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?

What I have never understood is why it isn't enough in these cases to just produce the decades and decades worth of results in men's and women's competitions. In many traditional sports and indeed pastimes we have 100 years' worth of data. If sports and pastimes were not gender-affected, the men's and women's results would be the same, more or less.

I suppose there's a legal reason, but I don't really understand the rationale. It's like the law is existing in a different plane to reality. Like we would have to prove that living creatures need oxygen, or that being stabbed is painful and not just the same as having acupuncture, or something. My thoughts are a bit muddled but I hope you see what I am getting at.

The question is, why is there such an over representation of TW in the female category? If TW were actually women they would be a tiny minority within a tiny minority and the chances of two of them wiping out 30 women and both end up competing in the final is probably thousands to one (I am really bad at maths so please don’t judge me).

Maybe the respondents' expert will produce those data. In adversarial proceedings there are Agreed Facts (ie agreed between the parties) and Common General Knowledge (though parties can dispute whether something is CGK). Everything else has to be proved using fact witnesses and expert witnesses.

This is why you get silly headlines about out of touch judges who don't know about popular culture or everyday life. They do know: they're just formally establishing that whatever is being referred to is either an Agreed Fact or CGK, so nobody has to prove it.

Yes - "Who are the Beatles?" is the famous one!

I knew about Agreed Facts and General Knowledge - although I didn't know the legal terms for them - but what I am saying is that it's infuriating and odd that in this particular area of law, people are allowed to dispute CGK so often and to such an extent. The fact is that you can "make a case" for absolutely anything - this is what people do in debating societies. For fun, or as an exercise. But if this sort of latitude was allowed in other areas, cases would go on for ever and we would get even more bizarre results more frequently than we do.

When it comes down to it, we are litigating fact on one side and fantasy on the other and that should be recognised. What we need/needed is for someone to say at an early stage, "ffs don't be so bloody stupid."

Does anyone happen to have the email address to request a link for remote access? TIA.

What time is is starting today?

@CriticalCondition here's the details:
[email protected]
quote case number "K01CT207 Harriet Haynes vs Paul Thomson & Anna Goodwin (The English Blackball Poool Federation - Chairman & Secretary)"

You need to let them know your full name when requesting access.
They take a while to reply as pretty busy :-)

I think that boat has sailed. Because of the ridiculous laws that have been passed, we're left having to prove things that we always thought were obvious. In the teeth of official guidance, that assuming transwomen are different in any way from 'other' women is ignorant and prejudiced.

@RoastOrMash Brilliant! Thanks so much.

@Chrysanthemum5 10am according to yesterday' TT :-)

While I'm sure the Good Prof has made some lovely computer models, famously neutrinos don't really interact with anything

Watching now. This study by the Scottish "academic" really is riddled with faults, assumptions and "I'm not sure" parameters. I was sceptical when it was described as athletic women versus overweight and unfit trans identifying men but even his own evidence seems to back this up. 😳

Reading tribunal tweets it seems as if this study is just one limitation after another. I'm interested in how RMW will pull this back to credibility.

Also did the witness say there is a joint report with Emma Hilton? Who I think is a GC academic?

Yes, joint report. Although SC is now talking about them disagreeing/talking past each other.

This whole, I accept she says the sky is blue but I would have to confirm that is driving me nuts.

The pauses before BH answers are so revealing.

And BH's questioning of whether males are on average stronger than women, which was an Agreed Fact is a perfect example of the ridiculous latitude the genderists get.

I find all this arguing about whether or not men have sufficiently weakened themselves in order to compete in the female category is offensive. Why should weakened men be considered to be acceptable competition for elite females?

Did they honestly expect BH was going to help their laughably weak case? This is painful.

Is Hilton an expert for the Defence?

I'm in. The court was very quick to respond. I see that some very sensible ground rules for observers were issued by the judge at the outset. Good.

BH claims to be "NB feminine". At the risk of asking a silly question, what does that mean? identifying as female or something else?

On strength and speed BH has just said 'I'm a geologist, not a physicist. So I won't go into all that stuff, it's not my line.'

Gosh.

Has BH just said men might have more muscle mass in their arms but they are hampered by having to overcome heavier bones??

He appears to be saying that having huge male muscly arms is a disadvantage because they have to move them about which is hard. How can he claim any professional competence?

<Visions of poor exhausted-yet-buff menfolk barely able to drag themselves around the place due to their dreadfully heavy bones>

Just what the actual fuck are these people on?