Reading the discussion, I think that there might be some confusion about the role of the case examiners. I say that because there have been a number of comments about their determination being brief and incomplete. Or that the regulator found this or that.
The case examiners are not a tribunal. Their role isn't to make a definitive decision where there's a dispute. They're basically a screening committee, almost a bit like the CPS.
Their role is to basically to decide if a hearing before a panel is necessary.
The case examiner stage was put in for those cases where everyone agreed something had gone wrong, and agreed on the best way forward. Where there was no need for a tribunal to make decisions, because everyone was in agreement.
The case examiners haven't unpicked all 70 posts because it's not their job to do so. It's their job to say, "We've looked at it all and we think there's enough here that its realistic a tribunal may find against you."
In this case, RM accepted that her posting pattern was inappropriate and agreed that a warning was the right outcome. If she hadn't it would have gone to a full panel. Where sunlight would have been shed. The reason it hasn't been is because RM agreed that the concerns the case examiners identified were valid.
Their written determination reflects that decision making process. They haven't done the full unpicking and assessment of evidence that a panel would do, that we saw with the Harrop case. That wasn't necessary, because the outcome was agreed.
A page or two back, @Datun rightly highlighted we've had cases before where the allegations have turned out to be stuff and nonsense. Most notably Marion Miller. So we all have an instinctive reaction that, when someone with GC views is accused of transphobia, the likelyhood is they've been unfairly targetted. I totally agree.
The difference is that Marion Miller vehemently denied doing or saying anything wrong. RM admitted to her regulator that her posting pattern was unacceptable and agreed to accept their warning. The two aren't really comparable.
I would have liked that RM, on her crowdjustice page, say that she accepted the warning and why she did so. There may be a reason. There must be a reason. But, right now, from the outside, it reads like she told SWE one thing, and is fundraising based on something else.
I want the flagship GC case to go forward. I want someone to be brave enough to argue that, yes, there are conflicts between the rights of women and transwomen. That we need to have difficult conversations about those conflicts. That there are potential safeguarding issues with self-ID.
This is not that case.