Stonewall leader wants dog and mum to sit next to him in court

Just a few points about having a support dog in court
As much as I can appreciate how this would help with anxiety ...
I hope nobody who was in that court room suffered with allergy asthma
Dogs can bring on a nasty asthma attack in some people
Also, who would take the dog outside, should it wish to relieve itself
Maybe someone was allocated that special job ...
Can you imagine, having to stop court business and wait for the dog to do its own business!

It reminds of someone talking about getting people with learning disabilities into parliament as MPs. Sorry no, I want MPs to be able to quickly and proficiently weigh up very complex matters with rapidly developing situations and large amounts of new information. I want them be flexible enough to consider points raised in debates. As such I think learning disabilities should prevent you standing as an MP. (Yes, I recognise many current MPs can't do this but I think that is a problem)

The issue comes when a disability inhibits your ability to do the job despite reasonable adjustments. In this case the problem was not the supporting cast, though they really should have made this known in advance etc. The problem is with their ability to apply critical thinking, to consider other perspectives (women), to distinguish fact from fantasy.

I disagree. Why should people with autism be excluded from participating in life like everyone else? We might need adjustments to do so and the law allows this.

I wonder how many senior HR people are choking on their tea at the batshittery of all this and quietly reconsidering their association with stonewall.

On the other hand as far as the dog is concerned, we have no idea what pets may be in the room with other witnesses and a well behave dog asleep beside a witness on a zoom is neither here nor there.

My 11 year old niece was to be a witness/victim in a case (they eventually pled guilty at last minute). Precovid. Arrangements were put in place for her to be cross examined by video link from the video link room in the court building. In that room would have been a court worker and a standard victim support worker (ie from the victim support service not one chosen by her). It was made clear her mum would not be allowed in the room with her. She was also told if she needed a break then she had to request it as noone else could interrupt the questioning. Why was she expected to manage so unsupported compared to this individual?

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for Kirrin, whose mental health difficulties obviously make Kirrin unsuitable for that job. People need to learn to accept that disabilities mean they may not be fit for some kinds of jobs and not expect allowances to be made. Of course this whole farrago suits SW: a malleable individual who also has 'poor me' value.

😀
I want one too, and would like to send one to every woman currently being being harassed by misogynists.

Sex doesn't change through the life cycle. Products of your own mind, such as gender, can obviously change as easily as your favourite colour or rock band.

And I reserve my sympathy for those children with autism who have been conned into thinking their discomfort or feelings of difference mean they're 'in the wrong body'. Shame on the people who mislead them.

I was actually thinking of something more recent. But yes, fuck the Roman and all blokes crowbarring their way into women's stuff.

Well it annoyed the Romans. Those long winter evenings with all the mistletoe must have simply flown by.

Does KM think SW is going to look after him? Is it fuck.

Quite. I'm really unimpressed with Stonewall as an organisation - obviously for the ludicrous gender woo, but then for looking like they are trying to pin senior policy decisions onto a single, vulnerable individual.

I don't begrudge KM his support dog and mum. If I was put in that position by my employer in a trial with this much public interest, I'd be absolutely bricking it and looking for any support I could get. The amount of cognitive dissonance that he must be feeling after presumably being first praised and encouraged and then blamed and scapegoated is significant.

The bloke trinity is definitely just aping the female one. It is fascinating but I thing our ancestors probably had too much time on their hands once the day to day survival stuff was taken care of. Now, what does that recall?

Always been fascinated by the ancient maiden/mother/crone mythology, although I think it's tied into the specific three phases of reproductive changes in a female: pre pregnancy, motherhood, menopausal, with specific aspects of myth, social change and insight/connection to the natural world at each stage rather than just being an age thing, and 'power' being seen as held differently with different roles in ceremonies and rites. Male biology doesn't have those huge phases or cycles in that way, which is why I suspect suggesting that there's anything special or biologically important to femalehood would probably be cause for a quick call to report the Druids to PC Gul immediately.

I take the view that the additional support is all part of Stonewall's tactics, not dissimilar to certain tennis pro's who make tactical use of well timed loo breaks/medical time out.
Pre-court they did everything in the book to delay and obstruct and attempt to price Allison out of continuing the proceedings, hence why she had to raise such an enormous sum to support her. In court they have distracted from what KM had to say by causing the focus to be either on sympathy for KM's problems or just the discussion we are having here rather than the content of KM's replies.
Then they got away with the "here we go" comment. Allison said she wanted to know who said it but the judge, presumably not wanting more delays, let it pass.

That is appalling, Gasp0de.

When a twelve year old child is expected to deal with court process alone, and women who have been assaulted, and Allison who has been in hospital through illness during this court process and has not been given breaks or any additional support - when all these vulnerable people are expected to just get on with it and cope, you are forced to wonder why a person on a high salary, in a position of high responsibility who is doing their daily job, is regarded as so very exceptionally vulnerable that so many special arrangements must be made for them and expectations are so very much reduced.

Sex changes across the human lifetime, makes me think of the ancient maiden, mother, hag/crone thing. But noticeably all females. I think there's an equivalent for males, youth, father?, codger?.

Zip , zero, nada, nowt ,

Also what @ickky said.

I think the circus around KM really distracted from what he actually said, bodies are not male or female. That is the headline news from his cross examination.

And perhaps that was the intention all along.

My son was mugged, aged 12. He was called to give evidence in the magistrates' court against one mugger. Naturally I went with him but I wasn't allowed to go into the court with him. A very nice woman from Victim Support was allowed in, fortunately, as the defence barrister gave him a hard time, apparently.

I also wonder who the support worker was who didn't want to be seen on camera. Might have entirely innocent reasons for wanting to protect their privacy of course. But it leaves the suspicion that they may have been someone who viewers would have recognised and whose presence would have been questioned

I've been thinking about this too, @FannyCann

It could suggest 'recognisable face' / 'future witness who shouldn't really be there', which in turn could suggest a face from SW.

And the more I think about it, the more I think that the solicitor who KM was left in the room with was likely engaged by SW for SW, not by KM for KM.

Does KM think SW is going to look after him? Is it fuck.

And the turkeys were suspicious because it was thanksgiving! (as in people were suspicious that they were ‘support animals’ and not just dinner at the other end).

I never heard that one!

I also wonder who the support worker was who didn't want to be seen on camera. Might have entirely innocent reasons for wanting to protect their privacy of course. But it leaves the suspicion that they may have been someone who viewers would have recognised and whose presence would have been questioned.

I also have the view that many other people appearing in court, on the witness stand or as someone being prosecuted, would appreciate a little support. Unless there is evidence that KM routinely has, and always has, had a support person present throughout their lives, when competing at crufts, when studying for their degree which I think I saw they got a First for, throughout their subsequent working life, then I wonder why they suddenly should be entitled to so much support on this one particular somewhat stressful situation.

Is there any such evidence available?

Good question. I'm not convinced Stonewall are coming across as a particularly caring employer to KM here. They have a duty of care.

KM was talking about the Stonewall approved policy. Whilst KM is accountable as an adult professional, who acted in the way KM did toward Allison, I think Stonewall may have encouraged the emotional support fiasco to try and get everything focused more on an individual. Really we want to focus on the fact that everything KM said is approved Stonewall policy and is totally free of any logic, decency or sense. Stonewall are encouraging a climate of denunciation where random women (who believe in things as uncontentious as biological fact) can be pushed out of their jobs for 'wrong think' and labelled 'bigots' with no evidence whatsoever. It's not just about KM (though KM is a definite product of the system and seems to have swallowed the ideology in it's entirety).

Don't know how old you are @NotAGirl but I was diagnosed with autism at 40.