Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
26
BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 12:45

From TT

PF no, that was not the case
CM the collective view of the ICB is that when it comes to contacting SH and LEA when investigating grievance the wall was absolute but if allegation of misconduct against C, open to contacting them
PF can you clarify
J was there any i/x of misconduct by C
PF no
CM now onto contact with DS, did you see the Kite review,
PF I have not read, I had left
CM read since
PF no
J I had not realised Kite review's importance, I need some more education
CM - in WS of C. Page 2681, 'gatekeeping against trans patients dehumanising' for example.
J thank you
CM want to ask you next, what you discovered in relation to implementation of Durrant review
PF yes
CM one of C's concerns was ICB protecting C from behaviour
PF C mentioned in first meeting, I was sent Durrant report, then ADs outcome letter, is your question that I decided to look at them
CM yes
PF not strictly within remit, I decided I could provide some assurance to C about implementation
CM so interplay here, if Durrant not implemented, C could be concerned if more could be done
J [reads out her note, C brought up, PF decided to look into it]
CM now about follow up with CMO, CNO that's about Durrant
PF yes
CM now back to 1st draft of your outcome letter,

BlueLegume · 16/10/2026 12:46

Kirschcherries · 16/10/2026 12:32

Wow. That’s brilliant for Nick but also Alice knows her data.

Sex, Lies and Statistics is Alice Sullivan’s new book. She definitely the right person for this.

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · 16/10/2026 12:46

MarieDeGournay · 16/10/2026 12:44

Yeah no, you're probably, you know, like - right?😄

"Can you clarify" also buys time. This witness seems to need a lot of extra time to decide what the truth is.

Tallisker · 16/10/2026 12:50

She seems to need a lot of clarification. Is she not very bright?

BettyBooper · 16/10/2026 12:50

From TT

CM your original attention was to address each of recomm to reassure C about what had been done
PF I think I was just extracting from AD letter to remind myself what to cover
CM a further draft of letter, you go back with para on 3021,
PF I can't remember what order drafts came in
CM page 3022, need to confirm with AC, that policies and procedures have been amended/enacted. You attempt to do that
PF yes
CM response to that email has not been disclosed,
PF can I just clarify, I don't think I had an email response, a late evening convo about that with AC
CM now 3087 email, now on version 8
PF could be, looks like it
CM 3093 draft itself, the text in relation to managing allegations update has been removed,
PF I would have amended after convo with AC, it was already a long letter
CM final letter says 'we cannot re-look at this matter, we can confirmed has been followed up', so we've gone from a very specific journey of specific actions, to a single very generic comment that there has been follow up
PF I dont' recall a response, it had been followed up

Cailleach1 · 16/10/2026 12:51

Tallisker · 16/10/2026 12:50

She seems to need a lot of clarification. Is she not very bright?

Sly.

BendoftheBeginning · 16/10/2026 12:51

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

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.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 12:56

God!!
More phone calls.

Someone doesn't want me watching today!

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.

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]

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.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 12:58

CM 15 mins more.

So, breaking for lunch.

Oh no let's carry on.

We continue.

Sets stopwatch.

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.

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · 16/10/2026 12:58

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

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]

🙄

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 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]

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.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:04

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

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:07

.

troll whats GIF
Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:07

.

Aisha Dee Oops GIF by The Bold Type
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

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.

Boiledbeetle · 16/10/2026 13:13

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

Swipe left for the next trending thread