Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Raquel Rosario Sanchez

207 replies

Signalbox · 25/11/2021 10:13

I have tried to find a previous thread for Raquel but don't seem to be able to locate it.

Raquel has released an update on her crowd justice page.

Hearing to take place from February 7th to February 14th, 2022...

"Dear everyone,
Hope you are well.
We had a very successful hearing on November 17th. It went on for longer than expected (we ended being with the judge for nearly 3 hours) which felt draining and nerve-wrecking for me but it all generated a positive outcome for us.
Our trial will take place from February 7th to February 14th, 2022. My lawyers reached out to the University countless times so we could collaborate and find dates suitable for all the witnesses, lawyers and parties but they refused to even acknowledge our emails. Having to constantly chase them represented an unnecessary expense for us and, I believe one of the purposes was that, without their dates, my case would be thrown way into the future (the other purpose would be to increase our costs). For example, into September or November 2022. I had truly resigned myself to this eventuality so I was surprised that last week the Court decided the dates for us and a lot sooner than I anticipated.
Most of the University's submission on November 17th related to anonymity and secrecy. They sought orders from the Court to further anonymise their disclosure (which the still haven't provided) and they wanted the judge to order that nobody can access legal documents without making an application to the Court. The judge refused both requests citing the principle of open justice, and reminded the University that the Supreme Court ruled that the public has a right to see justice so no requirement to seal the documents would be made for my case.
You have to wonder why is the University so absolutely paranoid about disclosure and why they are so anxious about the eventuality that the public will get to read Court documents about my case (ie. about the University of Bristol's treatment of me). What is it that they are hiding?
Having caused endless obstructions and delays by not releasing their disclosure, the University told the judge that it would take them too long to do it so they wanted the trial dates (established right at the beginning of the hearing) moved. The judge said, and this was beautiful: "I am not moving the trial dates. There have been enormous delays. Those instructing you must get their act together and get ready for the trial." And then she dropped the mic and left. Just kidding, but you can imagine how happy I felt to finally hear that!
We had to make three separate applications to the Court relating to disclosure problems that we have encountered with the University, and they had one application over something that was resolved prior to Nov 17th. While the Court did not grant us the Unless Order we were seeking, the judge did make a comprehensive order that included our concerns. I am particularly happy that the judge considered that all our applications have been reasonable and were due to the drawn out disclosure issues. Therefore, we were awarded cost for all three of our applications. Meanwhile, the Court did not awarded the the Defendant cost for theirs and told the University to go pay for their own application.
I feel very happy that during our November 17th hearing we finally managed to get the dates for our trial, which has been worrying me for such a long time, and I am also happy that the judge said this case was "an extremely important case."
That being said, February 7th, 2022 is almost here. Less than two months and a half away. That means there is a lot of work to be done (as in, A LOT) in a very short amount of time. The University has been increasing our cost unnecessarily and, while we may recover that after the trial, at the moment we really need to raise enough funds to see this case through. Please, if you can share with your friends, families and colleagues, and spread the word on social media, I would really appreciate it.
As always, I am so grateful to my lawyers for their hard work. Particularly to my barrister, Alice de Coverley, who was on fire on Nov 17th. It has been a challenging couple of months with no end in sight but now everything feels clearer and near. Having a trial so soon feels daunting but I am ready.
Thank you all for your kindness and support throughout.
Best,
Raquel
Ps. I was featured on Woman's Hour on my birthday, where I discussed our case. You can listen to the BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour interview with journalist Emma Barnett (35-06 to 51-41) on the BBC website. An acquaintance volunteered a full transcript of the segment so you can also read the interview on this PDF"

OP posts:
Manderleyagain · 08/02/2022 11:45

Tribunaltweets has started live tweeting the hearing. It's going to be all this week and Monday. Thet are fiddling about with bundles, late adjustments to claims and claims about what should be kept private so far.

Here's the thread and thd tweet where the hearing begins.

mobile.twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1491000484777402368

bishophaha · 08/02/2022 11:47

Yep not much has happened yet but following along for now.

SamphiretheStickerist · 08/02/2022 12:21

Interesting... "Nobody outside the court has access to the bundle"

That wasn't the case in a 'mere' tribunal a few weeks ago, was it?!?!

Just a passing thought....

Redshoeblueshoe · 08/02/2022 12:26

Can anyone with legal knowledge explain what's happening ? Thanks

Signalbox · 08/02/2022 13:02

Ianal but I think so far it’s just preliminary matters. Looks like Raquel’s lawyer made an application for additional costs (which I think was rejected) and the defence put in an application to have part of the evidence kept private (which I think was also rejected) but they were also given the opportunity to withdraw the witness statement completely.

The lawyers will open their cases and present evidence after lunch.

OP posts:
SunnyDelite · 08/02/2022 16:20

I've just being enjoying the comments on the Daily Mail article... Next to nobody is supporting the university :)

InvisibleDragon · 08/02/2022 16:25

Following the tweets, Raquel has been being questioned by the University lawyer for nearly 2 and a half hours. That's pretty brutal.

