Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
26
Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:19

Judge done.

R counsel asking brief qs.

BlueLegume · 16/10/2026 13:17

BlueLegume · 16/10/2026 12:57

Hadley Freeman on Jeremy Vine Radio 2 this lunchtime. Excellent.

Helen Webberley also on. Word salad nonsense as ever. Never answers the question.

Edited

And the track played immediately after the piece was Soul II Soul Back to Life (Back to Reality) - I don’ t think that was a coincidental play.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:16

CM did really well with his 15 minutes, he was only a smidge over.

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 13:16

From TT

CM you were not aware at this point that the LEA had asked for slurs to be placed on the record after the re-circulation
PF I was not aware but I did check later not on the record
CM your thoughts on efficacy of recirculation
PF not for me to say
CM why were notes withheld from C?
PF I don't know
J what notes
CM - the minutes of the meeting
J she had transcript
CM PF you knew that C did not have copy of full minutes
PF I can't recall
CM first time C saw this document was on 18 Sept 2026. did you know that she didn't have a copy
PF I think I did know she didn't have copy
CM so you had a copy and she didn't, why
PF I think I had advice that this was to do with personal data [me - oh aye]
CM but not even the composition and lack of permanent safeguarding presence PF I wasn't part of the THIB or formation
CM what I am putting to you is that the C doesn't know that the value you circulation had taken place at the beginning of August meeting, but you did
PF but what information are you talking about 🙄
J recounting, you asked to see minutes, you were given minutes, you were told not given to C because of FOI team,
PF yes
J so any new information, she didn't have
PF yes at time of g/x
CM final point from me, you say that C seemed to accept rationale of your decision
PF where in WS
CM para 46, however within 5 days of rec'ng outcome letter, she had resigned

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:15

Judge wants to ask qs before lunch.

Everyone sit back down.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:14

Final point from CM

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:13

Is the Judge stepping in to remind witness what she's (the witness) said?

Cailleach1 · 16/10/2026 13:12

So, which was the greater problem for them. SR’s adherence to reality, or child safeguarding.

Looks suspect, either way.

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 13:08

From TT

[CM can you see that no one saying anything to defend C was professional] behaviour
PF wasn't at the meeting, can't say, it was towards the end
CM can you see that exclusion from the THIB prevented safeguarding and that you only interviewed LB, no other members of THIB, your conclusions based on sand.
PF based on transcript
CM you say you don't know if comment was caused by SH leaving
PF no we don't know
CM you say that SH did the right thing by leaving the meeting, 😳
PF I'm basing that based on what C had told me, did the right thing to leave and not get drawn into any further convo about that person.
CM your decisions are reverse engineered based on the decision not to interview anyone.
PF I disagree
CM you say 'having spoken to LB, meeting values recirculated to all members' and these were the same meeting values circulated at earlier meetings,
PF yes with her covering email
CM I'm tempted to use quote misattributed to Lincoln, doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity
PF so I understand that it was circulated with a reminder of consequences, including being asked to step down

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:07

.

Aisha Dee Oops GIF by The Bold Type
Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:07

.

troll whats GIF
Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:04

Is she at "we just don't know" stage of answers?

singthing · 16/10/2026 13:04

MrPrettyDamnCosmic · 16/10/2026 12:18

On the plus side she is being thoroughly vindicated & this ET is exposing the whole sorry mess in public.

There is vindication and exposure I agree, but only if you are able to keep up with the sheer volume of lies, bad actors, even worse actions and all the rest of fit. And all as part of a wider trend of this stuff being brought to light.

I fear that, to the layperson, this will all just merge into one blob of complicated stuff that is easier to bypass and instead be soothed by agreeing with more "be kind" and "most marginalised", "nasty feminists" language instead. After all, it is quite extraordinary and hard to believe it actually happened.

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 13:04

From TT

[Apologies, more discussion, we carry on]
J what was first
CM not reaching a decision on belief related harassment, 2nd you reach a finding that actions taken by other members of board did not breach code of conduct
PF yes, I see that
CM let's look at the code of conduct.....
J - page CM 3474, roles and responsibilities, code of conduct, covers members including SH,
PF was a member yes
CM [rattling through requirements, concluding with upholding Nolan principles]
PF yes see all that
CM is flouncing off in the middle of a safeguarding discussion professional behaviour
PF I saw from the transcript he left the meeting, don't know if flounced or not, leaving a meeting not unprofessional
CM can you see that no one saying anything to defend C was professional

[PF honestly coming off as completely incompitant and ridiculous now imho]

MarieDeGournay · 16/10/2026 13:02

[PF as the g/x manager it's my job to try and reconcile] but not my job to make legal assessments of what had happened

I'm sure that only applies to 'burn the transphobic witch' cases, in other kinds of disputes she would not see her job as reconciling the bullied with the bully, the offended with the offender...

