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

The absolutely best bit about this mornings evidence was that the witness stated he had not been on any equalities training since the Forstarter ruling. Which begs the question - how the fuck does he know about it then eh?

unless of course he has been erm briefed beforehand, which the legals should not understand any circumstances do.

Good point.

Do we think Wayne Couzens might have self IDed as a woman for a day to sexually assault a woman in custody? Surely the answer to this is self evidently yes.

How can any women even consider reporting sexual assault to these pricks given they're the ones enabling and condoning sexual assault by men in their ranks? To give more weight to a male officer's delusion he's female than a female's perception of the reality the officer is a man when he's strip searching her is deliberate illegal sexual assault.

When are people going to lose their jobs? A clear intent to break the law should surely be a stackable offense? I don't want my taxes paying for this abuse

As someone who had the potential responsibility to have to carry out a strip search in a previous role, I can categorically state that this is not something I would ever have demanded to be able to do.
It's not something any right minded human should want to have to do to to another human unless there wasn't another option for safety reasons. WTF. Just WTF.
That the police can't see this enormous, glaring red flag is abominable.

This is a point that I wished NC would have made. For anyone to be eager to carry out a strip search is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with them. That's what I find chilling, regardless of the sex of any party.

So am intimate strip search involves fingers inside the woman's vagina and anus, and men (who pretend to be Women) can do this?

I thought a strip search was different to a full body cavity search and just involved a visual inspection and a "pat down"?

And only a Full body cavity search involved an invasive cavity' (vagina, anus, mouth) Search.
And presumably men (who pretend to be women) can do this as well?

When did PACE change?

Wtf actual Fuck?

How I understood it random men saying they are women can't, some were "just" expressing an opinion they should be allowed to, which is not aligned with the current MET guidelines.
Not sure about the GRC ones.

There was a thread recently about prison officers who expressed the same opinion and weren't stopped by their respective guidelines though.

So which is it?

If I as a Woman , of the Cunty kind, get a pat down, are we expected to have an invasive anal, oral, vaginal investigation?

Because I thought, under PACE, only an Invasive search involved intimate cavity searches?

Closing submissions today, I think, though the 11am start has either slipped or TT are sat in limbo land.

Can it be open justice if it's impossible to hear the judge?

And Naomi did go there with the sexual assault and chilling that a man wants to strip search women.

Goodness me:
NC: turning to AM submissions. Para 2 AM says R view is that my cross-ex has been for benefit of those outside the tribunal. Not so.
NC: Yes I have examined on the wider matters but that is bcs necessary to show the R's overall attitudes.
NC: It's clear R wanted to keep proceedings as lowkey as possible and it's entirely fair to challenge that. R is borderline accusing me of misconduct which is outright wrong esp after what we heard yesterday.
NC: I wd hope that this allegation - might have been OK in an early version but I feel cannot be sustained after my explanation y'day

4 propositions set out by NC.....
J: I think I have them in my notes y'day.
J I wrote - GI theory is proselytising, no tolerance for dissent; cannot defend with reason/evidence so has to cancel and bully; necessarily discriminates, because delusional [missed a bit]
NC: Shall we say "not factual" rather than delusional.

Aileen McColgan, barrister for the Metropolitan Police, answering Naomi Cunningham's submissions, from Tribunal Tweets:

AM: NC objects to my saying that some odious, repughant beliefs protected under EA2010 per Forstater. V clear there that bar is very high - let's say "some very unpleasant" beliefs covered.
5:07 PM · Mar 25, 2025

And these odious, repugnant very unpleasant beliefs, covered by Forstater, are...???

Wow. Repugnant to believe in biological reality, how did we get here? I genuinely despair.

It just makes AM sound bonkers. And also a little disingenuous, because she is hinting at heinousness without actually spelling out the completely uncontroversial and banal beliefs of sex realists.

It's true that the forstater judgement found that unpleasant beliefs (not sure if the term used) would be covered by the pc of philosophical belief. It said that to fail the test for being woriads a belief had to be so bad that it would not attract protection under article (I forget the number) of the European convention on human rights. So not be woriads the belief would be towards taking away other peoples rights, bringing down democracy etc.

But the judge did not find that GC beliefs were unpleasant, which is what AM is hinting - hinting that GC beliefs are unpleasant, I mean, not that the court held that they were, iyswim.

