Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Maya back in court tomorrow (20th Oct)

130 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 19/10/2021 19:11

hiyamaya.net/2021/10/19/gendered-intelligence-trains-judges-in-secret-i-am-going-to-court-to-try-to-break-the-secrecy/

Training for judges is carried out by the Judicial College, this training is said to be “by judges, for judges”. But in 2018 Judge Sian Davies proudly revealed in an in-house magazine for judges, that the Employment Tribunal and the Immigration Tribunal judges had received training from Gendered Intelligence.

There is no information on this training in the Judicial College’s published Review of Activities.

In March 2020 I submitted a Freedom of Information request asking dates and details of the training including:

– Cost of the training
– Contract/agreement/TORs for commissioning the training
– Copies of any presentation material and/or hand outs used
– Which judges attended the training^

The Ministry of Justice refused the request, saying that it didn’t hold the information. I asked for a review by the Judicial College. The Judicial College said it only holds information on behalf of the judiciary, and in any case is not covered by FOI and is therefore exempt from disclosure. I complained to the Information Commissioner who also agreed that the public had no right to have any information on Gendered Intelligence’s training of judges (or indeed any other lobby group training judges in secret).

Tomorrow the case goes to tribunal. I am represented in this case by barrister Naomi Cunningham.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Ghislainedefeligonde · 21/10/2021 18:08

This is astonishing to read about. Huge scandal. Most oppressed my arse Angry
I bet their tentacles are within every public organisation in the country

SpringCrocus · 21/10/2021 11:41

@ItsLateHumpty

Maya is an absolute powerhouse and has the steeliest of steely ovaries ever. I’m a lot in awe.
I met and chatted to her several times at FiLiA. Must admit had a bit of a fan moment, each time!
ItsLateHumpty · 21/10/2021 09:40

Maya is an absolute powerhouse and has the steeliest of steely ovaries ever. I’m a lot in awe.

JustcameoutGC · 20/10/2021 16:57

So it boils down to 2 things - is the judiciary college covered by the FOIA - in which case hand over the materials

Is it in the public interest to know whether lobby groups have been training judges - if yes then hand it over

  • if no - then WHY THE FUCK NOT
RedDogsBeg · 20/10/2021 16:25

@Lovelyricepudding

Yes
Ta!
Lovelyricepudding · 20/10/2021 15:45

Yes

RedDogsBeg · 20/10/2021 15:43

Decision reserved.

Does that mean they are going away to think about it?

JurassickJay · 20/10/2021 15:21

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Lovelyricepudding · 20/10/2021 15:18

JurassickJay you might want to read Maya's tweets from court. As pointed out the constitutional reform took place before the name change.

JurassickJay · 20/10/2021 15:14

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Lovelyricepudding · 20/10/2021 15:08

That doesn't say it is not just a change of name. If the role, people, relationships, statutory underpinnings, etc were the same on 1st April as they had been on 31st March then it is just a name change.

RedDogsBeg · 20/10/2021 15:05

@Datun

Honestly, I'm still reeling. Our entire judiciary is being run by a lobby group.
The tentacles stretch far and wide, Datun, the more that is uncovered the worse it becomes, oh to be so oppressed that I have the Judiciary in my back pocket.
JurassickJay · 20/10/2021 15:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Datun · 20/10/2021 15:00

Honestly, I'm still reeling. Our entire judiciary is being run by a lobby group.

FindTheTruth · 20/10/2021 14:55

because they changed their name they are no longer covered by the legislation? Seems a rather handy way that other orgs might be able to slip out of their responsibilities.

quite. no public body should be allowed to do this

FindTheTruth · 20/10/2021 14:55

Maria Mc was punished in some way wasn't she? The judge reduced her damages or wouldn't award her damages for assault because she wouldn't call her assailant a woman

If the outcome is positive in this case, does that open the door to revisit other cases like Maria's?

Lovelyricepudding · 20/10/2021 14:49

So basically the Judicial college say that because they changed their name they are no longer covered by the legislation? Seems a rather handy way that other orgs might be able to slip out of their responsibilities.

OvaHere · 20/10/2021 14:37

@CharlieParley

Thank you for your insights, HeronLanyon and for challenging that judge.

Like Hoardasurass I have wondered about being told in court to refer to someone I know is male as a woman. Now I'm hoping never to find myself in that situation, but what do you think might happen if I directly asked the judge "Are you ordering me to lie under oath?" if I got that instruction?

Because if I'm swearing an oath to tell the truth in court, I'm not swearing an oath to tell an abstract, absolute truth. I am promising to tell the truth as I know it to be. I can be genuinely mistaken about the truth, I may have misheard or miss vital information but I tell the truth as I know it.

So in my view an instruction that I refer to someone I know to be a man as a woman, is in conflict with that oath.

Is being held in contempt the worst that might happen?

Maria Mc was punished in some way wasn't she? The judge reduced her damages or wouldn't award her damages for assault because she wouldn't call her assailant a woman.

Someone else will remember the exact situation I'm sure.

JurassickJay · 20/10/2021 14:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Cwenthryth · 20/10/2021 14:31

Anyone wanting to support Maya, definitely support the organisation she has co-founded Sex Matters. Subscribe to their weekly emails, do a one-off donation or become a supporter with regular donations. This enables Maya and her colleagues to do their work.

I wonder whether providing training for judges might be something they consider after this Grin

Datun · 20/10/2021 14:31

Jesus. Transgender lobby groups are actually running this country.

No wonder the most outrageous inhumanity is being perpetuated like rapists being given access to women as part of their sentence.

Or as SpindelWhorl so elegantly puts it "When are the EHRC going to get a grip on this festering shit?".

And yes, even if maya loses, she wins.

The curtains are open.

CharlieParley · 20/10/2021 14:27

Thank you for your insights, HeronLanyon and for challenging that judge.

Like Hoardasurass I have wondered about being told in court to refer to someone I know is male as a woman. Now I'm hoping never to find myself in that situation, but what do you think might happen if I directly asked the judge "Are you ordering me to lie under oath?" if I got that instruction?

Because if I'm swearing an oath to tell the truth in court, I'm not swearing an oath to tell an abstract, absolute truth. I am promising to tell the truth as I know it to be. I can be genuinely mistaken about the truth, I may have misheard or miss vital information but I tell the truth as I know it.

So in my view an instruction that I refer to someone I know to be a man as a woman, is in conflict with that oath.

Is being held in contempt the worst that might happen?

Manderleyagain · 20/10/2021 14:09

I've read mayas live tweets of the case.

There used to be a body called the Judicial Studies something(sorry dont remember the name). It's purpose was to train judges. It was included by parliament as one of the bodies covered by the freedom of information act. That was parliament's will. It has been superceded by (described as evolving into) the judicial college whose purpose is also to train judges. However, the list of bodies covered by foi wasn't updated. The defunct body is still listed, but not the new one. The judicial college continued answering foi questions like its predecessor. In 2014 the information commissioner (I think it was) issued clarification, saying that the judicial college was not covered by foi. The college therefore stopped answering foi questions, abd that's why it wouldn't answer mamya's foi.

I want to know on what grounds the information commissioner decided that the jc was not a public body for foi purposes, removing our ability to scrutinise training of judges. This seems to me to be thwarting the will of Parliament.

I hope the judges on the case are sensible.

Lifeinthelastlane · 20/10/2021 14:06

@HeronLanyon can I just say thank you for taking the time to challenge the judge on the (pointless) use of gender. Would have been easy to let it slide.

SpindelWhorl · 20/10/2021 14:01

I think this is why Maya has done this. Win or lose, she wins.

Let's get this scandal talked about.