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 12:59

From TT

[PF as the g/x manager it's my job to try and reconcile] but not my job to make legal assessments of what had happened
CM what I put to you is this - your reticence is precisely because it was an allegation of discrimination
PF I don't agree with that
CM why not come off the fence
PF I put my position as best as I could, but not my job to take a legal view
CM did you take legal advice, don't tell me what it is
PF there was legal advice via GA, but on different aspects don't remember specifics
CM you don't use EDI code as reference - I'm conscious of time [discussion of time, conclusion to break for lunch]

🙄

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · 16/10/2026 12:58

Quiet, everyone, the witness is scrolling, for goodness sake!

Kirschcherries · 16/10/2026 12:58

KTheGrey · 16/10/2026 12:55

It is deeply worrying because there are so many wassocks on huge pay packets doing actively damaging work, and yet we are supposed to think administrators are of value in the NHS. Well - many of them are not worth a candle. They actively exacerbate problems.

Which gives us two problems - how do you identify the wassocks and how do you either get pointful work out of them or get rid? I mean, several strike me as redundant, as they seem to be employed to do things which don’t need to be done.

It makes me very sad and irritable that taxpayers fund wassocks to make work a worse experience.

If the outcome of this case is as it should be based on the evidence then AD, as a respondent, may get a hit to his reputation that send shockwaves to other senior managers/board members.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 12:58

CM 15 mins more.

So, breaking for lunch.

Oh no let's carry on.

We continue.

Sets stopwatch.

BlueLegume · 16/10/2026 12:57

Hadley Freeman on Jeremy Vine Radio 2 this lunchtime. Excellent.

Helen Webberley also on. Word salad nonsense as ever. Never answers the question.

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 12:56

From TT

CM final area is detriment 23,
PF page number?
CM we'll get there. First do you agree that you never issued a finding if C had been discriminated against for belief discrim
PF can I see the page number, my recollection is that it was possibly a single instance of harassment
CM well what does that mean
J let's go to finding
CM C says 'belief related harassment' , need to clarify if g/x upheld or not
PF yes
CM is it bullying or harassment based on religion or belief
PF I can see the comment,
CM your letter starts at page 3116
J pause for a moment, where on 3067
CM bottom, in the bos
J then to CM final outcome letter, describe the comment as inappropriate
PF sorry just scrolling
CM but nowhere do you say whether C subject to belife related harassment
PF I say further up in the letter that it could be viewed a single instance of harassment
CM belief related harassment or not
PF I decided it could be
CM isn't it your job to come off the fence one way or the other
PF as the g/x manager it's my job to try and reconcile

[PF blah blah, gulp, blah blah fudge fudge erm erm erm]

KTheGrey · 16/10/2026 12:56

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 11:52

'CAF has commissioned an independent investigation into Cambridge’s appointment of Dr Jason Arday as its youngest ever black professor, amid growing professional disquiet over his academic record, the circumstances of his appointment, the University’s handling of concerns raised about his scholarship and, more recently, the scope and direction of Cambridge’s own inquiry. You can find out more here: https://ardayinvestigation.net

The investigation will be chaired by Professor Swaran Preet Singh, Lord Singh of Solihull, a former Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission who previously led the independent investigation into allegations of discrimination within the Conservative Party. He will be joined by a distinguished panel comprising Harvard psychologist Professor Steven Pinker, UCL sociologist Professor Alice Sullivan, Cambridge historian Professor Robert Tombs and Labour peer Professor Maurice Glasman.

Award-winning investigative journalist Nick Wallis, whose work helped expose the Post Office Horizon scandal, will lead the investigation with a dedicated research team. CAF has been contacted by numerous Cambridge academics who are deeply concerned that the University’s own investigation will fail to confront the wider institutional culture in which the Arday affair unfolded.'

https://x.com/search?q=Commission%20for%20Academic%20Freedom&src=typed_query

That’s a rock star team. Interesting.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 12:56

God!!
More phone calls.

Someone doesn't want me watching today!

KTheGrey · 16/10/2026 12:55

StSpiridian · 16/10/2026 12:27

This tribunal is such a clear example of how trans extremists have been allowed to destroy safeguarding and evidence based medical care and professionalism in the NHS, and the rights and welfare of just about everyone else.

It carries on from the nurses legal cases about being forced to take their clothes off in front of men who say they're women, and being told to lie abusive male patients are women.

I am thinking Naomi Cunningham may be right- the rot is so entrenched with people in power in these orgs that a public enquiry with power to imprison those responsible may be needed to change the culture to reality based again with patient safeguarding at its heart.

It is deeply worrying because there are so many wassocks on huge pay packets doing actively damaging work, and yet we are supposed to think administrators are of value in the NHS. Well - many of them are not worth a candle. They actively exacerbate problems.

Which gives us two problems - how do you identify the wassocks and how do you either get pointful work out of them or get rid? I mean, several strike me as redundant, as they seem to be employed to do things which don’t need to be done.

It makes me very sad and irritable that taxpayers fund wassocks to make work a worse experience.

BendoftheBeginning · 16/10/2026 12:51

I was thinking that. She sounds like she’s worried about what she might let slip.