Page 29 | English Blackball Pool Federation

Signalbox · 2025-04-06T07:40:51+00:00

The hearing is scheduled for 7th-11th April at Canterbury County Court. Tribunal Tweets will be following the case… Live tweeting sessions Abbreviations J - His Honour Judge Parker HH - Harriet Haynes, claimant RW - Robin White, claimant’s barrister CC - Colman Coyle, claimant's solicitor EBPF - English Blackball Pool Federation PT - Paul Thomson, defendant AG - Anna Goodwin, defendant SC - Sarah Crowther KC, defendants’ barristers, and SS - Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson JRL - JR Levins LLP, defendants’ solicitor JG - James Goodwin, witness for defendant The original thread has been deleted for “breaking Mumsnet guidelines”. Not sure why but possibly “misgendering” or possibly making it too easy to find the crowdfund {mention:mumsnet} it would be good if you could let us know so this thread can stay up. Do we have to pretend that the Claimant is female?

wantmorenow · 07/04/2025 11:24

Yes - forgot images need vetting now by MN due to the previous abuse images

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 11:22

wantmorenow · 07/04/2025 11:17

Thank you - just sent this to the email I found online - having failed to see the last few court hearings due to their inability to host observers I hope this is better.

Did you send to this email?

[email protected]

OP posts:

wantmorenow · 07/04/2025 11:21

forgot image

wantmorenow · 07/04/2025 11:17

Thank you - just sent this to the email I found online - having failed to see the last few court hearings due to their inability to host observers I hope this is better.

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 11:15

wantmorenow · 07/04/2025 11:07

Can someone please provide the email address and details to request access please? Many thanks

Details are here. I’m not 100% which email to use. I guess it’s the civil court admin email but I contacted them Friday and no response yet. If anyone knows better please update us :)

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/canterbury-combined-court-centre

OP posts:

wantmorenow · 07/04/2025 11:07

Can someone please provide the email address and details to request access please? Many thanks

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 10:50

A rule that allows people to use sex-based pronouns but prohibits personal attack of individuals involved in the case would be reasonable I think.

OP posts:

SidewaysOtter · 07/04/2025 10:46

BeckyAMumsnet · 07/04/2025 10:36

Thanks for your patience while we review the recent deletions.

We know this is a complex and nuanced area, and even with the best intentions, some of our moderation decisions may sometimes feel inconsistent or unclear.
Referring to someone’s biological sex is not against our rules, particularly where it’s central to the discussion - but we ask that posts remain civil, thoughtful and measured as far as possible. Language that appears designed to belittle or provoke is likely to be deleted. If we do anything that seems at odds with this approach, or if anything isn’t clear, do feel free to get in touch. We’re always happy to review or explain where needed.

So can you confirm that those who are biologically male (i.e. were born male, regardless of gender identity) can be referred to as men without risk of deletion?

This would be consistent with the law as many of us understand it, where gender critical views are a protected characteristic. This allows for someone to refer to someone else's biological sex as long as it's factual rather than harassment - e.g. the difference between (i) referring to Dave (who now identifies as Susan) as "he", as in, "He's over there", and (ii) following Dave/Susan around shouting, "You're a man, you're a man!" for no reason other than to cause alarm or distress.

I'm sure we all appreciate how difficult moderating can be, especially when unseen monitors are making reports, but we need to apply the actual law, not the law as certain quarters would like it to be

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 10:39

BeckyAMumsnet · 07/04/2025 10:36

Thanks for your patience while we review the recent deletions.

We know this is a complex and nuanced area, and even with the best intentions, some of our moderation decisions may sometimes feel inconsistent or unclear.
Referring to someone’s biological sex is not against our rules, particularly where it’s central to the discussion - but we ask that posts remain civil, thoughtful and measured as far as possible. Language that appears designed to belittle or provoke is likely to be deleted. If we do anything that seems at odds with this approach, or if anything isn’t clear, do feel free to get in touch. We’re always happy to review or explain where needed.

What we need to know is, if we refer to the male people involved in this case as “he” or “him” are you going to delete our posts and the thread?

OP posts:

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 10:37

BettyBooper · 07/04/2025 10:31

Does anyone know the case number?

