Sunday Times article on James Caspian's case against Bath Spa University

[PimmsnLemonade]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fifty-trans-people-tell-therapist-of-regrets-bs2nfxwjc

Sorry I haven't got a share token but he's got an oral hearing in the High Court on February 19, when he will ask for a judicial review of the university’s decision. The unviersity are now saying that they refused to permit the research because of his methodology, not because it was "politically incorrect".

Yes it's not ringing true is it about confidentiality? They've had two years to sort that out.

There is another thread about another Times story, and this article has been shared on it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3504023-Sunday-Times-Front-Cover-Trans-Prison-wings?msgid=84822116#84822116

What a load of rubbish. They specifically said that it was because they thought it was politically incorrect. Caspian has worked with the trans population for years. Im sure he's perfectly capable of carrying out a study that meets their rigorous academic standards

Exactly. It makes them look desperate.

And its ironic that they wanted to avoid public vilification. Oops.

If it was an issue of methodology rather than subject matter, surely it would have been suggested he change his methodology rather than refuse to allow him to do the research altogether.
Thats the whole point of doing a post graduate degree, that you have support from the University in directing and focusing your research.

Fingers crossed for Caspian.

Same here.

I'm pleased James has had lots of interest from detransitioners, he's one of the good guys. Hopefully the High Court will see through this and find in his favour.

What a load of bollocks re the method being the issue! It should be easy enough to sort out then now they have identified the issue. They might as well stop the case going any further and work with James to get the research done to a hig standard.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the free speech stuff that was published?

They couldn't be seen to deny research into something that's now been given the green light to simply be debated.

What is this costing the university to defend? Disgraceful use of £££.