English Blackball Pool Federation

[Signalbox]

The hearing is scheduled for 7th-11th April at Canterbury County Court.

Tribunal Tweets will be following the case…

Live tweeting sessions Abbreviations
J - His Honour Judge Parker
HH - Harriet Haynes, claimant
RW - Robin White, claimant’s barrister
CC - Colman Coyle, claimant's solicitor
EBPF - English Blackball Pool Federation
PT - Paul Thomson, defendant
AG - Anna Goodwin, defendant
SC - Sarah Crowther KC, defendants’ barristers, and
SS - Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson
JRL - JR Levins LLP, defendants’ solicitor
JG - James Goodwin, witness for defendant

The original thread has been deleted for “breaking Mumsnet guidelines”. Not sure why but possibly “misgendering” or possibly making it too easy to find the crowdfund @mumsnet it would be good if you could let us know so this thread can stay up. Do we have to pretend that the Claimant is female?

Quite.

They’d (the volunteer organisers) get classed as all sorts for raising the issue at all.

Like that ‘I dare you to say it’ (my take) when Haynes went on face book to put women on the spot about whether they felt ‘unsafe’. The audacity of him thinking it was in any way appropriate to figuratively put a gun to their head like that in the group. Oddly he didn’t appear to mention the fairness aspect.

I imagine they suspected ramifications if they dared say in writing, or otherwise, they’d rather he wasn’t in the women’s competition. And then being scared to speak out would be conveniently misrepresented as delight he was winning the women’s money and prizes. Damned if you did speak out publicly to his face, and damned if they didn’t as he carried on taking their money and prizes with his male entitlement and male advantage.

I thought the claimant had an expert witness. Wouldn't the claimant's expert usually be heard before the defence witnesses? Or have they decided they don't need an expert?

Yes, and also if RMW is arguing that pool is NOT a sport where sex makes a difference, then then why have mixed sex at all? As RMW doesn't seem to be arguing the "Positive Action" case (thanks for including the details of that, very useful! )

This is a similar mess that Veronica Ivy/Rachel McKinnon got into - did all that "academic" work on why TW didn't have an advantage in women's sports, but was unable to provide any argument as to why, if that was the case, sports should be sex-segregated at all.

There is only a witness for the defendant (James Goodwin) on the list from TT. No mention of a witness for the claimant.

Maybe that changed according to the day. If not, then only a witness for the defendant.

Fucking hell that is SO SHIT! And this is just in pool?!?!

I think - but not sure - the expert witness will be shortened and in writing now instead.

From Sharron Davies on X, speaking generally:

Women-half the worlds population, get just 4% of sports sponsorship yet generate far more than that in gate & tv rights. Women so far have lost over 1.6 million dollars to men in women’s sport & nearly $4000 this week. How do we offer equality, opportunity or inspire doing this?

It is totally shit. I quoted some amounts further back in this thread which seem to be out by a fair amount: apologies, I can't now find where I got the numbers from.
But still. It is very wrong.

Do we think the expert witness decided to do a written submission after the hearing started? I know I wouldn't want to try to defend this rubbish in person

I had the feeling that the Expert Witness provided a written statement and both parties were happy to take their evidence without further questions. Presumably it was factual/evidenced up by paperwork (I was relieved when it happened to me, once, having flown 1/2 way across the world for a misfeasance trial).

I initially read that as “sectioned” because it’s a common tool to silence dissent and particularly disrespectful women. (Using that phrase for anyone who recalls the brouhaha with KJK and IW and Eamon Holmes on This Morning. )

This.

It is FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS to me that in 2025, as a woman, I am having my freedom of speech curtailed and being dictated to about which terms I can use to describe facts by men. And not only are men feeling they should control women’s speech, but Mumsnet, a forum mostly used by women, are tugging their forelock to these controlling men and going along with it.

It’s a fucking disgrace.

As to concerns about losing advertising revenue, us (as in site users) and our content on this site are the product that gets Mumsnet the advertising revenue in the first place.

I am grateful by and large to Mumsnet for showing more backbone than many other sites overall. But it is very disappointing that they appear to now be rowing back from their previous sensible position and are now running scared of somebody male, just because they are a lawyer. The law is the law and somebody being a lawyer should not give them an advantage over other non-lawyers.

When it is stated that TW should not take part in sport, I do wish they’d clarify that TW should not take part in women’s sports. It would be like saying that men shouldn’t take part in sport, when men’s sports are are the predominant sports. It is purposefully omitting the reality.

RW: Asking about a presentation. Saying they referred to Women's Rights Network. Asks if they inc trans groups.

Witness (female, older): It was a long time ago and I've had two brain aneurysms since then so some things I've forgotten.

Whatever the possible reasons for her health problems, it is upsetting that powerful, self-serving men put people through such stress.

“Some find it difficult being with men”. Men who claim to be women. Rather ridiculous statement.

What I want to know from Mumsnet is - do I have to lie to use this site and if so what do I have to lie about?

Is Mumsnet going to require us to tell lies, and behave differently to how we would be expected to behave in court?

The biggest and first lie is that using correct sex pronouns is somehow distressing. It's not. Pronouns are neutral - if you're upholding this view you're saying being correctly identified as male is somehow offensive which is pretty discriminatory against all men as a sex class (as well as the reverse for women). Pronouns are not a slur. I've had non-native speakers call me 'he' and GUESS WHAT, I didn't care.

If that's going to impact your mental health, then you are completely ill equipped for the modern world. AND YET... the male bodied people who make this demand seem very keen to bring court cases which are inherently stressful. So it's likely that it doesn't actually distress them it's about getting others (lets face it women) sanctioned and punished for telling the truth. Which they seem to greatly enjoy. And which has happened even here.

Truth matters. Sex matters. Both matter for safeguarding.

Yes. It's a grim spectacle watching the DARVOing of the self interested, dragging a group of volunteers through the courts to satisfy their own niche demands. Yet again trashing a women's group.
Off to make a donation to the crowdfunder.

Some men find it difficult being with other men, would be more correct. Still doesn’t mean you get to ride roughshod over women and girls.

Then the correct remedy is to go to therapy and work on your issues and increase your resilience to the ordinary challenges of everyday life.

It isn’t to somehow outsource your own emotional regulation to society at large and expect them to collude in your avoidance of any anxiety or distress-provoking facts.

Edited for typo/nonsensical autocorrect

Quick Google re how men and women's vision is different:

there are some differences in vision between men and women, with men generally having better visual acuity and the ability to track moving objects
**
Seems relevant.

Women are simply seen as needing to be emotional support props by a cohort of men, who then go on to destroy any dissenters as far as I can see (the more painful the process is, the better).

I'm just dipping in and out of the tweets, but these poor witnesses don't deserve this stress. I hope somebody is there to support them.

Couldn’t agree more but it’s the purposeful lack of clarity that one side wants and (inevitably) gets. It suits their narrative and needs.

Or, indeed outsource your emotional regulation mostly to women, by intruding into their spaces, restricting their speech and so on.

Because I can't help but notice that women seem to do a lot more running around after TRAs than men do.

Kindness is such an important thing, but if my DC were young now, I would caution them endlessly about having their kindness used against them.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-does-the-equality-act-mean-for-womens-sports/

SM have put something together on this and a future case, including info on expert witnesses.