Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:13

I thought RMW kept male patterns of speaking as it helped clarity etc. in court - but I can't hear RMW at all!

SinnerBoy · 09/04/2025 14:19

Lucky you!

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:22

So this Physics professor is RMW's expert witness? But he wasn't given the actual rules for pool when writing his report? I'm assuming there has to be a reason for chosing an American physics professor as a witness

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:25

Oh now the judge is as confused as the rest of us - what are the actual rules in pool? is it as complicated as it seems

StellaAndCrow · 09/04/2025 14:27

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.

"Women are underrepresented in some competitive activities"

Yes, women are definitely underrepresented in this women's pool final . . . !

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 14:27

Is this lad saying that he doesn’t know anything about pool, but got size of balls etc and did some calculations from that? Is this in order to not be able to distinguish any difference between men and women? Just my suspicions. Happy to be completely wrong.

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 14:27

Pool rules change all the time. It’s strange the rules weren’t supplied to him for when he wrote his report.

OP posts:
ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:29

So he thinks that if you don't pot a ball you can retain your shot? I'm pretty sure that's not the case, although I've only ever played pool in a pub so may not be remembering well

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 14:33

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:29

So he thinks that if you don't pot a ball you can retain your shot? I'm pretty sure that's not the case, although I've only ever played pool in a pub so may not be remembering well

In American rules.

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 14:34

It’s the blind leading the blind. Claimant’s expert from US is having the rules now explained to him. Different to those on which he based the calculations. Wonder if this expert is paid.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:35

Signalbox · 09/04/2025 14:33

In American rules.

Show quote history

Yes, so his report is based on things that are not relevant

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:37

Surely not giving him the correct rules makes his report pointless?

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 14:38

I suspect (just my opinion) that it is to produce a bit of paper that says men (even if they make claims that they are not) have no advantage whatsoever in sports due to their bodies.

Just like putting an A4 sheet of paper with ‘Dog’ written on it in front of my sleeping cat changes his species.

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 14:39

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:37

Surely not giving him the correct rules makes his report pointless?

He’s arguing it doesn’t make any difference. It feels like very weak evidence.

OP posts:
ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:43

I'm assuming the physics of things like pool shots is his area of expertise? otherwise he seems a very random witness

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 09/04/2025 14:45

He's not there for the truth, just to muddy the waters. More specifically, to enable counsel to claim that the other side hasn't proved that males do have an advantage.

Referring to the wrong rules was an unforced error, for sure.

murasaki · 09/04/2025 14:46

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:43

I'm assuming the physics of things like pool shots is his area of expertise? otherwise he seems a very random witness

And doesn't address the physiology of the players, so is incomplete evidence.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:49

I assume the people sitting on the back row are from the EBPF - one of them just has his head in his hands, I'm assuming trying to follow all this is doing his head in

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 14:51

I’d imagine he’ll bluster on and pirouette even if his basis was incorrect.

“ I was simulating wide variety of possibilities, not what a prof player would do.“

Oh, yeah. We’re not talking about advantages of winning anymore, are we?

murasaki · 09/04/2025 14:52

I thought the EBPF were amateurs, so what a pro player would do is also irrelevant.

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 14:53

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:43

I'm assuming the physics of things like pool shots is his area of expertise? otherwise he seems a very random witness

I don’t think so.

OP posts:
ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:53

So his view is that having a lot of power to put into your shot is a disadvantage as you need control. In other words poor old HH is disadvantaged by having gone through male puberty

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:55

This is so random, he's not giving a great impression of the quality of work at MIT

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 14:56

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 14:53

So his view is that having a lot of power to put into your shot is a disadvantage as you need control. In other words poor old HH is disadvantaged by having gone through male puberty

So being stronger surely an advantage because you would be able to not use all your strength and maintain control whereas someone less strong would need to use more strength and risk losing control.

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 09/04/2025 14:59

That is contrary.

Grip strength to be able to maintain a finely aligned precision shot. And yes, if you have more strength available to you, you can better control the cue as you hit it. You have a greater range of options over a female player in that regard, surely?

It all seems daft.