Rachel Meade - it's a win!

Although the article by Sam Fowles has been deleted, its been archived several times in both the Wayback Machine and on Archive Today.

I suspect some organisations/individuals would genuinely rather lose a court case than voluntarily change their policies/minds

I picked up a very strong sense of that from both the Global Development Centre (Forstater) and Garden Court Chambers (Bailey). Westminster Council and Social Work England are shaping up that way (more the latter for Meade).

On the flip side, the lack of an appeal re: NHS Sheffield's mess was rather telling. The NHS Northern General Hospital had an arguable case for appeal but there was a strong sense that they didn't want to that win.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4593138-transwoman-wins-employment-discrimination-case-against-nhs-for-being-treated-differently-from-women-in-changing-room

"But when the sweet fuck are employers going to cotton on to the fact that legal rights trump hurty feelingz."

My take of this is that there has been a powerful turn in society whereby a significant portion of people and organisation think moral arguments trump critical thinking and reasoning. They counter (or seek to counter) critical appraisal of their actions/thinking with moral arguments that don't address facts and don't feel the need to provide evidence.

Fortunately, the law is still based on facts, reasoning and laws!

This morning's TT coverage
Part 1
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757340873098969496.html

And part 2
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757374683714847172.html

Quite. It's as if Stonewall et al have formed an alternative government.

Funny, isn't it, that when "alternative facts" were presented by Trump and his hapless crew of shitwits, it was a bad thing. When they're presented by the left, they're for the greater good...

But when the sweet fuck are employers going to cotton on to the fact that legal rights trump hurty feelingz.

I suspect some organisations/individuals would genuinely rather lose a court case than voluntarily change their policies/minds. That way they can stay on the Right Side of History and their moral purity is retained ("We didn't want to change our policies, a court made us do it").

I did a search for a thread unroll on the off-chance and found these covering yesterday:
Part 1
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757043471708213462.html
Part 2
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757075564672741879.html

Would a TwiX-er mind popping yesterday afternoon's and today's remedy hearing tweets into threadreader, please?
Thanks in advance.
(waits excitedly)

It sounds like they are trying to get out of paying costs because it was crowd funded. Cheeky feckers.

The remedies part is really important in this case, so nudging as reminder for a bit more gardening

@Hoardasurass but not before being submitted as evidence against SWE.

The article in question has been deleted @SinnerBoy

He's utterly confident in his knowledge of the law, which has allowed him to be excoriating, no punches pulled, in with both feet. Get in there, Dennis!

Thread reader for anyone hitting tweet reading limits.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757095208645251413.html

It's on here, too:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5005216-how-a-loophole-in-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists?page=4&reply=132976816

I get lost with so many links & threads!

@SinnerBoy thanks I was looking for that thread.

I just posted it here, too:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5005216-how-a-loophole-in-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists?page=4&reply=132976816

Denis Kavanagh dissects the article
https://x.com/jebadoo2/status/1757095208645251413?s=61&t=W8z-NdrPTYy21FuiQuezcw

This seems to use the initials. I think the original tweet, like the article, has disappeared. https://x.com/trevandvick/status/1757098110923194512?s=61&t=W8z-NdrPTYy21FuiQuezcw

Does anyone know what RW is supposed to have Tweeted?

Bordering on contempt of court, if there is such a thing at an E.T.

Tribunal Tweets makes shocking reading as Naomi Cunningham evidences the lack of understanding or contrition from Social Work England about the findings against them. It seems they didn't attend and I note that tweets from a certain barrister (if I've interpreted the initials correctly) were presented as evidence that SWE appear to be doubling down and ignoring the findings?

This org does have discrim views and SWE holds discrim views and committed serious acts of high handed oppressive discrimination

She has been harassed by SWE. It's not put anyone in discipl for this or put in place any training or taken any active steps to show it's learned anything from this

Mr Conway suggests SWE dont take the trib judgement seriously. It's vital the trib does make an order for damages as nothing less will attract their attention to the gravity of the sit and to put house in order

Yeah, what she said

There is People Management from CIPD https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1859129/does-gender-critical-university-professors-tribunal-victory-mean-employers
and People Today https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/open-university-gender-critical-belief-tribunal-case/#:~:text=Professor%20Jo%20Phoenix%2C%20a%20lesbian,belief%2Drelated%20discrimination%20and%20harassment.

I expect a lot of HR depts, particularly in the CS, will be reading the judgement and working out how to communicate to managers and staff the fact that GC beliefs are protected.

Hope she gave the judge a printed copy rather than a link!

Really strong submissions from NC. I hope the judge is persuaded. Can’t believe SWE didn’t turn up. They clearly think they can just continue on as before. Institutionally GCphobic is about right. All the regulators need a shock so hopefully the judge will see they need to make an example of SWE.