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
Helleofabore · 09/04/2025 15:01

And physics? Is his speciality biomechanics? If not, he is no expert except for the movement of the pools on the table and the power applied. But not on how that power is derived at all.

Distractable · 09/04/2025 15:04

I'm just reading Tribunal Tweets, but honestly, this evidence is not convincing at all. Almost no data, wrong rules consulted, vague pronouncements. I feel like RW is just going through some vague motions here with the case.

GreenUp · 09/04/2025 15:04

How does a barrister (presumably not a pool or physics expert) begin to prepare to question a physics expert on their evidence?

Would she have got her own expert to pick holes in the study so that she can highlight the flaws?

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:04

Quite frankly I don't know what sort of expert he is. So far, he didn't notice he was using the wrong rules (to be fair that is RMW's fault I assume); he had produced tables with data in them that he doesn't reference (and turn out to be lifted from someone else's work); and his main answer seems to be that he's not an expert.

I do hope RMW didn't spend a lot of money on this witness

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 15:06

Oh! At least he has admitted he is not an expert in physiology.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:07

I wonder what the people from EBPF think of his evidence? do they just know it's all madness and he's got things wrong? or is his evidence actually more sound than it appears?

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 15:08

Does anyone know if this judge has been involved in another one of the gender cases? His voice is very familiar.

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 15:11

Wonder if the good professor would be proffering argument for Tennis. That the faster the serve, the less accurate the shot.

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 15:15

So, men have faster serves by a country mile, but do women beat them because of the inaccuracy that comes with that.

They’d never get an ace with those speeds.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:15

I also wonder how the EBPF people feel on a personal level, they've given their time freely to get this federation going, and now they are having to defend trying to keep a space for women's sports. I imagine they feel very betrayed by HH

FriedGold32 · 09/04/2025 15:16

I'm not saying anything new here but what a bloody farce, having a professor of physics attend to give evidence on how balls move across a table to defend a man entering a women's pool tournament.

InvisibleDragon · 09/04/2025 15:17

Oh good lord, this is almost spherical chickens in a vacuum levels of absurdity. And yet somehow in an actual employment trial.

The expert witness may have done a bunch of simulations, but why on earth did they not ask for specific known parameters, like the size a d weight of the balls used?

(Obviously there are more concerns than that, but this is a particularly amateur mistake)

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:21

I think they had the weight and size of the balls? but at times he seems to have swapped to American versions, and he also didn't understand the rules which is a major flaw in his work

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 15:22

😢 I wonder if the named defendants will be personally liable. I wish there was more support for this organisation.

“Stating “the cost of defending our stance for fair play will be substantial and possibly prove beyond our means”, it added of its rule change: “We made this decision in the interests of fairness, because we believe that people who have gone through male puberty have a competitive advantage over biological women.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/7c7739b3db07ed10

Archive

https://archive.ph/Oo3Xq

OP posts:
Fenlandia · 09/04/2025 15:26

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 15:06

Oh! At least he has admitted he is not an expert in physiology.

Surely the defence haven't mixed up physics and physiology? This case is surreal - I wish Tribunal Tweets had been around to do the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, that was proper 'angels on a pinhead' stuff!

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:26

IS the person who just came in a witness?

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 15:28

Although the fund has reached £8,920.00 now so it’s creeping up.

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 15:28

It is trashing the women’s game, isn’t it? Cuckoo yourself in, grab all the prizes, and leave it as scorched earth when it stops letting you plunder.

Is anyone following the expert report? I think even the expert writer is just winging it now too. Bamboozling on even if he didn’t understand rules. Nothing about physiology of players, which is the distinction between men and women. Could be wrong, of course.

BeLemonNow · 09/04/2025 15:32

This is all complete nonsense. Strength and control is relevant to other shots aside from the break particularly in more advanced play. There are also considerable differences between male and female muscle development.

But it is a problem of the law that somehow you have to prove that there is a gender difference and inevitably there are counter arguments and people who genuinely hold the opposite view. You can't be certain in this type of sport.

It's such a shame as the witness states they've done a massive amount to promote women pool and now are being effectively punished for it. Why can't they have a female since birth competition? Who would want to start one now?

Original poster
Signalbox · 09/04/2025 15:35

expert says longer arms might give you some advantage.

OP posts:
ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:37

Why would being taller put you at a disadvantage when leaning over a table? surely it allows you more choice over your shot?

Cailleach1 · 09/04/2025 15:44

Ah, we’ve gone to men can be at a disadvantage because of their height now as they may have to/ be able to bend (and stretch right into the middle, my take). Veering from men not having an advantage minute ago, as you just had to match a cue to your physiology.

Get a little cue for a 10 year old, and they could smash the men’s game. Jumping up will give them an advantage, where the poor men will have a handicap of having to bend over right into the centre of the table.

murasaki · 09/04/2025 15:47

This all seems like massive self sabotage from HH's side, I'm struggling to see the motivation for choosing these witnesses.

ThatPithySheep · 09/04/2025 15:47

This man's research interest is neutrinos, so while I'm willing to accept he understands how things interact, his relevance to pool and whether height, speed etc. would be an advantage seems a bit tenuous

murasaki · 09/04/2025 15:48

If NC is watching, I'd sell my soul to hear her views at this point.