O'Donnell v Times unfair dismissal case

Slight derail but why would a grown up person, who aspires to a professional profile, describe themselves as a "scamp"?

What? So the Times is out-of-pocket and not at fault? That seems unfair. The journalist should have to pay The Times’ full costs I think.

Excellent result. O'Donnell might not have any grounds for appeal. You can't appeal just because you disagree with the decision:

An appeal must be on a point of law, i.e. it must identify flaws in the legal reasoning of the original decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal will not normally re–examine issues of fact.

www.judiciary.uk/publications/employment-appeal-tribunal-guidance/

GirlDownUnder I think I've had two biscuits. Easily outnumbered by the suggestion that I off.

I love that they look like Jammy Dodgers - my favourites.

Hey sueanddumplings how about breaking a habit if an MN life and engaging rather than dump and run?

They can’t. The TRAs have no robust counter-argument. That’s why it’s all ‘no debate’ and drive-by shrieks of ‘transphobia!!!!’

Costs are rarely awarded against claimants in the employment tribunal, unfortunately

Will the journalist now have to pay The Times’ costs?

WhereYouLeftIt to my shame and ever lasting disappointment I’ve never been offered a . You?

Am I failing at life

"Could equally apply to this forum."

The mere idea of Mumsnet as a echo chamber - well! I know I've been handed my arse a few times, had people vehemently disagree with me, and have even had my mind changed about things by listening to the better-informed-than-me posters. How very echo-chambery!

TRAs have created an echo chamber, but no-one out in the wider world believes it.

We believe it.

And I’m happy, and long may it continue. Because the thought of for eg RMcK et al blundering out of their happy happy bubble to face the real world is euphoric for me.

Institutional capture however I’ve no idea how we beat. The wider public will eventually ‘see’ most of our arguments, but after that I’m at a loss as to how we ‘win’ back the powers that be.

Yup, even in the bits of Twitter frequented by men rather than GC feminists (because men don't get banned for holding GC views) it rapidly ceases to be an uncritically pro trans space. Look at the twitter thread on the BBC feed below their piece of hagiography for the male-bodied rugby player "folding" their female opponents "like deckchairs". Hundreds upon hundreds of GC responses pointing out the bleeding obvious - that this is unfair, dangerous and will be the death of women's sport; two tweets (from the same person) supportive of the article.

Through a process of institutional capture TRAs have created an echo chamber, but no-one out in the wider world believes it.

Using mass terf blockers is the biggest school boy error ever. Fancy not knowing what your 'opposition' is saying and doing.

Congratulations to The Times

Hey sueanddumplings how about breaking a habit if an MN life and engaging rather than dump and run?
You’ve kinda had maybe one interesting thing to say but who knows...

Twitter using terfblocker I ‘know’ a certain cyclist blocking 100k who was kinda surprised that outside their rarefied bubble life moved on without them.
Kinda pointless shouting into the void, no?

Actually, as proven by the "transexual erasure" thread this week, some of the most informative, and most interesting discussions on here stem from posts started by transactivists - ie people I personally disagree with.

Sometimes I wonder if people on Twitter using terfblocker realise that the people with those opinions they don't like aren't actually deleted off the planet. We're still here.

TRA certainly don't get to win any arguments by using terfblocker. That's the bubble - not Mumsnet.

Re Echo Chambers

Echo chambers are by nature generally authoritarian in nature.

There is a mechanism where censors have the power to remove disenters and prevent critical thought and differing voices.

MN isn't perfect, and has problems with censorship, but it doesn't ban people outright merely for having a view 'from the wrong side'.

As long as posters are respectful they anyone with a dissenting view is able to post and participate.

The issue with echo chambers is how the restrict and prevent critical thought deliberately via things like block lists.

People in them can not even see an opposing argument, never mind mind critically look at it and decide they don't like it or actually someone might have a point there too.

MN is the only place which is allowing critical thought on some of these issues, and this is then spilling out elsewhere as people raise points which are thought provoking and worthy of further examination and consideration.

It is the antidote to the echo chamber and what has driven debate and is flagging up concerns which have been deliberately swept under the carpet, at the very human cost to some people.

Personally I'd LIKE to follow a few more opposing views on twitter - but I'm blocked from doing so, purely because I follow certain accounts. I don't tweet myself so, I'm not actually spreading anything via twitter - I'm just reading.

I think mass block lists should be actively banned for this reason. Its one thing to block individuals for a personal issue, but I have a problem with it being done to block entire political views.

I try and deliberately read and examine a range of views and ideas - ESPECIALLY if they conflict with mine as they can be the most useful and helpful of them all.

I DON'T WANT to listen to views that are all the same.

Life isn't like that.

No it couldn't. Anyone can post on here. You can't mute or block them. No such thing as being able to silence dissenting voices with a terf blocker gizmo here.

Indeed. This is one of the few places where open and measured debate on this issue is possible.

Could equally apply to this forum.

No it couldn't. Anyone can post on here. You can't mute or block them. No such thing as being able to silence dissenting voices with a terf blocker gizmo here.

Funny, Sue, I'm a lurker but take stuff I've learned here out in the real world, and have found that most people are quite interested in what's going on. Though I do find it disconcerting that I agree with my dad on something for once

Sue you are welcome to state your opinion. It is quite possible not everyone will agree with you. But I am confident people will give their reasons why.

Going to actually join in Sue or just continue to dump random snarks about a forum you clearly don't like or approve of? And obviously don't really know much about except via hearsay.

That's the problem with living in an echo chamber and insisting on 'no debate'. You think everyone agrees with you. Must be a shocker to find out they don't.

Could equally apply to this forum.

I must admit doing a yes fist pump when I read this. Great news, so important for the freedom of the press.

After all the massive hoohah Patrick Strudwick made about this story, he is remarkably silent today, and Mark di Stefano wrote the piece on the result for Buzzfeed. Maybe Patrick is just on holiday, and couldn't follow it up....

That's the problem with living in an echo chamber and insisting on 'no debate'. You think everyone agrees with you. Must be a shocker to find out they don't.