Waitrose delivery driver

[MsMoorhead]

Kellie Jay-Keen reported by her Waitrose delivery driver!

No I do not think it was an “Equality Act” Tribunal don’t be silly. I just didn’t feel like typing “Employment Appeal” out.

If you read the judgement excerpt, I posted it referenced the Equality Act throughout. When I’ve mentioned the Equality Act it has been regarding those references within the judgement itself.

Yes was an EAT decision, but the judgement reasoning has wider implications and could be used for consistent application of the law in other U.K. Tribunals or even civil/criminal settings. As many professional commentators on the judgement have pointed out.

could be used for consistent application of the law

What law though? The "you have to be polite to people who turn up to your house and start an argument and not disagree with them" law?

It’s still arguable. If anything for the delivery driver to defend herself at an Employment Tribunal as KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident.

I didn’t call it “sexing”, you are the only one to use that word.

Your belief in an innate gender is a religious one, it’s akin to claiming you have a sexed soul. People not in your religion can’t be expected to play along with your rules.

The other thing that seems to be missing is that if Discovereads interpretation of the law were somehow to be correct then the result would be -

More people realising the insanity of the TRA movement
More people deliberately misgendering when they might have previously been polite, out of solidarity for those people being prosecuted.
A ludicrous situation where the courts can't prosecute real crimes because there is a misgendering logjam (or a situation where misgendering is simply not prosecuted)
A re-writing of the law to make it clear that correctly sexing people when you use your third party pronouns to refer to the sex of someone.

This, totally

Yes, if a person comes into your house and lies to you it’s acceptable to correct them. If a visitor told me I was going to hell they’d get a similarly dismissive answer.

It’s as real as the Holy Ghost.

"KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident." Really, @Discovereads ? Where do you get that from?

It’s still arguable. If anything for the delivery driver to defend herself at an Employment Tribunal as KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident.

Is she pushing to have him sacked or is she just pointing out that his complaint about her is unfounded?

It might be quite interesting. Does Waitrose have a duty of care to check the political views of it's customers, to ensure that it's drivers aren't put in the position of finding themselves wanting to chat about politics but not liking the way the conversation is going? Does Waitrose have a duty to take the side of employees over customers in political debates? Should Waitrose be doing more to protect their employee who is clearly deeply vulnerable (I am serious - if he is unable to be polite when faced with a difference of opinion or reality he is deeply vulnerable)?

Oooh yes, that law exactly! 🙄

RoseslnTheHospital · Today 09:45

"KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident." Really, @Discovereads ? Where do you get that from?

Yeah, I'm pushing to get him sacked. I'll follow up on my complaint later. But I'm not sure KJK is.

Question, is Waitrose a Stonewall Diversity Champion or not?

twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1534896565348929537?cxt=HHwWgsC4ieiShs0qAAAA

"I remember when people said they just wanted to be left alone and not be discriminated against...

Now, they want everybody to be forced to pledge allegiance and participate.

This is an excellent way to go backwards and foment resentment. I can only assume that is the goal."

Answered by me, yes they still are

Her video. You have to stick through the wittering on about some documentary she intends to post a blow by blow review on and also instructions to someone to email her with their order number and so on. Is is barely coherent. But near the end she describes the “Dear Carol” letter she sent back to Waitrose. Also the fact she’s published this YouTube video expressing her outrage and deliberately getting her adoring fans to send letters of complaint to Waitrose demanding the driver be sacked kind of also gives the game away. Several posters on this thread have admitted to doing as much.

she just pointing out that his complaint about her is unfounded?

But the complaint was not unfounded. The letter from Waitrose stated she had verbally abused the driver and she of her own free will proudly confessed to verbally abusing the driver with “colourful language” in her video.

Yeah if you say so. Tell me is the ONS gathering statistics on the Holy Ghost? Has Parliament passed a Holy Ghost Recognition Act? Hmm?

So she does or she doesn't say she's trying to get him sacked?

"I'll take my time" when asked to leave her property, and a very very VERY clear statement of his absolute intention to share changing rooms and toilet space with her daughter (which you'd have to be a little dense not to realise is gloating AND an implied threat) mean the driver is not a squeaky clean little innocent here, Discovereads.

Are you prepared to be honest and accept that, publicly?

Verbally abusing someone and telling them to fuck off your property when they won't leave, are not the same thing

I’m afraid you have it backwards. It’s “gender critical” that is designated as a protected belief akin to religion. You can’t expect a society (which has passed laws like the Gender Recognition Act and written numerous scientific texts on gender identity) to play along with your belief that gender identity does not exist.

“When they won’t leave” is fiction. The driver never refused to leave. Even by KJKs own account.

Are you seriously arguing she is not trying to get her sacked?

Yes, they collect data on other religious beliefs too. You know this though, so why the disingenuity?