Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

Dr U CLAIMS to be a biological woman on the basis that he's not a robot and self IDs as a woman.

What he is, as well as a sexist pig, is ridiculous.

Unions and employers are very much against asking for legal advice. The only time I have done so, it was mainly because I needed reassurance that I wasn't going crazy – everyone else seemed to be seeing the disciplinary so differently from me. Fortunately the legal scrutiny of the evidence came to much the same understanding as mine, with an additional example noticed of very poor behaviour by the HR person involved, so my sanity remained only just on the eccentric side of normality. When the employer found out, the internal appeal was thrown out for having "legal representation". The whole process was very heavily stacked against the employee.

I was looking for a new thread and then I found you all here! Eating popcorn (and snowballs) and telling Normal Norman to fuck off!! I've enjoyed catching up today, excellent work my learned friends (meant genuinely, not sarcastically).

I find the union policy of not helping if a member has already spoken to a lawyer batshit. In my head I have been comparing it to insurance. If your policy covers legal fees, they won't refuse cover because you've already had advice. They might insist you use their panel lawyers, or decline to pay for Lord Pannick, but not decline coverage because you had the temerity to ask a professional for some advice. What on earth can the rationale behind this policy be, beyond just not spending money?

Hello!

I am caught up.

Some points:

• the suffragette colours are Green White and Violet because they stand for Give Women Votes.
• If the RCN is relying on, “you have your own lawyer so we won’t help you”, that is disgusting, because they can essentially wait out anyone in urgent need of legal advice.
• I would be asking to see a validly nominated, seconded and voted on resolution of Conference in favour of a policy that favours tran-identifying men over women, because if it doesn’t exist the Executive team are acting ultra vires.
• Unions regularly represent members who are racists, violent and bullies because all members deserve representation, even if they behave really badly. In one workplace there was a rep who exclusively represented the racists. Generally he said, you have behaved badly, they will sack you, my job is to help you quit before they do that/advise you to admit everything and fall on their mercy and do whatever it takes to keep your job/if you continue to deny this when they have all this evidence, you will be dismissed for gross misconduct without pay - and I will be in the room but say nothing.

Frankly if unions represent the offending party, which they do on a daily basis, refusing to represent Sandie is actually a political and deliberate act.

Your wish.

Isn't everything?

Oh dear... is m'learned friend going to follow my esteemed colleague in being deemed transphobic?

I think we should start calling each other m'learned friend.

A very belated thank you for the c&p and commentary. I’ve had Life Stuff going on and it was actually DH who asked me if I was following the new Sandy Peggie hearing that alerted me I was missing in action. I’ve caught up over the last couple of days reading of the threads. Not watching myself but sending best wishes to Sandy and Naomi and hope they are enjoying a break this weekend.

Gender reassignment is harmful, often homophobic and just plain daft. It’s stereotypes ascribed to specific sexes, such as girls liking dolls and boys liking Power Rangers, so if you’re a girl who likes power rangers you must be a boy. What should have happened is that society should have accepted that either sex can have any likes or dislikes but that doesn’t determine your sex.

The PP does realise the Trial wasn't on a MN thread? We can use whatever words we want (within MN's rules). We don't have to be sworn in or call each other m'learned friend.

Btw though, belated thanks to the C&Pers.

It still doesn't give a man claiming to be trans the right to use women's single sex spaces in the workplace.

I wasn't disputing that. I was asking a different question about some particular wording used to describe the case.

The PC of GR doesn't allow you to use single sex spaces of the opposite sex which is what this case was about

Either way that's not what the court case was about. There was no question about whether DU was deluded or pretending , and/ or whether it's valid to be trans.

Gender reassignment is protected under the Equality Act. The legal position on that is clear.

It appears that the genderqueer flag is officially not green, white and purple/violet, but

lavender, white, and green.

Any similarity with historical women's rights movements being, of course, entirely coincidental.

Apparently the GenderQueer flag in the US is green white and purple hence those colours appearing in the alphabet flag.

Think yourself lucky that you have four. I’m on the app. I have one. Thanks. So for me, thanks means:

interesting point/analysis

I didn’t know that, that’s useful

Thank you for c&p ing/the gift article

I hope you’re ok

hugs

OMG

FFS

Great picture/gif/song

I have splurted out my coffee laughing at this

Pleasant smile

So does this go back to the original “treat it as an extended holiday” advice being wrong because RCN failed to realise SP was being discriminated against because of their capture?
So if NC can prove this then the “oh but we couldn’t offer legal support due to our policy” becomes a poor defence because it’s the RCN’s failure to recognise the discrimination that’s the issue

Oh. I forgot misogynistic.

I have to say that a poster stumbling in a nitpicking way towards a gotcha is always amusing, especially when it’s relatively trivial.
I expect most people on here see DU as deluded, spiteful and mendacious, regardless of whether he is or just claims to be whatever he says he is.

This is where NC's strategy of trying to prove that the RCN had picked a side comes in.

LM's experience was being pretty much constructively dismissed. RCN tried to argue that it was a conflict of interest as she was doing work for other organisations - fair point I think. But what transpired on Thursday and Friday pointed to ideological capture: first, LM being invited to reflect upon her values and consider how they align with RCN's; and second, Ellie whatsisface (TIM RCN member) being able to make repeated threats of violence against GC women with no repercussions.

Yesterday's questioning was beautiful in that NC lead the witness to understand the extent of the capture for himself. He truly sounded like he was having an epiphany.

I sure hope the judge was keeping up. She has been remarkably quiet, unobtrusive and neutral so far, which is not that usual in these tribunals, is it? I hope it's a good sign for Sandie.

No, they're not together -but they're there. Norm would no doubt claim that because they feature, it shows the RCN supports GC beliefs 🙄🤥

If it is physically impossible to be one thing but you still claim to be so, then yes, you are pretending - or deluded! Upton is a medical doctor so will know that it is impossible to change sex.