No
NC it was a pretext

NC that was v unfair on RM
BR No
NC She deserves an apology
BR NO there were reasonable grounds to investigate
NC U dont think his behav brings SWE into disrepute?
BR No
Nc Do u have anything u want to say to her
BR I empathisse w her and her feelings but we have to follow our

processes and protect the public
NC That's a textbook non- apology to RM
BR That's right, we've followed the processes

P: p1374, I wonder how this was formulated. Who did u discuss the charges with? How formulated?
BR Provided by external lawyers, some was proceduaral

and didn't discuss. Is part of our process to draft issues relatively broadly at first before a hearing.
P: The charges are different from earlier. Who chose the posts to be classed as offensive?
BR That was me. They explain why they've made the decisions we have
P: No - sorry

our separate legal advisors decided who shld make the ??? [confused]
P: U were happy with w3hat they'd done?
BR: Yes
P: p549 At that point the case examiners had decided not impaired FTP... Back to statement of the case on p1395, where says the conduct breached profess standards

P: which seems to suggest a personal impairment?
BR: No, it isn't in the context of the Cs work but in her private life
P: Brings into Q her suitability to work inside or outside of work
BR: This applies to events outside of work
P: how do testimonials relate to public fitness?

[missed]
P: talking about July statement and later new info in post case examiners meeting.
BR: Yes, and now no realistic prospect
P: the C did apply earlier re discontinuence but we couldn't stop it??

P2: as head of triage, this is about SM, what's yr view re investigation

powers and not looking at the nos on FB?
BR: We cld have done this, but it wasn't essential at this early stage
P2: it's the case examiners..shld they have done this?
BR I accept its a line we cld have followed and we didn't do it at that point
P2: How many SM cases have u done?

BR: I cldn't possibly say, even ball park figure
[missed a Q by P2]
P2: Email from Helen Martin to Eve Crawford, misconduct of transphobia is the name of a doc. How cld the file be named in this way?
BR No, I dont
J: Back to 6.7.22 case drafted by lawywers of the 70 posts. Did u

alter it?
BR Not much
J: Did u see u were widening the case?
BR No, I don't recall reviewing the case examiners decision
J: How many cases do u deal with?
BR: Dealt w 100 roughly
J: If a concern re a PC person being said they are a higher risk, have u had cases like this before?

J: Have u had this before in yr 100 cases a year?
BR Yes, probably one
J: Some might be offended but others see a risk. How do you balance potential risk vs offence?
BR: A lot will come to context and manner in which they're expressed. Does it impact practice?
J Is it ok to raise

BR: We'd consider looking if cld affect public confidence we'd look at it, and the context
J: asks the same Q for a third time...
BR: not necessarily wrong to raise but relies on context etc

NC: Back to men as vast aamount of sex violence is from men, yes?
BR: I presume so

NC: Wld be approp to treat a lone man somewhat differently w young children?
BR Yes, I guess so
NC: Looking at process re posts and the changes - it's obvious what's happening, which is an attempt to steer around Forstater, no?
BR: Defining allegations.....[missed]

NC: Reformulation was to bypass Forstater, no?
BR: That's not my understanding
NC: Made it possible to avoid Forstater now, and 1.2 operates via offending others
BR: Not my inderstanding
NC: Is clear that AW SM also fails this new test?
BR: I agree it's not good

SC: That's the end of our defence.
J: Discussing tmrw's witnesses.. Bernie Flattery, Hazel Best and then Ann French. They're the first 3 and will then give you more info. They'll all be short.

Adjourn to 10.30am tomorrow

@threadreaderapp please unroll