I don't understand why it is relevant. I think the definition of an 'unpleasant belief' is subjective - look at the abortion debate or pro-Palestine marches.

I don't think the police should be taking a side on any of these issues - they should just be enforcing the law.

It sounds as though she is saying that people are allowed to be treated differently if the police think a belief is 'unpleasant'.

In fairness AM covered her behind somewhat by saying
AM Forstater allows odious beliefs be protected. I am not categorising them as odious, but odious beliefs are protected.

The sentence I thought was revealing was
It's not unreasonable for T ppl and network to be made anxious for a gp that has GC views starting.

...but apparently it is unreasonable for GC ppl to object to having been made anxious over a long period by the existence of a trans network.

Not to mention the fact that the Met displays trans-related paraphernalia, which it knows is controversial, and is as anxious-making to GC ppl as the existence of a GC group is for trans ppl.

The lack of neutrality or objectivity is glaring.

The fact they think advocating for men to intimately search women's bodies is virtuous makes me extremely anxious.

Yes i agree, and I hope the tribunal will think it's not for the police to decide which lawful beliefs are unacceptable. I think NC said something about that in the afternoon.

I thought AM's argument was interesting- she seemed to be saying that as a protected belief like any other Gender Critical beliefs can't be immune from criticism and push back from ppl who subscribe to different beliefs. That might be fine in a functioning pluralism where people were disagreeing well. But this wasn't that because the police force had adopted the opposing belief, and an anti gc position, as its own. I hope the tribunal will see that the flags, email signatures etc etc represent a set of beliefs, rather than a simple expression of support for staff with the pc of gender reassignment.

Any idea why this case is receiving less attention than others did?

NC: If this were not so terrifying, it would be comic.
NC: re para106, I make no apology for cross-ex on those matters. I think the public would be alarmed to discover that a WI protest would attract the same policing as a demo of young men.
NC: Policing must be evidence based. It is ludicrous to suggest that sex does not come into risk assessment. My point was to illustrate the ridiculousness of accepting and operating GI theory. Ludicrous not to recognise that men more likely to be sex offenders.
NC: Overwhelming evidence that R is signed up to Gender Identity Theory.

Indeed NC! 😜🥰

https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2022/november_2022/legal-framework-second-employments-police-officers-annex-c.pdf

I think this is relevant to police neutrality.

I understand that a support network isn't supposed to be political, but I think a group that tries to influence or change the interpretation of the law is political. I assume that the police would argue that they were external speakers who had nothing to do with the police, but if there is no balance and the police only engage with one set of views, isn't that political?

I dont think the MET were advocating for that to be fair, it was the fact that the MET allowed such discussions at all. As one of the defence witnesses stated it would be illegal under PACE.

To me the MET and more broadly the criminal justice system has confused community engagement, with some other concept, i dunno, community embracement perhaps.

But of course it will be male centred.

it is notable that none of the speakers were trans men, not that i accept that concept.

I saw this in its infancy, as the women’s aid rep on our local city DV partnership.

Some lazy arsed cop who got away from van duty and the beat going around proffering bollocks for a living.

that was about 2012

I’m shocked with that Smith fellow said (and not bothering to hide his lack of care or concern for any potential female victim) when explaining about some man in the police who wants to be able to intimately search a woman because the man claims he is also a woman. What he is just nonchalantly saying is that another police man may justify his right to grope and feel up a woman because he claims to be a woman. There wasn’t any thought expressed as to whether a woman who was to be strip searched by a man consented to a man (even if he claims he is a different sex) doing this. What a complete lack of respect for the rights of women. I know he said they can’t do it at the moment because it’s not their policy. That seems to be the only obstacle as far as I could tell from his statements.

I’m afraid that sort of enabling/ complicit man disgusts me along with any man who wants to sexually molest women by intimately searching them. In my opinion, if a man wants to strip search a woman without her consent that is sexual molestation.

No wonder they wanted have anonymity so as to hide from the public what utter misogynistic creeps appear to be employed in jobs with the power of the state behind them.

Obviously all my own opinion derived from their statements.

Aileen McColgan KC https://www.11kbw.com/knowledge-events/news/aileen-mccolgan-kc-has-written-thomson-reuters-practice-note-on-transgender-pupils-in-schools/