Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

@Poinsettiasarevile Very quick about 10 minutes.

I was imagining John Cleese giving it a run for the money!

Now that's a waste of taxpayers money I could totally get behind.

Jane Horrocks is the most amazing mimic I'd like to hear her doing WFTCHTJ in her impressions of Judy garland etc

I think they've got away with outright misuse of public funds, not doing their core job, and pushing the ideology for so long that they think they're invincible.

Shades of the SNP.

I happen to be at a lose end today. Have asked to join. How long did it take for others before the link cam through?

Ta

I think it would be amusing to hear WFTCHTJ in Christopher Walken's voice.

Being fair maybe the witness misheard NC saying the name

Yes, public opinion does shift. So it's counterproductive on their part really.

If they pay people off, the public wouldn't hear about it.

Which is why I wondered if they had tried, and JKR basically said don't worry, I'll finance the lot, let's hold their feet to the fire and get this in the public domain.

But I can totally see how very many of these people would rather be without a job, or credibility, but still be in 'the gang'.

As long as it works to our advantage, then I'm all for it

I've got to be honest, I find it vanishingly unlikely that one could know about the case but not remember Maya's name given that it's literally referred to as the Forstater case every time it's discussed. But maybe that's just me.

My preference would be to have the phrase read out in increasingly silly accents.

A line was accidentally missed out of the TT tweets, and after MR says she didn't know who Maya was, she actually did confirm she knew the case in question, I think, and it blew up rather a lot on Twitter.

Apology & clarification from TT on Twitter

Imagine if they had hold music, they would have to be very careful with their song choices.

What happened there, then? I missed this.

I suspect it will be the fallout from the TT coverage of the MR Forstater comments.

I'm hoping they are not discussing excluding TT.

I wonder what they are discussing? Maybe ERCC are begging Roz to accept an apology and close this before it gets even more damaging.

WFTCHTJ

Morning all.

From TT

We expect proceedings to begin at 10:00am and also expect a delay while the court hears applications from the parties in private.

As Lipbalm says above, part of the selling of this ideology is that the law is wrong, and they are righteous for transgressing it. It will never be possible to convince the proponents of this belief system otherwise: the necessary part is the communication to those with a more balanced and objective view, that again and again and again the law does not uphold this behaviour, and names it for what it is. And public opinion shifts. And hopefully, insurers become more reluctant to be righteous but broke.

Our experience from TT observation is that many of these cases seem unwinnable, especially since Forstater. Even if an org wins on a technicality - out of time, not an employee, resigned but doesn't meet the criteria for constructive dismissal - if they go through tribunal there is so much damage and cost.
But the capture by gender ideology makes it impossible for anyone inside the org to advocate for settling - because they will make themselves the next target for the mob by 'denying the existence of trans peoples lived experience'.
The respondents leave what I would call 'smoking guns' everywhere. In my professional life, we could get people to leave without sharpening pitchforks, lighting torches, baying for blood on internal chat boards and leaving evidence for the tribunal in plain sight. They don't seem to be able to pretend to be fair, to care about the gender critical employee, to find some fig leaf for their dismissal.
It is a perfect combination of purity spiral and virtue signalling. They cannot help themselves.
My opinion (I have no data) is that they did not try and settle.

I too think this is an accurate representation of matters.

I think there's also a firm belief that they are the Righteous and Stonewall interpretation of the law blinds them to the idea that they might actually be in the wrong.