Waitrose delivery driver

[MsMoorhead]

Kellie Jay-Keen reported by her Waitrose delivery driver!

i agree completely

I think KJK would have a hard time proving her personal attack was not gratuitous.

KJK has faced down spurious allegations before.

I'd wonder about framing a response to a question as a personal attack. No matter how many times you wish it to be otherwise, we don't have a responsibility to validate somebody's immersive fiction.

I think the tribunal would disagree.

But lying about your sex is ok?

I think the tribunal would disagree.

We've already established we're not in Canada.

I'd say the trans woman gratuitously stated they were a woman, certainly.
A response to that can in no way be considered gratuitous.

And we are pretty sure the whole thing was engineered by the delivery driver anyway in order to get a a woman who clearly believes facts over fiction punished.

The letter Waitrose sent stated KJK was verbally abusive to the delivery driver. Those are not spurious allegations because she literally confessed to verbally abusing the delivery driver in her video.

Im sorry , but it’s not validating “somebody’s immersive fiction” to simply not dispute the (very real) existence of someone’s legal gender identity to their face.

Lol. The issue is was the misgendering of gratuitous nature (or otherwise as in doesnt even have to be gratuitous to be unlawful harrassment). It doesn’t matter if statements beforehand were gratuitous or not. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t say any statement after a gratuitous statement automatically cannot be gratuitous. That’s like saying any statement after a verbally abusive statement automatically cannot be verbally abusive. Each statement stands on its own merits or falls in its own shortcomings.

This is batshit conspiracy theory. Delivery drivers go where Waitrose tells them to go. They don’t cyber stalk and then set their delivery schedule so they can deliver to specific address because they feel like being verbally abused. KJK isn’t even that famous. I’d never heard of her before this thread.

someone’s legal gender identity

Thee is no such thing.

I chair tribunals. One of the precepts is that every decision is nuanced and context specific.

You simply can't take one part of one sentence in what is itself a nuanced decision, and apply it as a blanket rule to an entirely different context, in a different social setting, with different power dynamics.

That's just not the way it works.

You can (or the delivery driver could, at least) have their lawyers argue that KJK's words were gratuitous, overstepped the line, and thus constituted harrassment.

At least, they could if there were a tribunal system for grocery store and customer disputes. Which, as far as I know, there isn't.

Equally KJK's lawyers could argue that her words were the expression of a legitimately held belief, made in the context of a political conversation, initiated by the driver, and were thus entirely reasonable.

Those are both legally arguable positions. But they need to be argued. You can't just take a snippet of a sentence and use it as a mantra to declare your position true. That's not the way it works. Context matters.

And that's why the lawyers earn the big bucks.

Lol…Each statement stands on its own merits or falls in its own shortcomings.
or
You can't just take a snippet of a sentence and use it as a mantra to declare your position true. That's not the way it works. Context matters.

As I'm choosing between the 'lol' assertion of a preferred reality and Motorina's nuanced account based on experience as a tribunal chair, I'm more persuaded by the latter.

Clearly you’re not taking the time read my posts otherwise you’ve have read “U.K. EA Tribunal” and realised oh, this is from the U.K. instead of Canada.

Try reading before responding. Don’t be a pigeon.

My delivery driver thought it was ok, a few months ago, to questionnaire I was still testing and why I was wearing a mask. I told him I didn't want to discuss it with him. I'd already put online that we had covid in the house at the time. I wasn't infected. Passed me off no end. The next time I had him deliver, he didn't hardly say a word. I was fuming. Should've complained but didn't want him to lose his job. However, I fully agree with Kellie Jay and I congratulate her on her work.

Take note. The poster that chairs tribunals has acknowledged that the delivery driver has an arguable case for harrassment against KJK.

I’ve taken note that KJK can also argue otherwise. You should do the same.

Im sorry , but it’s not validating “somebody’s immersive fiction” to simply not dispute the (very real) existence of someone’s legal gender identity to their face.

KJK was invited to validate somebody's immersive fiction: she declined.

The existence of someone’s legal gender identity is part of what seem to be your preferred version of the law, which at this point of the thread is looking akin to an immersive reality for you.

Dear lord.

At least, they could if there were a tribunal system for grocery store and customer disputes. Which, as far as I know, there isn't.

I think verbally engaging is fine... but only if you know when to stop.

For example, the driver turns up and there is a Conservative Party poster up.

The driver is a committed labour supporter who literally detests the Tories. He should say NOTHING.

The driver is a Tory supporter who thinks Johnson is the best PM ever. He might say in passing "Johnson's had a tough few weeks hasn't he?" If the response is "that's my husband's poster, I cant stand the Tories" then the driver should probably respond with "the weather's looking good for the weekend isn't it?"

I suspect this trans activist misogynist bully knew exactly what he was doing, but I don;t really care either way. Once the difference of opinion was out in the open he was incredibly entitled, out of order and somewhat threatening. That is a massive customer service failure that requires retraining at best, but, I suspect, the bloke needs to be stacking shelve after hours or to be sacked - clearly not mature enough for customer facing roles.

Clearly you’re not taking the time read my posts otherwise you’ve have read “U.K. EA Tribunal” and realised oh, this is from the U.K. instead of Canada.

You do know you can't just take random people to an employment tribunal? You do have to actually work for them.

Hang on - "EA Tribunal"? You what? You think that's "Equality Act Tribunal"? No, that's not a thing. That "EAT" was "Employment Appeal Tribunal".

You're getting confused with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, who, sure, do let people like Yaniv bring dumb cases. I can vaguely imagine this driver getting somewhere with them.

Gender Identity
www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/measuringequality/genderidentity

Gender Recognition Act 2004
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

Gender identity is not a legal status @Discovereads. Despite what stonewall might tell you.

Dearie me.

Datun

Dear lord.

At least, they could if there were a tribunal system for grocery store and customer disputes. Which, as far as I know, there isn't.

OMG - it's just occurred to me. These sick homophobic and misogynistic TWs who claim to be lesbians probably think that when a lesbian turns them down they have a right to take her to a Tribunal and have her held to account for her bigotry. They literally don't get that your rights as an employee or your rights as a service user are not the same as your rights as a person having a chat or your rights as someone who wants sex.

It's certainly educational, watching an utterly devoted activist demonstrate in real-time how the slightest concession in language, politeness, whatever will be used as a wedge to further undermine women's rights.

And they wonder why the resistance is so stiff these days.

And why an increasing number of people coming to the conclusion that the GRA needs to be overturned.

Yes, it's long been noted that some people regard woman's sexual participation as an equal rights issue.