Gallagher v Tavistock, 2nd to 27th November, RCJ

Tribunal Tweets are already on it.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/amy-gallagher-v-tavistock-and-portman

Definitely one to watch regarding TRSOH.

"My case concerns my allegations that I suffered anti-white racial harassment and discrimination."

LOL

Some further detail on the anti-white racial harassment and discrimination that Amy suffered.

Lecturers at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust told her 'whites don't understand the world' and 'Christianity is responsible for racism because it's European' in a series of 'politically biased' talks.

One of the Tavistock's seminars was even called 'Whiteness — a problem for our time' and included a description on the Trust's website that 'the problem of racism is a problem of whiteness'.

When Amy challenged these controversial views she was 'bullied' by staff and suspended from the course, pending an investigation into whether she is safe to work with patients.

Almost a year later, no investigation has taken place.

It means her dream of becoming a psychotherapist is hanging by a thread.
As if that wasn't enough, a course lecturer also tried to get her banned from her day job as a practising mental health nurse.

'Christianity is responsible for racism because it's European'

Damn... I have been lied to all these years, I thought Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

With the standard caveat of not all Christians etc., I don't think it's wrong to discuss Christian white supremacy, which is currently destroying the US among other things. And in my experience when people discuss whiteness, they mean the arbitrary and artificial concept of whiteness and not so much people who are white.

Lecturers at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust told her 'whites don't understand the world'

That looks like overt anti-white racial harassment and discrimination right there.

We are in the UK not the US which has a very different experience of racial politics. The ancestors of the vast majority of coloured people in the US were slaves a few generations back. The ancestors of many white people in the US were slave owners a few generations back.

Thanks for sharing this. I had no idea about the background. I'm so glad I have a boring technical job with zero room for feelings.

Colour Blind and Meritocracy is enough to have the Omnicause baying for your blood, it should be an interesting tribunal.

The Trust is rolling out 13 witnesses against her, I already think 'they protest too much'.

It's time the other heads of the hydra got challenged, CRT is nothing but race-baiting, divisive and violent stupidity, despite the fact that we don't have the same history in this country as the USA, it's still managed to produce a fair bit of crap.
The Welsh Government gave that bunch of grifters, The Arts Council, £10,000 to decolonise Welsh Cakes ffs, and Plaid Cyrmu have sworn on the lives of the first born they're going to make Wales an anti-racist Sanctuary Nation by 2030.

Tax payer funded assault on material reality and the liberal Enlightenment.
Locke and Hobbes would be so proud of what the West became.

Having been around for a fair few decades, I always assumed the liberal Enlightenment was robust enough to take on all comers. I was wrong, it has a soft underbelly, and the motivated poisoners of the well have made way too many inroads.
This organisation feels it's proportionate to provide 13 witnesses against a single angle plaintiff, a mental health nurse.
Bullying her while feeling virtuous about it.

Thirteen witnesses for her barrister to deal with. They are making sure it will really cost her.

Is this the Amy Gallagher whom I've seen on multiple podcasts including Triggernometry, and was associated with the SDP?
If it is, she came across extremely well. Hoping that holds her in good stead in what I'm sure will be a taxing experience.
Thirteen witnesses? They're treating her as if she's a major criminal.
Preposterous.

13 Tavistock witnesses and only her for her claim!

Tribunal Tweets have been given permission to cover but there is not remote access.

Yesterday afternoon
Thread by @tribunaltweets2 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

Yesterday morning
Thread by @tribunaltweets2 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

Core of claim
FH It is in my submission clear that it is a belief, that C holds the belief that "all white people are racist" is itself racist. The belief that she does not share is in respect to her beliefs. She does not share the belief in some of the key statements of what might be called critical race theory.

Evidence from discovery
FH Incendiary comments made by some members of staff re C. Email 29 July from [name] to Dr Yately [?] suggesting there were discussions at Maudesley about removal of C from course and re employment matters.
FH Other matter re reports to regulator and language among professionals in reference to C, subject to regulation; such as 'snake', 'resident racist', 'frothing' 'facist', 'wolf in sheep's clothing' suggest behaviour that professional regulatory attention may be appropriate.
They were aware that in dx procedure this was referred to by C but consideration not referred to in any way by panel. Panel included biased panellist who had prejudged this case, calling her a facist and a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I’ll hold off on comments until I hear more of the evidence, but Bullying her while feeling virtuous about it. Who does that remind you of?

"Christian white supremacy" - really? Christ came to the sinners, the people who were outcasts in his time. There is nothing in the teachings of Christ that justifies white supremacy. "love thy neighbour as thyself" and the parable of the Good Samaritan speak against that type of behaviour.

Various churches may have quite a lot to answer for but that is not the Christian faith.

If you think there is a "concept of whiteness" then you are as bad as any racist bigot since you are treating people differently because of their skin colour. You are legitimising racism because you are saying discriminating on the basis of skin colour is valid.