Redvers v NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board & Mr Adam Doyle Thread 2

PF i was aware that they could have expenses reimbursed
CM so not aware paid an hourly rate
PF I was not consciously aware
CM were you aware
PF not aware

The best new defence.

Officer: Ma’am were you aware that you are over the legal limit for alcohol?
Driver: Why officer, no I was not consciously aware.

Faculty: Student, were you aware that you cheated by submitting an essay entirely created by ChatGPT?
Student: No Prof, I wasn’t consciously aware.

🙄

I tried my best there @crabbyoldbat because it only makes sense to the Kool Aid Klan. The rest of us, as you did, are going WTF has X got to do with Y?

Separately, tra and supporters ( including Windy and Wallace) have blamed all sorts of people whom they don't like, for the academic's state of mind prior to his death. Claiming the deceased as one of their own as he was "vulnerable", "different", allegedly.

Ah, this was the bit I was missing, thank you. I did know Wallis is TRA poison

You are fortunate enough to have missed a lengthy carry on! Trying to keep it as short as I can.

NW gave a platform to a TiM in his Genderblog presumably in an attempt to be even handed. The TiM wrote an article which was ( in my view) a woman hating rant. It was dire but totally uncensored by NW. It was not well received by the wider audience, including here on FWR.

Some visitors arrived on this board to denounce NW as unreliable etc. The hidden agenda (imo) being that: they don't like him reporting on recent E.T.s and criticising where he sees fit

Separately, tra and supporters ( including Windy and Wallace) have blamed all sorts of people whom they don't like, for the academic's state of mind prior to his death. Claiming the deceased as one of their own as he was "vulnerable", "different", allegedly.

If the NW investigation doesn't come out with the right answers for these people, then I'm fairly sure they'll get quite worked up about it. We've already seen Windy and Wallace preparing the ground.

Nick Wallis is involved and amongst TRAs he has an equivalent status to JKR because of his genderblog.

I agree we have a Forstater and want one for GI.

In this case the respondents are being asked to either agree a GC definition or provide their own. It will be very interesting what a captured organisation (NHSE) defines as GC, given that their witnesses indicated SR didn’t flag it sufficient for it to be clear it’s her belief.

Also known as upspeak. In most Anglophone countries it's a majority-female habit (e.g. California 'Valley girls'). The one exception I'm aware of is NI, where it's more common from men.

For legal purposes, surely the definition of gender critical was settled by Forstatter.

It's gender identity that we keep asking for a definition and never get an answer.

I'm confused as why the investigation might draw TRA interest, and why India and Freda are wound up - have I missed something?

Thanks to all c&p-ers kand for additional insights from watchers.

I think with the witnesses it was more the top 1 rather than the bottom 1.

I know the thread has moved on but...I have two theories about this:

1. The "do you know what I mean" as per above - the speaker is not sure of what they're saying / they're seeking reassurance that the listener is actually listening

1. The intonation might be natural to some Germanic languages - you can certainly hear it in German

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive

Sir Walter Scott. Also referring to Adam Doyle.

Also Paula Abdul 😂

Thanks.

I'm hoping that this is positive for SR.

Also Bruce Springsteen 'One step up, two steps back' and Olivia Rodrigo 'One step forward and three steps back' - quite the muse, our Adam, isn't he?

Another reflection is that PF was decision maker for the second grievance - the key bit is they make a decision on balance of probability not try to fudge it to keep everyone happy.

The transphobic slur has been wielded by so many people to try to silence perfectly reasonable questions, discussions and debate. In reality it is bullying and harassment to use an accusation of transphobia to silence someone raising safeguarding concerns.

I am not saying transphobia doesn’t exist, it does, but most people are not transphobic they just believe you can’t change sex and sometimes sex matters.

The main bundle was separate from the witness statements.

The bundle may still be available, but I think you'd need to email Peter Daly, solicitor for the Claimant, to know for sure.

Oh OK, thanks. It's probably just as well, to be honest, as I'm sure I would end up sucked into another time consuming rabbit hole!

One step forward and two steps back according to Lenin.
( I think he was referring to Adam Doyle.)

It was through drop box links, and the links were in the tribunal chat box. and I think it's once they've moved on its gone.

Whether any are accessible now I have no clue.

Sounds about right. I wasn't listening to closely by that point.

Huge thanks to TT and copy/pasters and explainers on this thread.

Oh and I was once in a conference chaired by Adam Doyle and ended up taking a tally of how many times he said "going forwards". I think it was 37 in one 15 minute presentation. At one point (at least) he said it twice in the same sentence, i.e. "going forwards we will absolutely do x and y going forwards".

It means nothing...where else would we be going?!

Wow I've gone down a total rabbit hole this afternoon reading your threads and associated links. Does anyone have a link to the paper bundle they refer to in the proceedings? Is that in the public domain? I keep getting a 'too many requests' notice when I try and link from the sub stack so thanks so much to those of you doing sterling cutting and pasting work.

Having worked in a similar area and slightly knowing some of the defendants/witnesses in this case I can totally see how they got into this mess. What I can't understand is how they possibly thought they could defend it in court. Why on earth didn't they settle? It must be sheer arrogance coupled with an absolute belief they were in the right, but what terrible legal advice were they given to get into such a mess on the stand?

I'm absolutely agog, to be honest.