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

I'm not sure if this witness has spotted the trap or is being deliberately obtuse.

Edit - sorry I mean obtuse.

Thanks

I agree, it was a bit waffle waffle waffle Could you turn to p1,568 please waffle waffle Would it be correct to say that waffle waffle then BANG!
'encouraging people to 'kick the living fuck out of terfs'.
Suddenly the reality of what GC women face is revealed in Technicolor, minus the verbiage.

In fairness, it wasn't literally waffle this morning, it was an essential part of the legal process of the tribunal being carried out by a respected officer of the court, but you know what I mean....😏

From NW

NP it doesn't say that
NC do you accept that this only relates to things that the RCN has adopted publicly
NP yes
NC so go back to p730 [NP's outcome letter]. It's implicit in what you say there - that LM must have done something wrong in writing and proposing to publish that article without getting permission first.
NP it's a specific term of her contract so she's in breach
NC but you don't say in your letter what it is in the article which disagrees with the views of the RCN
NC what is it?
NP yes as I state in my evidence this morning my concerns were her criticisms of the SPS and she publicly represented the RCN in our ongoing relationship in the SPS there might be a risk they consider any publication or work with the group out with the RCN might represent the RCN's views.

A lot of trying to wriggle out of admitting that her GC views were the reason here.

There's a hole in your bucket dear Eliza a hole.

Yes I caught that. NC is a master!

NC but 11.3 doesn't say that - the contract term is about views which conflict with those of the RCN - not that she can't criticise an organisation
NP SPS was an external partner well - a critical stakeholder - and I didn't want her views to be conflated with RCN
NP there was a risk of reputational damage
NC but that's not what that clause says - so she might be in breach of another term in her contract which may or may not exist which doesn't allow her to criticise other organisations, but she can't be in breach of terms 11.3 - do you accept that.
NP I've given my evidence and my explanation about finding her in breach - it was a reputational concern
NC it's right that RCN had never adopted Gender Identity Ideology - it has never adopted

Back in the room. Not long to wait at all.

@chilling19 I think she has no fucks left to give. She is taking no prisoners.

Yes I agree. And she does it so politely. ❤️

In my experience this is perfectly normal. An organisation doesn’t have in-house expertise e.g. cleaning, security, payroll, HR, Legal etc. which creates a requirement for a service provided by 3rd parties. They will run a tender exercise and evaluate the offers and decide which company best meets their needs.

The contract may run for 3-5 years and then they re-tender. Often the same company gets the contract because they best understand the potential clients needs. Other companies can and do get the contract. However, long standing relationships do build up.

The conveyor belt will run all day and never run out.

Totally At this point she knows every stupid excuse they can come up with and already has ten questions prepared depending on which waffle answer they give.

The man he doth protest too much.

Further to the tweets....

From TT
NP my concern was relationship with prison service and her role
NC if she is in breach you must be able to say what are the views that she is contradicting
NP I was concerned about reputational damage of RCN and critical relationship with stakeholder. Her views conflated with RCN
No view that RCN held that she was contradicting? If she said something critical and you were concerned they were offended, then that would be another part of her contract wouldn't it?
NP as I said before reputational damage
NC - PDF 341. page 1256. Two docs. Have you seen before?
NP yes read them
NC There is a hole in your outcome letter that in that it fails to ID the RCN position that Lisa is in conflict with. Same absence in these docs
NP please point to what you wish me to look at
NC - I am not aware it deals with that at all, my proposition is that it doesn't. It's right, isn't it that RCN has never explic adopted gender ideology as a position. You said no to that, just to be clear
NP yes
NC article that caused all the fuss. (refers to this) the article criticises policy of trans prisoners and self ID has become widespread, those weren't things that RCN am I right, not RCN taken explicit public position

Yes, that makes the little razor sharp knife twists so

NP correct as far as I'm aware
NC your tactic implication is that Lisa should have known it was
NC do you agree it takes a GC stance?
NP yes
NC the C has said the RCN has adopted trans ideology, They say they haven't. So that means that they understood that it was? The belief of claim whether someone is a man or woman is that it is their inner sense.
The world view alligned with self ID to be brought in in 2018
NC trans ideology - creed TWAW TWAM NB are valid. GC oppposed position is that their sex is their body. Can you agree with me that this debate is at its most fractious when it comes to TW accessing female services

That was some excellent word emphasis from NC!!

Trans women are MEN

NP almost all that's been raised with me clinical not access to changing spaces NC but out there in the world, the real flash points, men who say they are women, and their rights of access to women only spaces
NP yes

And this lovely new sneaker from Converse.

Did DH bring up LM’s case to weaken her as a witness in the face of another two nurses against RCN, I wonder? It’s kind of doing the opposite.

Oh ‘I’ve given my evidence’ seems to be a ‘I won’t say any more on it as I know it is going to be exposed as arse covering bunkum that we prepared earlier’.

I don't think she was DH's witness, was she?