I have no legal knowledge at all, but it sounds fairly solid so far. Mostly taking her through her submission with the lawyer being pedantic about what her complaint is. The lawyer comes across as deliberately obtuse and Raquel comes across as clear and forthright. That might just be how the tweets are written though.

DomesticatedZombie · 08/02/2022 16:32

Good luck, Rachel.

DomesticatedZombie · 08/02/2022 16:33

Sorry, Raquel, I'm trying to do five things at once!

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 08/02/2022 16:37

The glare of publicity is fully on the University of Catgender now.

Delphinium20 · 08/02/2022 17:08

Just a reminder (this article is 5 years old, but it's still relevant today) of Rachel's strength of mind and incisive writing gifts - she's is a formidable feminist and a powerful voice for women and girls. Of course they wanted to silence a talent like her...shame on the TRAs for putting her through this.

www.feministcurrent.com/2017/07/26/white-feminism-thing-gender-identity-ideology-epitomizes/

LaPufalina · 08/02/2022 19:08

[quote Awkwardy]Times as well

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/89d92dba-88ed-11ec-a837-0153f5f4adaf?shareToken=d44272f169a41191736013c5fbe906df[/quote]
Were comments turned off because it's a live case?

DisappearingGirl · 08/02/2022 20:15

There's a fun thread in Chat on Bristol catgender-gate

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4475664-should-people-be-able-to-officially-identify-as-whatever-they-like

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 08/02/2022 20:20

Are the governance seniors at Bristol University not absolutely ashamed of themselves? The whole place sounds crackers - which of course is massively unfair on the staff who are not crackers and who are also brilliant and talented and deserve better.

Andante57 · 08/02/2022 20:56

A new way of destroying justice. Diminish the funds of the opposition

Unfortunately this has been a tried and tested method used by newspapers, the BBC and other institutions. By prolonging the case as much as they can using the substantial funds at their disposal, they hope their opponent will run out of money and be unable to proceed with the case.

Manderleyagain · 10/02/2022 11:09

I first realised something was off and started paying more attention to this board in April/may 2018, and so one of the first stories that I took notice of was the 'masked men on the stairs' incident when some feminists were trying to speak at the jam jar in Bristol. There was footage. So these tweets from raquel's hearing caught my attention:

"AC: following email exchange you were told of another event April 18, the 'jam jar' events. What happened in that was this was an event soughyto be run by similar views of Women's place UK and its right that masked protesters attended that and stopping it starting
Witness: yes
AC: your aware that that AA shouted expletives directly at these women
Witness: yes
AC: So this is another example of women being shut down by students?
(Can't hear witness)
AC: have you seen the footage?
Witness: yes
AC: talks of articles in Guardian with some masked protesters who apologised for their behaviour
Do you accept RRS would feel unsafe in these events?
Witness: I can't speak for her
AC: but you must have known that
Witness: yes
AC: despite the behaviour of many students the sole aim was at AA and another student.
Witness: states there was 'yobbish behaviour'
AC: and no other students or students investigated
Witness: investigate is (missed) term"

InvisibleDragon · 10/02/2022 12:42

Bristol University are not covering themselves on glory today ...

This is a senior lawyer admitting that:

  • 'AA,' the student who Raquel made the initial complaint about, was not sanctioned at all for leaking details of the hearing to activists (twice).
  • the resulting risk of protests meant the hearings had to be postponed.
  • That students, including 'AA', were not sanctioned for distributing pamphlets calling for violence against women
  • Raquel was telling the university (repeatedly) that this was all extremely difficult for her
  • That no-one from the University ever suggested Raquel should get legal support (my addition - despite 'AA' having a barrister who cross examined Raquel during one of the hearings)
Raquel Rosario Sanchez
Raquel Rosario Sanchez
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 10/02/2022 13:11

Mail article has 7 pages of comments. All positive to RRS.

Not a single detractor.

Isn't that interesting?

InvisibleDragon · 10/02/2022 13:17

An excellent piece of judge snark here:

They are talking about the complaints process being stopped (after 18 months of delay). AC, Raquel's lawyer presents an image and says that 'AA' felt they were vindicated after the process was stopped.

AR is the judge ...

AC: after June2019 you didn't see the claimant again
Witness: no
AC: and its fair to say that (using picture in bundle) AA felt vindicated
Witness: can't speak for them
AC: but it's clear
AR: I can see perfectly well the use of the middle finger is obvious

Signalbox · 10/02/2022 14:40

Sounds like there has been a right cock up with the defence disclosing an 80 page document in relation to student AA now. Judge isn't at all impressed.

OP posts:
Signalbox · 10/02/2022 14:44

It could potentially mean the case doesn't complete in time.

OP posts:
yourhairiswinterfire · 10/02/2022 14:46

.

Raquel Rosario Sanchez