HH - para one a sarcastic ref to ST 'actual scientists' that sex is immutable.
CA - where is this directed at ST
HH you're quite right it's Caitlin.
HH - final para - he threatens people 'personally making note of slanderous comments' . If we look at mod log
J - you didn't ask a question
HH if you go to log row 44.

<seriously, HH, give it up...>

no interest in attacking anti trans folks

🤔🙄

The double standards here makes me want to scream. This is such a load of bollocks.

Making contemporaneous notes - good.

Saying you’re making contemporaneous notes - bad.

Who is Beth Gordon and what other proceedings is she involved in. Anyone know?

HH my point is that by the time AM posts, there has been a polite exchange of views
CA in parts yes, but also people saying they had a protected belief and they don't - parts like that
HH - AM intervention at 332 accuses people of sharing misinformation, and ST advancing strawman argument.
CA - I'd have to read whole post
CA - yes there has been misinformation about protected beliefs

HH - move on to next issue AM stating making notes of colleagues comments, the internet doesn't forget and neither does he

Was he making <gasps> contemporaneous notes?

HH - this comment made in response to thread by Paula Austin the RPA LGBTplus champion. She expresses concern about launch of SEEN and she requests support. (HH quotes some supportive responses in thread at 325, bottom entry EB, issues with menopause and preg)
HH - exh between Luke Brookes at ST - that we shouldn't have this discussion in workplace. Look at 327 in particular, ST response to LB 'no interest in attacking anti trans folks just don't want their views shoved in my face at work'

<oh the irony>

HH - so we can see at row 193, 20 June 23, post in Col F can see that a complaint raised AM policing gender equality network and sort out by going into network What we can see in terms of mod, reviewed on 21 June, were you involved?
CA - I cant remember
HH - seen as some degree of sarcasm but not over line.

Ah, so AM is "policing" the gender network? AM might well be a member of the gender network as it's an "inclusive network" that's open to "all genders". But when ST and allies go trawling Yammer, the work intranet and private Teams chats for things to complain about, this is not policing, but is a perfectly legitimate action.

CA - to be completely accurate,Sally recused from some decisions because the poster was someone in her team so she stepped back from those decisions.
HH asks who the person was
CA I think I shouldn't say
HH was it Beth Gordon
J I don't think it matters,
HH why shouldn't you say?
CA someone involved in other proceedings
HH - move on to next issue AM stating making notes of colleagues comments, the internet doesn't forget and neither does he
J - we need page number first please

Please can somebody reassure me that the other two witnesses for the Respondent had nothing to do with the Spreadsheet of Doom

Sympathies to the TT'ers who get asked to pop back for the final week of this tribunal

The Southern Poverty Law Centre who get funding to tackle racism, and who were recently found to be funnelling funds, to the KKK?

To keep up the racism which they were being paid to tackle?

That Southern Poverty Law Centre?

She may not identify as GC. But she's got it for sure - she's explaining it as well as Forstater or Bindel and in a way that seems to cut off further qs from HH.

J - any formal principles for moderation?
CA - against princ of communications once issued in Nov 22
J - when mod panel met was it always same people
CA - mostly yes
J - remind us who were
CA - myself, EW-V, manager of EDI team in Env Agency Harley Malling DDTS, the digital team
CA - Sally Williams Env agency
J - decisions always unanimous
CA - yes

HH the outcome was that Liz decided to close thread down, quite reasonable response from Ms Willow, but AM assessment of conduct was sarcastic OK. Another eg of downplaying GC comments
CA - don't accept, we were endeav to be fair to everybody
J - how many people on mod panel
CA - there was a core group of four I think, and then there were one or two others who came and went.
J - met?
CA - in Nov and Dec 22 two or three times a week. From Jan 23 we would meet weekly.

[We resume. From TT]

HH - so we can see at row 193, 20 June 23, post in Col F can see that a complaint raised AM policing gender equality network and sort out by going into network What we can see in terms of mod, reviewed on 21 June, were you involved?
CA - I cant remember
HH - seen as some degree of sarcasm but not over line.

In time, when we look back we'll see 'Transgender Ideology' and 'Gender Identity Theory' as the apotheosis of the politics of fragility and Identity. A sort of bottomed out low point in American culture. Indicative of every type of excess.

The deal seems to be that HH gets to ask questions until CA says something -anything! - that helps HH.

We could be here forever.

Very true

I completely agree. Which is why people who create them should arrange them properly for the ease of other users. Anyway I digress...😊

From the last thread:
Justabaker · Today 10:45
Amnesty are taking a page from the Southern Poverty Law Center (sp on purpose) - call anyone that disagrees with the extreme views of progressive politics far right. Far right has ceased to have any meaning except - they disagree with the org or person hurling the words.

Time to remind them of Everyone I don't like is literally Hitler:

I guess she might say she can see the issue from both sides.

From the point of view of one side, anyone who can see both sides is on the other side.

Being sarcastic is now a hate crime.

I think it would be pretty extreme to cut off counsel completely and would give them grounds for appeal. He's given her a deadline of lunchtime. I think yesterday she said she'd need only 40 mins today. She knew what she had to cover today, not like NC whose time estimate is a moving target while CA is being x-examined. So I think HH is filibustering. And in the circs the judge may be pretty firm, perhaps a late or reduced lunch break but insist she wrap it up.

If you don't navigate spreadsheets all the time it's not easy. Even less easy if you're on a laptop and not two screens and a proper keyboard and mouse.

I can't imagine how deeply the judge must regret allowing this spreadsheet malarkey.