Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

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

This fog is stifling me
In my company
i cannot breath i cannot see
I feel so very thirsty

A drought of truth
please quench my thirst
I need some water
to clear my mind

My home is hard
they have no clue
they drink a cup
of poison too

am still thirsty feeling faint

I fall over a suspect place

finds friends who share a cup.
but only drops

not much to spare
felt like enough

but realised soon
that rights cant wait

and soldiers must be armed
and fed.

for my own fate

this battle won
lets see what’s next to come

I felt a rain
I rushed out for quench

it felt so good to be so drenched

the umbrellas are out
But the storm is harsh

i am so wet
but not so parched

can i now be me

can i own my own company

i will probably die a death tomorrow over these prose as i am not by any stretch a poet

x.com/simonjedge/status/1744806885046239375?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

Was just catching up on the thread and wanted to add my congratulations to Rachel - I'm absolutely delighted and it is a stonking judgement.

And then I saw your post and had to squeeeee that I have the same dress as Maya!

On any thread that mentions a bit of gardening there is always an attempt to stop women financially supporting those fighting for womens rights. Sometimes they try to malign the person seeking help, once even falsely claiming to be them, sometimes (as with Rachel) they claim the case is weak. It didnt stop me donating to Rachel and it wont stop me donating to others. The Labour party no longer gets my cash at election time, I have a better use for it.

Please remember when you next see someone trying to undermine the gardening that it always happens - and doesnt mean that person wont win. I think remember Rachel may be my stock comment to future attempts!

<adds a Meade brick to the Forstater, Bailey, Fahmy et alia wall> 💪🏻

Such good news! Made my day.

Just checked the thread to see if our usual TRA visitors have come by to tell us off and how it’s definitely not a win - and tumbleweed! Well I’m shocked 😆

Stonewall is not legally liable for its advice if I understand previous cases correctly.

Isn’t Alison Bailey appealing the Stonewall decision on her case so this could still change? Apart from her have there been any other cases that made a claim against Stonewall?

Helen Joyce speaks powerfully here about the impact that parents of children who think they're the opposite sex can have on society. In the work place, in social groups and of course, most dangerous of all, as politicians.

We know that following Stonewall law makes people sound like incoherent fools. But the parents of these children also have a silencing impact on those around them. If they're politicians, then this is incredibly serious and goes a long way to explain why so many of them have stood by and watched all the evidence of this monumental medical and social scandal unfolding. Either because they're complicit or embarrassed to raise concerns in front of those who are parents.
PM has one transactivist brother and one who's a sex offender with YC having a transactivist son? Are they capable of changing and finally standing up for safeguarding children and women's rights?

https://www.tiktok.com/@peterboghossian/video/7252427901528771883

Very true @MrsOvertonsWindow

joanne Harris utterly appalling behaviour as chair of society of authors towards JKR and others suddenly makes a lot more ‘sense’ when you realise she has a trans child

“So an employer can not insist on any level of compliance with any type of value or activity that offends your right to be gender critical and bloody well say so.
^^
So after a few weeks of digesting this, public sector employers are gonna have to change all their policies that compel you to agree with gender ideology.”

I’d like to know if this is actually true, though. Rachel’s case related to a biased and poorly managed disciplinary process she was subjected to in relation to her private FB page. It wasn’t about her behaviour in the workplace or her employer’s workplace policies. (Albeit the biased and poor process was no doubt the end result of Stonewall’s no debate campaigning on the attitudes of senior staff.)

It’s not clear to me what relevance the judgment has for organisations’ HR policies on eg access to opposite sex spaces, use of pronouns, Dignity at Work policies and discussions in online meetings etc. Clearly any restriction on freedom of expression arising from Dignity at Work or professional conduct policies needs to apply equally to both sides. I can see the implications of this policy for the handling of complaints but I’d like to see a lawyer’s analysis of the implications for HR policies more broadly.

Ditto Clara Vulliamy, who has a male adult child now identifying as a woman. She has spearheaded some quite vicious pile ons towards Rachel Rooney.

I don't think David Tennant has behaved appallingly to anyone as far as I know, but one of his children (still at school, IIRC) is nonbinary or gender questioning, or similar, and both he and his wife have swung into TWAW t-shirts and so on.

I have wondered whether the fox botherer might be in a similar position.

Brilliant @Karensalright, I really enjoyed your poem!

I've often wondered what I'd do if my daughter went down the gender woo woo path- she's more in tbe eye roll kind of position on it but that could change.

Fox botherer posted thirsty comments on Shon Faye's heavily filtered twitter pic but I did think that was more for TRA approval than genuine interest TBF

Suck on that, Social Work England.

Idk about the Bailey case but even if Stonewall are not directly liable decent HR for their clients will want to avoid pay outs and hopefully reassess using them

Rachel shows what can happen, I hope it’s big chunk of money

It is unequivocal that having another opinion to the change in law that lobbies such as Stonewall would like to see, is not 'hate' or 'Naziism' or in any way unacceptable, and to press views of it as such is 'harassment'.

And that people have a right to freedom of expression, and there is not a special protected unequal status for those on one side of the debate that is not reciprocally extended.

<Insert large impotent rage here>

so looking at the judgment, am I right in thinking that the council apologised but social work england just said they're reviewing things (threat to appeal the decision, no apology to Rachel, etc?)
And also, that the judgment is a not very thinly veiled warning to institutions adopting stonewall propaganda as the actual
law of the country? It's very cleverly written; it seems to be a very resounding criticism of organisations adopting stonewall sound bites as the literal truth, instead of following the word of the law/the equality act?

So happy to read this (retired SW)

He knew her personally and still complained to her regulating body instead of having a reasoned discussion with her? We really are reaching Stasi level spying on family and neighbours. Disappointing from a Diversity Champion.

Problem is that these outcomes don’t often make mainstream news. There’s too little awareness of the Forstater judgement. Certainly hasn’t reached HE more widely despite higher profile cases.

It really is like the Stasi. I've been thinking that.

'Diversity' obviously doesn't include diversity of thought or opinion for this person. So not really qualified for the job them's doing is they?