Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

Oh, PygmyHippoBob said it before me

Like...."Gender Identity" instead of "Gender Reassignment with a GRC Certificate...And Sex-based exemptions can still be made".

That kind of thing Prodigal?

I've said this before but if one makes a fool of oneself in public then one really ought not to expect others to hide the evidence, much less demand that they do so. I can see why a certain person may be feeling that they made a less than excellent impression and did their side of the "debate" no favors at all. What I do not see is why MNHQ, or the users here, should be expected to cover that up for them.

I'm guessing HQ were targeted, after hours, and made some deletions to avoid having to lose the thread altogether.

I know the judge said they were no reporting restrictions, but maybe the decision had to go up the food chain at HQ.

That's my conclusion. Reinstating the names of witnesses should be the next step.

And, as always, it's a completely open goal. Drawing attention to the fact you don't want people to hear what you've said. At a tribunal. When you've had weeks to prepare. And your testimony is pivotal. Basic stuff.

And Yaniv. Also desperate for reporting restrictions

It remains interesting and I think relevant that it was Yaniv's own behavior that caused the reporting restrictions on Yaniv's case to be lifted.

CQ is a lawyer. I imagine CQ can be quite intimidating in asking for stuff to be taken down, so perhaps MNHQ decided to err on the side of caution.

post-edited by MNHQ to clarify that with no reporting restrictions in place CQ here refers to Clair Quentin.

Well I can quite see why CQ would want to bury that testimony and pretend it doesn’t exist as frankly I’d be mortified to have said such nonsense in public. What I don’t understand is why MNHQ is going along with it when the judge was quite clear there are no reporting restrictions.

post-edited by MNHQ to clarify that with no reporting restrictions in place CQ here refers to Clair Quentin.

Let's give Michael a break. The editing in itself is informative.

I agree. We have no idea (well, maybe some idea) what's going on behind the scenes.

Remember MichaelMumsnet has stated FWR will be shut down "over his dead body", as well as the famous "Go well" sign-off.

This thread would no doubt have been catnip for the usual suspects overnight if it had been left open.

Maybe a standard "thread locked until someone can take a closer look in the morning" response would be wiser than lots of deletions, which creates worry among the regulars and I'm assuming glee among those who want the conversation shut down.

I honestly am trying to help, MNHQ. I don't want this place shut down either. Explaining why you're doing things that make no sense from the outside might go a long way in terms of preventing the sort of "WTF just happened?" reactions that we're seeing here.

I think if this case is lost it will be on a technicality about whether she truly lost her job or just didn't have a contract renewed (and whether it would have been expected to have been renewed). I think the legal debate will focus on this primarily. It is a slightly different situation from a permanent employee being dismissed (where I think the case would undoubtedly be won).

(Fwiw I think she should win!)

Yes I agree that MichaelMumsnet had to make a call, and he made one. And he we are again, not having been trolled to fuck or deleted overnight.

That witness - the same one who said they hadn't read the documents referred to in their written submission?

That's basically what happened with the Yaniv case too, the judge found reasons to dismiss it without really touching on most of the fundamental issues at stake.

Harry The Owl's case is starting today too.

Let's give Michael a break.

Actually, no, let's not.

No offence, Michael - it's not personal. I don't have a dolly of you into which my pins get stuck or anything.

I want to know on whose behest these threads have been censored when the judge in the case has explicitly said there should be no reporting restrictions in the name of open justice.

Please explain why you are censoring the words of women in a way that goes against what a judge has said.

If a lawyer says something in front of a judge, why does it need to be edited out of the internet after the fact?

Why are the words ok for the judge, and not for the general public?

I don't get it. If you have stood in front of a judge and spoken 'the truth', then surely you are happy to say the same to anyone?

Unless..it isn't the truth or something? Oh...I get it.

They wanted what they said covered up because it was embarrassing and they came across really badly. That’s what I’m getting from reading the live reporting. Logically if you had a great case and had made mince meat of the opposition you’d not be too concerned would you?

Yes to what LangCleg said!

Here is a link to a thread which includes names of the two respondent witnesses. This is in the public domain, and the judge stated explicitly that there were no reporting restrictions:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1196382962247512064.html

I think Clair is worried that clairself made a tit of clairself.

Coverage of the case from the London Economic www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/tax-expert-fired-for-saying-trans-women-are-not-actually-women-tells-tribunal-that-its-not-possible-to-literally-change-sex/15/11/amp/?__twitter_impression=true.

Apologies if someone's already linked.

I wonder whether the problem was more the blue lipstick photo, now gone, rather than what was said. It's weird. We advise our DC to be very cautious about what they post on the internet. Yet people, Helen Mimmymum et al, seem unhappy when stuff that is publically available is then used elsewhere.

Michael please. Reinstate Gaspo's post with the pictures. The one that shows "C" is speshul, rather than just a speccie wonk.

People certainly understood sexed bodies in Neolithic times.

Sorry that was a slightly obscure link with the article prawn posted.