Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

English Blackball Pool Federation

805 replies

Signalbox · 06/04/2025 08:40

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?

English Blackball Pool Federation
OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
Tallisker · 09/04/2025 10:33

JanesLittleGirl · 08/04/2025 21:08

Can I have a brief derail while things are quiet?

Am I the only person who reads the thread title as "English Blackpool Ball Federation"?

I keep reading ‘Blackpool’ too 😁

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 10:55

So, my thoughts from listening to the hearing, but not watching it - is that it is very interesting to hear the voices of the individuals.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 10:55

Oh dear - bundle issues

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 11:26

This is bizarre. Current witness is for the Claimant but under cross examination he saying how unfair it is for men to be competing in the female category.

OP posts:
ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 11:27

The current witness was made to attend rather than wanting to attend, is that what it means by he was summoned to appear?

He seems to be saying HH is capable of beating male players so should play with them

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 11:32

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 11:27

The current witness was made to attend rather than wanting to attend, is that what it means by he was summoned to appear?

He seems to be saying HH is capable of beating male players so should play with them

Really? How do you know? Is this what is known as a hostile witness...

English Blackball Pool Federation
OP posts:
Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 11:33

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 11:27

The current witness was made to attend rather than wanting to attend, is that what it means by he was summoned to appear?

He seems to be saying HH is capable of beating male players so should play with them

Oh I missed the bit that said summoned to appear.

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 09/04/2025 11:33

Is this going to be the demonstration of the credibility of that book that we kept having told would be a game changer? That we should all buy and read so we understood how very wrong we were and how much we needed to learn?

When you only work within an ideological framework that is only supported by philosophical belief and not supported by science and reality, you end up with legal advice, and sports studies that are greatly flawed but are still aiming to convince a judge and society that these publications should be the foundation of policy and law making.

What a case!

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 11:33

RMW said at the start of questions that the witness had been summoned, so I'm not sure why they thought he would help the claimant's case.

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 11:41

Haynes didn’t bring the case on the basis of fairness having men (whatever ‘identity’ they claim) compete against women, though. You, and everyone else, are supposed to let that enormous elephant slide.

Concentrate on the minutiae of something else, and the huge, glaring unfairness to women is ignored. Haynes is the one who has been most woefully wronged. Not the women (sure who cares about them). Look over here, not there.

wantmorenow · 09/04/2025 11:58

Thank you all for your thoughts and comments - may I remind anyone new joining the thread that gardening is needed for this brave amateur organisation. Just google something along the lines of Help us defend our female Blackball competitions from litigation

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 12:00

I still don't understand why the claimant's team summoned that last witness, he really didn't help their case and he clearly didn't want to be there

Datun · 09/04/2025 12:06

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 12:00

I still don't understand why the claimant's team summoned that last witness, he really didn't help their case and he clearly didn't want to be there

Incompetence?

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 12:11

I think it is about the rules. White uttered something about how muddy the rules are, and how the rules are made.

It really strikes me that some people are opportunists of the type that if they are denied something (or don’t push through a loophole), they’d be happy to burn the house down for others.

Datun · 09/04/2025 12:24

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 12:11

I think it is about the rules. White uttered something about how muddy the rules are, and how the rules are made.

It really strikes me that some people are opportunists of the type that if they are denied something (or don’t push through a loophole), they’d be happy to burn the house down for others.

That's inevitable end to all this.

If you allow men into women's sport, women's sport will be ruined.

The pool final already has been

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 09/04/2025 12:52

They had to call someone to testify as to the facts about what the rules are, and why. Because the existence and justifiability of the rules are at the heart of the claimant's case.

The witness's opinions about sex-based skill differences aren't necessarily evidence about whether they exist: you'd need an expert witness for that.

And if the respondents only rely on this aspect of the case, they risk losing if the claimant can prove that - on the balance of probabilities - sex-based skill differences have not been clearly established by the evidence.

I'm hoping they have a second string to their bow, around representation. Women are underrepresented in some competitive activities, for various reasons, and independently of sex-based skill differences. It's a public good to boost participation by creating a separate sex class. But anyone who identifies into it will end up ranked higher as a result purely because of the much smaller size of the field.

Disclaimer: haven't rtft. May be talking bollocks.

SidewaysOtter · 09/04/2025 13:00

Hang on, so HH brought a case that it was unfair to exclude him from women’s sport on the basis of him being biologically male, and had produced a witness to support his argument who…thinks it’s unfair for males to compete in female categories?

murasaki · 09/04/2025 13:04

SidewaysOtter · 09/04/2025 13:00

Hang on, so HH brought a case that it was unfair to exclude him from women’s sport on the basis of him being biologically male, and had produced a witness to support his argument who…thinks it’s unfair for males to compete in female categories?

That's what I took from it, and am thoroughly confused as to why.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 13:14

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 09/04/2025 12:52

They had to call someone to testify as to the facts about what the rules are, and why. Because the existence and justifiability of the rules are at the heart of the claimant's case.

The witness's opinions about sex-based skill differences aren't necessarily evidence about whether they exist: you'd need an expert witness for that.

And if the respondents only rely on this aspect of the case, they risk losing if the claimant can prove that - on the balance of probabilities - sex-based skill differences have not been clearly established by the evidence.

I'm hoping they have a second string to their bow, around representation. Women are underrepresented in some competitive activities, for various reasons, and independently of sex-based skill differences. It's a public good to boost participation by creating a separate sex class. But anyone who identifies into it will end up ranked higher as a result purely because of the much smaller size of the field.

Disclaimer: haven't rtft. May be talking bollocks.

Oh so their case is that the rules are not clear, and HH has been disadvantaged because of that? That makes more sense (well, as much sense as this insanity can make)

NoBinturongsHereMate · 09/04/2025 13:16

Late to the party because I'm a bit tribunalled out ATM but having seen a few highlights, and who the claimant's barrister is, I'm hopping in and trying to catch up.

I see several PP have pointed out the contradiction of 'I must play in the women's category' vs 'there's no male advantage in pool'.

But I also note that the Independent article says the other 2 bodies that do allow TW in the women's category insist on a (ridiculously out-of-female-range, of course) testosterone threshold. Why would they do that if there were no male advantage?

moto748e · 09/04/2025 13:24

Why would they do that if there were no male advantage?

Maybe they just copied it from other sports (like athletics), without thinking about it too much?

JeanGabin · 09/04/2025 13:24

I'm noticing it seems less structured than other cases (the employment tribunals). In the ET's, the witness is cross examined by the KC, then the other KC has opportunity to question. It seems from TT that there are questions from the other KC interspersed (particularly RMW). Is this normal? I still don't really get the case - it seems on the face of it about rules and technicalities but then as others have said, TG aspect is not relevant? When they have 'expert' witnesses claiming there is no male advantage in pool

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 09/04/2025 13:25

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 13:14

Oh so their case is that the rules are not clear, and HH has been disadvantaged because of that? That makes more sense (well, as much sense as this insanity can make)

Show quote history

I think it's simpler than that. They needed a fact witness to establish what the rules are and why. Then they will try to show that the 'why' is based on a false premise, which is where Hamilton comes in.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 13:57

Gosh Naomi Cunningham (or someone using that name) is watching this hearing. That would make me nervous if I were one of the barristers

Madcats · 09/04/2025 14:11

I’ve struggled to understand the rules, but doesn’t HH have a professional contract that now prohibits playing in other leagues; the ladies and Kent?

Kent Online reports that HH is a women’s World and European Champion. It’s as daft as a National sporting champion rocking up to compete in a friendly league.

I wonder what is going through the judge’s mind?