Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1744697995822526961?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

I just posted it here, too:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5005216-how-a-loophole-in-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists?page=4&reply=132976816

@SinnerBoy thanks I was looking for that thread.

It's on here, too:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5005216-how-a-loophole-in-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists?page=4&reply=132976816

I get lost with so many links & threads!

Thread reader for anyone hitting tweet reading limits.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757095208645251413.html

He's utterly confident in his knowledge of the law, which has allowed him to be excoriating, no punches pulled, in with both feet. Get in there, Dennis!

The article in question has been deleted @SinnerBoy

@Hoardasurass but not before being submitted as evidence against SWE.

The remedies part is really important in this case, so nudging as reminder for a bit more gardening

It sounds like they are trying to get out of paying costs because it was crowd funded. Cheeky feckers.

Would a TwiX-er mind popping yesterday afternoon's and today's remedy hearing tweets into threadreader, please?
Thanks in advance.
(waits excitedly)

I did a search for a thread unroll on the off-chance and found these covering yesterday:
Part 1
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757043471708213462.html
Part 2
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757075564672741879.html

Quite. It's as if Stonewall et al have formed an alternative government.

Funny, isn't it, that when "alternative facts" were presented by Trump and his hapless crew of shitwits, it was a bad thing. When they're presented by the left, they're for the greater good...

But when the sweet fuck are employers going to cotton on to the fact that legal rights trump hurty feelingz.

I suspect some organisations/individuals would genuinely rather lose a court case than voluntarily change their policies/minds. That way they can stay on the Right Side of History and their moral purity is retained ("We didn't want to change our policies, a court made us do it").

This morning's TT coverage
Part 1
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757340873098969496.html

And part 2
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1757374683714847172.html

"But when the sweet fuck are employers going to cotton on to the fact that legal rights trump hurty feelingz."

My take of this is that there has been a powerful turn in society whereby a significant portion of people and organisation think moral arguments trump critical thinking and reasoning. They counter (or seek to counter) critical appraisal of their actions/thinking with moral arguments that don't address facts and don't feel the need to provide evidence.

Fortunately, the law is still based on facts, reasoning and laws!

I suspect some organisations/individuals would genuinely rather lose a court case than voluntarily change their policies/minds

I picked up a very strong sense of that from both the Global Development Centre (Forstater) and Garden Court Chambers (Bailey). Westminster Council and Social Work England are shaping up that way (more the latter for Meade).

On the flip side, the lack of an appeal re: NHS Sheffield's mess was rather telling. The NHS Northern General Hospital had an arguable case for appeal but there was a strong sense that they didn't want to that win.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4593138-transwoman-wins-employment-discrimination-case-against-nhs-for-being-treated-differently-from-women-in-changing-room

Although the article by Sam Fowles has been deleted, its been archived several times in both the Wayback Machine and on Archive Today.

I am so outraged by the arguments of opposing counsel at this remedy hearing. Particularly enraged by the argument that RM was distressed by first respondent anyway, so distress caused by actions of the second respondent isn't a separate reason for separate damages.
And the way SC casually says that the threat of having to pay the other side's costs is normal so RM shouldn't have been frightened by it. So offensive, such a privileged, luxury opinion.
I don't think Judge Nicolle is quite getting the significance of the New European article and RMW's tweet. It's probably the first time the judge has seen anything like it and doesn't realise that it would be taken by the gender zealots as a proper legal summary of the situation, especially with the apparent endorsement of a lawyer who had represented one of the respondents in the case. Annoying.

At least that article has been submitted as evidence so no one can ever deny it existed.

It really is most unfortunate that the internet never forgets.

I'm a bit lost, I read the New Statesman piece, but what is RMW tweet? I'm not on TwiX so can't read links.

Yes i wonder what RMW tweet is too

So has this finished now? Result? Hoping that Rachel’s case can be well and truly made exemplary for those captured organisations.

@Ramblingnamechanger this was to decide compensation and costs. I expect it won’t be too long before the outcome is published.

What is interesting is that Rachel is seeking a recommendation that managers and employees in both SWE and WCC receive freedom of expression and protected belief training. The provider to be neutral I.e. not Stonewall et al.

Had a look a t the tribunal tweets. Rather startling how much mor coherent and florid SC was in legal arguments re remedies. Which seems to show how hopeless the defence was in the first place.