Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5262655-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-assault-pt-iii?reply=141779046&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

I misremembered the number.

Not 0.52%, but 0.25%.

I'm rather glad our house retains the original 1930s arrangement of lavatory in a separate room next to the bathroom. And my toothbrush is kept at the far end of the bathroom.

I'll try to remember which thread it was on. Others provided the evidence, I just did the end-to-end arithmetic.

I must admit I have changed where I keep my toothbrush!

And that is why even at home I always close the lid before flushing and keep my tooth brush in a closed cupboard!

Exactly my thought when i read their vetting page.

If a TIM is the unicorn who can 'pass' as a woman it's a huge secret to keep. They aren't living honestly and this can potentially make them vulnerable to blackmail.

Don’t watch videos of what happens to the microbial load of the air in the cubicle when you flush a toilet without closing the lid! Many public toilets don’t have lids (and very few close them when flushing) but anything within a metre of the toilet is likely to end up with particles on it.

Oh I would love some evidence on that if you have any - even if it’s depressing!

I hope so. I wonder what the Supreme Court judges would make of it?

The modern fashion in toilets for the general public of integral or glued down toilet seats is a bit of a disaster in men's toilets let alone unisex ones. Only the most fastidious of us seem to wipe the seat after use.

The stats are embarrassingly appalling. Any statistician involved in that should be ashamed.

On the subject of the Judge throwing everything in, I was amazed she mentioned door gaps and hygiene. That leads her wide open for comparisons (of which I can give many regarding health too). Of course it’s not a ‘possibly’ that door gaps help - it is the truth. (There’s also links with ventilation).

Guide dogs guide their owners to the correct sex of toilet by smell, and there’s no doubt women can tell the difference between a unisex and a female by smell too. Our wee is of different composition to men’s, and human males are, like many other male animal species, even able to smell the differences in female fertile days.

Apologies for the bluntness, but they are so many subtle differences between female and unisex toilets. You can literally smell it. women have a better sense of smell which is very much a disadvantage in unisex loos that can’t be washed down as easily from the smellier urine of men. Men also don’t wash their hands as much. That means women wash their hands then touch the door handle that is more likely to have more microbes on it. All scientifically provable.

You can request a basic check for yourself. Your employer needs to request a standard or enhanced check. The employee always gets the certificate, but the employer is separately told what is on the certificate plus any non-conviction information disclosed by the police that isn't on the certificate.

The same is true for charities and volunteers.

The whole statistical input by the judge is garbage.

If one person is discriminated against, the fact that they are the only one
makes no odds

To turn it on its head
if a solidary trans identifying man was denied his legal rights
would a judge say
"but you are the rarity in the company, suck it up "

say 3% of rapes end in a conviction - 97% of rapists are male and freely roaming in society.

Unfortunately it's much worse than that. I did the sums earlier this year and if you take into account attrition rate at each stage - reporting, prosecution, conviction - around 0.5% of rapes end in conviction.

Whoops! Brain fart re DBS. Sorry!😀

As far as I am aware it's always the employer (or charity or whatever) who requests a DBS check regardless of level & the certificate always gets sent to the employee (or charity worker or whatever).

Thanks for sharing BB. I’m sorry that happened to you.

Shame on EJ MS generally but more so thinking of your experience.

Sorry to be pedantic but it's the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Also employers can request a basic check without approaching the employee.

https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record

One woman complained.

There were three trans identifying males.

Ratio weight 1:100000000

Toilets have a long history with espionage and blackmail. There were rumours about a past prime minister and cottaging and that the security services had to have a word.

Hidden cameras have got past the security in Holyrood to be put into the toilets at the heart of government.

Unisex toilets are great places to put hidden cameras. There’s a reason the sexual offences act had to put a new clause in for toilets. But, it doesn’t stop people.

In the ‘olden’ days the police used to drill holes in the ceiling to peer down on men to check what they were doing.

There is also a back channel whereby the DBS can pass confidential intelligence about the employee to a trusted person at the employing organisation. Though that doesn't change your point that it is the employer who makes the employment decision.

You can always get a DBS check no matter how many convictions you have. The question is what will appear on it.

Many (most?) people think that you pass or fail a DBS check performed by the Denial & Barring Service when in fact it's the employee who receives the DBS certificate detailing convictions etc. The employee then gives the DBS certificate to the employer, charity etc & they make a judgement as to the suitability of the individual. The Denial & Barring Service is just the messenger not the decision maker.

Agree, that’s also an interesting thought.

If using “some other” (let’s say single user) loos will always “out” you as trans, then surely insisting that someone who isn’t trans can just use the other loos (if they don’t feel comfortable with the TiMs in the ladies) would have a similar effect - it would mark them as trans when they are not. Surely “cis” people have the right to not be thought of as trans? That’s what we’re always being told anyway (wrt the all the butch lesbians who are constantly being thrown out of the ladies loos…).

An appeal will be on all possible grounds, as I hope we will see.

@TwoLoonsAndASprout well I wondered during the trial why it wasn't raised that it would be "outing" for Maria Kelly to start using different toilets from the ones she was used to. Because then presumably everyone would know she was actually a man...

Now that’s an interesting thought that just popped into my head.

If the Leonardo vetting process is mainly there to make sure that you don’t have anything in your past that a foreign power could use as leverage against you (to get you to turn over the microfilm, or we will tell everyone your leetle secret etc, etc),

And, all the trans-identifying men in Leonardo (according to the judge) pass so well that no one would ever guess they are really men, to the extent that it would be horrible and outing for them to use the men’s toilets,

Doesn’t that make them a security risk?

They have this secret that is SO important and terrible that just using the “wrong” toilet would utterly destroy them. Surely that would be an easy point to push for a foreign power? We will tell everyone in your office that you are really a man (if you do not hand over the microfilm, etc etc).

So either no one can tell they are actually men, and their lives would crumble if anyone found out, so they are a complete security risk and shouldn’t be employed there anyway. Or everyone knows (and therefore the TiMs couldn’t possibly care if Mr Baddie threatened to tell everyone) and so they should just use the men’s loos and get over themselves.

Make it make sense!