K01CT207

OP posts:

MNHQ

BeckyAMumsnet · 07/04/2025 10:36

Thanks for your patience while we review the recent deletions.

We know this is a complex and nuanced area, and even with the best intentions, some of our moderation decisions may sometimes feel inconsistent or unclear.
Referring to someone’s biological sex is not against our rules, particularly where it’s central to the discussion - but we ask that posts remain civil, thoughtful and measured as far as possible. Language that appears designed to belittle or provoke is likely to be deleted. If we do anything that seems at odds with this approach, or if anything isn’t clear, do feel free to get in touch. We’re always happy to review or explain where needed.

BettyBooper · 07/04/2025 10:31

Does anyone know the case number?

BettyBooper · 07/04/2025 10:27

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 09:58

I've emailed the courts re remote access but no response yet.

Tribunal Tweets have said they will be live tweeting but I guess they have to get permission first.

Show quote history

I have an auto response saying they are currently experiencing delays....

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 10:07

PoshCoffee · 07/04/2025 10:03

Thanks @Signalbox TT and copious tea is the plan

Here is the TT link...

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1909167282850242580

OP posts:

PoshCoffee · 07/04/2025 10:03

Thanks @Signalbox TT and copious tea is the plan

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 09:58

PoshCoffee · 07/04/2025 09:44

Morning all, does anyone know if there is remote access to this hearing. I’m off work ill so would have the opportunity to observe.

I've emailed the courts re remote access but no response yet.

Tribunal Tweets have said they will be live tweeting but I guess they have to get permission first.

OP posts:

StickItInTheFamilyAlbum · 07/04/2025 09:51

DontStopMe · 06/04/2025 21:32

Prize money: £10000 for the winner, £4000 for the runner up, semi finalists get £2000. So one woman has lost out on £8000 and another has lost out on £2000.

An additional 2 women who should have competed in the semifinals lost £2000 each. And any standing points for seeding? I don’t know about pool rules but points influence seeding in lots of sports.

The harms extend down.

PoshCoffee · 07/04/2025 09:44

Morning all, does anyone know if there is remote access to this hearing. I’m off work ill so would have the opportunity to observe.

Greyskybluesky · 07/04/2025 09:09

FFS. Are we back to having to use terms like Bridgeself and Harperself like we used to have to do instead of being able to speak the truth? Proof once again that women's rights can be taken away in an instant. Proof that language has to be engineered so as not to upset someone's feelings.

Helleofabore · 07/04/2025 08:41

I wonder too signal. Surely the IOC will insist on something for their money.

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 08:36

I wonder if Harper still running that study with Emily Bridges to prove that Bridges has become as weak as a woman since Bridges declared Bridgeself to be a lady?

https://archive.ph/bnd2q

OP posts:

Helleofabore · 07/04/2025 08:31

I think Harper is still being rolled out as a ‘reasonable’ academic. Here is Harper on this John Oliver show (from last night I think)

https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1909136217377026129?s=46

I think eventually Harpers search will be compared with a search for the Holy grail.

https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1909136217377026129?s=46

Helleofabore · 07/04/2025 08:23

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 08:12

I thought Harper agreed that males have an advantage but than “meaningful” competition could still take place. #€ basically thinks that inclusion is more important than fairness. I don’t understand how this will help the claimant’s case.

Show quote history

I think harper was trying to find that meaningful way. But also got caught in the mess with that study that deteriorated.

generally I think harper is trying to minimise harpers own findings ;the were in line with Hilton and Lindberg ) and trying to retcon the category to fit males into female sports.

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 08:20

Here is a Jon Pike paper discussing Joanna Harper’s concept of “meaningful competition”…

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2023.2167720#abstract

OP posts:

Original poster

Signalbox · 07/04/2025 08:12

Helleofabore · 07/04/2025 07:13

I wonder whether Harper’s reputation will be further with this case. Considering Harper’s IOC funded study of four that became just one and that was Bridges, iirc. I don’t think Harper has a credible reputation at the moment anyway.

I thought Harper agreed that males have an advantage but than “meaningful” competition could still take place. #€ basically thinks that inclusion is more important than fairness. I don’t understand how this will help the claimant’s case.

OP posts: