Hi Jim,

I’ve researched but will also find further on Community Care published link above, entitled ‘Delay’.

Hi Linval. Do you have a link to the Joint Statement?

Where the joint statements appear gives focus on the ‘processes’, of SWE FTP hearing, I’m mindful of the ‘content’ issues to the complex discussions (gender critical beliefs vis gender identification) and stated regulatory ‘abuse of powers’, related to the Meade case. I do wish to commend the fortitude of Rachel Meade. The issues, however, are also far reaching and have huge implications still to be processed. For instance concerning discrimination and equality and Human rights legislations. For instance, how strong held views and opinions, borders if expressed whether arrived either by philosophical or religious routes. There is concern also these and such individuals holding views are at risk subject to disciplinary and regulatory sanctions. Importantly, how colleagues who find needing to express or challenge held views, could be protected and/or supported when and if these falls legitimately within the domain of professional practices.

I envisage the tribunal outcome has not come without personal costs and other considered resources.

Oh they have and just like their dismissal of the Cass report as not credible, they have decided that the law and the science Cass is based on doesn’t apply and indeed “promote discrimination.” I know social workers in other authorities who have had perhaps a more muted but similar messages given by managers. Most social workers work under and are supervised by seniors who have very entrenched authoritarian outlooks tolerated by their own managers. Our realities are very different from the DEI projected by employers. Threats of a disciplinary action rather than validating open debate between adult professionals is why Westminster and SWE believe they have immunity from complying with law and treating staff not as professionals but as potential embarrassments who need to be micro monitored and reminded of consequences if they fail the ‘loyalty’ test. None of this is an exaggeration in our authority.

Sounds as though your manager hasn’t read the tribunal decision. Rachel was not found to have been transphobic in any way- so the remark about not tolerating discrimination is completely unnecessary. Apparently elements of the social work profession and the authoritarian left seem to be only able to keep in mind the rights of one group in society at a time. Women’s rights and their right to defend them seem to have been abandoned.

Its appalling there’s no apology, in fact the statements for colum Conway read like a veiled threat to others. I have written to the DHSC but basically the response is that there is no accountability for the regulator, they can just do what they like. Its terrifying.

Not in our authority. Ours said we don’t have to accept unjust laws that entrench discrimination. Warned us that a similar complaint would still be considered a disciplinary offence here.

That is the crucial question. SWE will have destroyed lots of social workers careers unnecessarily. They exacerbate the recruitment and retention crisis!

Chief Social Workers? A.W.O.L.