M Newman V Met Police Employment Tribunal

[Justme56]

Just wondering if anyone is following this on TT. It’s quite bizarre. The first witness attended the Trans Training session which I gather is where the discrimination stems (see attached statement) and has been questioned by AM the barrister for the police. AM is referencing the Wikipedia page of Kellie Jay Keen as evidence. Apparently wiki is not anti gender critical. 🤷🏻‍♀️. It seems to be covering a whole host of other stuff too - quite an eye opener.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1899460916191597049?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10x1bvutNvphHgxMtTdBc7n8s4wA2i_1u/view

If it's pro bono, she's not getting paid.

Solicitors and Barristers have a CPD scheme involving taking on pro bono cases, I believe .

Jo Bartosch on the case

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/19/the-mets-new-war-on-women/

The last sentence sums it up

In transgenderism, the Metropolitan Police have found a new way to dress up old-fashioned sexism as something right-on and progressive. The Met aren’t just failing women – they seem to be waging war on us.

Are we able to observe this online? If so, could someone please share the details

It doesn't seem so.

It's not running at the moment. The main part is over, they will meet for another day or two next week or so.

And, as with any case, noone would be able to share connection with you, everyone has to request their own access.

I don't know whether it is possible to get this one, I just followed the tribunal tweets
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/newman-vs-the-metropolitan-police

Thanks @sevenIsNewEight I've been following TT but I was hoping someone could share the email address to request access, if there is one.

The tribunal is sitting again on this tomorrow Monday 24/3 for anyone following- I believe it’s the last day of the hearing.

Yes, tribunal tweets have been interesting when I've been able to look at them

I've had a quick read-through - it looks like the Met's defence is that the speakers saying anti GC stuff were not Met employees, so although they said bad stuff - or at least, things that the Met now knows to be bad stuff, as they've heard of WORIADS, at last *- they were free to speak their opinions, and it was localised to one small meeting, so not a Met-wide matter meriting an internal inquiry.

Hissing KJK's name was bad form, but not misconduct. I'm getting a 'storm in a teacup/mountain out of molehill' vibe.

They seem to be pretty clear they haven't done anything wrong and NL has a ready and confident answer to the questions put by NC.

*NL "Yes but my last training was before Maya Forstater case. I do now understand that is inc under PC"
Inspector Nick Lockeyear replying to NC.

I’ve read through this morning’s tweets but probably not closely enough. Not sure I’m following what’s going on.

Tribunal tweets substack now has this morning's tweets https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/newman-vs-the-metropolitan-police

It makes such frustrating reading. Police officers tying themselves in knots, spouting what they know to be absolute bs.

This is absolutely revolting.

NC College of Policing states person can search anal area and strip search means detained has to take trousers and pants off and nothing concealed in anus or vagina. Do u agree this search is likely traumatic to detainee
DS - Yes not pleasant

NC - Can u think why any officer would seek opp to complete that task

DS - I think this officer is coming from perspective they are a woman and should be able to take their powers in line with their identity. I understand GC view. Talking about individuals view not Met police

DS - it's not the Met Police. This officer just giving their opinion and not unreasonable [AM interjects. J talking it can't hear]

NC - I hope will become clear at the end. It's right that anyone who hasn't been bullied into gender identity theory, a man who is upset that he's denied the right to strip search a woman is horrifying, isnt it chilling

DS - Officer probably sees themselves as a woman not a man and not chilling. Based on this they're just disagreeing with Met policy

Grim.

Inspector Nick Lockyear is a fucking disgrace to his rank if he thinks it's fine for some bloke claiming to be a woman to poke his finger up a woman's vagina or anus.
I thought of a longer reply, but the above sums it up really.

I can't type in words what I think of this arsehole, in case I get banned. He's a disgrace to humanity, let alone his rank.

You are right Betty. I was trying not to sound too OTT as I would also be on the banned list.
He does appear more concerned about a man validating himself as a "woman", by intimate search, than the violation of that woman by someone she considers to be a man.

Do we know this officer’s name? I might have to send him a note (politely) expressing my disappointment. I’m sure his mum is really proud of him

Officer probably sees themselves as a woman not a man and not chilling

Aye does he now.

He does appear more concerned about a man validating himself as a "woman", by intimate search, than the violation of that woman by someone she considers to be a man.

Absolutely. And in this he appears to embody the attitude of the police overall, which is the real issue. And they don't seem to realise just how evil it is (I realise that this is a dramatic, and somewhat old-fashioned term, but that's how I feel about it. It's evil.)

It’s pretty clear that the officers have de-humanised the person in custody. They see themselves as public protectors so they won’t want to accept that a colleague is disingenuous. Or they’re used to taking so much grief from people they can’t see when their defence of their own is problematic. They do deal with horrible people in the main - you must have to switch off from it to survive. It’s probably all too late now but to close the empathy gap NC would need to put someone close to that officer into a hypothetical position of being searched like mum, or wife or girlfriend… the penny might drop then.

I think this was said by the second witness today, DCS Daniel Smith

Yes, I see it was now, thanks for clarifying.
Insp. Lockyear was the one pleading ignorance of Forstater as he hadn't bothered to identify the need to keep up with his training in this area. Have I misrepresented how he thinks? I very much doubt it.
Too late to edit.

My views stand for DCS Daniel Smith. I can't see the Inspector holding a different perspective to the DCS who is the more senior officer I presume, and also a fucking disgrace.

From the Met representatives we've seen in this tribunal, I think they are all as bad as each other, tbh, though some are better at hiding it. And all as indoctrinated as each other.

The idea that the Met need to bring people together, as Smith says. I thought the job of the Met was to investigate crime, be involved in crime prevention, treat their employees fairly and equally - that kind of thing (oh, and for police officers to try not to sexually assault/rape/kill women - but that might be too much to ask).