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?

From the Ultimate Pool rules:

"one of the UPG’s core missions is to raise the profile and overall standard of the women’s game"
[include men. That'll do it]

Under the transgender policy:
"Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:

1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years."

[So, if these people get any good, they can compete with the men in the future (hollow laugh) Or presumably they could boomerang every four years, just for fun and lols.]

You may not be surprised that under that tg policy there seems to be no mention of women identifying into the men's competition.

Two males in the final of the women's pool league - what excellent timing, with the court case starting today.

(Waves at those keeping us under surveillance, and by that, I don't mean the MN moderators)

So apparently Haynes is a busy person (don’t want the thread deleted)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-14577879/amp/Piers-Morgan-leads-outrage-two-transgender-players-contest-final-womens-pool-competition-Sharron-Davies-labels-event-grossly-wrong-way.html

and archive

archive.is/CLJ1X

“Harriet Haynes defeated Lucy Smith 8-6 in the final of a Women's Pro Series event, one of eight events on the Ultimate Pool Group's 2025 women's circuit.”

Wigan last night and Canterbury court this week.

I wonder whether Haynes thought about how this final will work for this case this week? On so many levels this is Operation: Let them speak!

I wonder whether Harper’s reputation will be further with this case. Considering Harper’s IOC funded study of four that became just one and that was Bridges, iirc. I don’t think Harper has a credible reputation at the moment anyway.

The more I think about it the more absurd the Mumsnet policy is. There are two m€^ playing in the final of a women’s sporting event and we are not even allowed to say so. How can stating the truth be deemed to be more offensive than the fact that in a female sports event there are no women left in the competition for the final stage of that competition? Women have been completely erased in this scenario.

Please Mumsnet reconsider your policy.

I thought Harper agreed that males have an advantage but than “meaningful” competition could still take place. #€ basically thinks that inclusion is more important than fairness. I don’t understand how this will help the claimant’s case.

Here is a Jon Pike paper discussing Joanna Harper’s concept of “meaningful competition”…

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2023.2167720#abstract

I think harper was trying to find that meaningful way. But also got caught in the mess with that study that deteriorated.

generally I think harper is trying to minimise harpers own findings ;the were in line with Hilton and Lindberg ) and trying to retcon the category to fit males into female sports.

I think Harper is still being rolled out as a ‘reasonable’ academic. Here is Harper on this John Oliver show (from last night I think)

https://x.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1909136217377026129?s=46

I think eventually Harpers search will be compared with a search for the Holy grail.

I wonder if Harper still running that study with Emily Bridges to prove that Bridges has become as weak as a woman since Bridges declared Bridgeself to be a lady?

https://archive.ph/bnd2q

I wonder too signal. Surely the IOC will insist on something for their money.

FFS. Are we back to having to use terms like Bridgeself and Harperself like we used to have to do instead of being able to speak the truth? Proof once again that women's rights can be taken away in an instant. Proof that language has to be engineered so as not to upset someone's feelings.

Morning all, does anyone know if there is remote access to this hearing. I’m off work ill so would have the opportunity to observe.

An additional 2 women who should have competed in the semifinals lost £2000 each. And any standing points for seeding? I don’t know about pool rules but points influence seeding in lots of sports.

The harms extend down.

I've emailed the courts re remote access but no response yet.

Tribunal Tweets have said they will be live tweeting but I guess they have to get permission first.

Thanks @Signalbox TT and copious tea is the plan

Here is the TT link...

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1909167282850242580

I have an auto response saying they are currently experiencing delays....

Does anyone know the case number?

Thanks for your patience while we review the recent deletions.

We know this is a complex and nuanced area, and even with the best intentions, some of our moderation decisions may sometimes feel inconsistent or unclear.
Referring to someone’s biological sex is not against our rules, particularly where it’s central to the discussion - but we ask that posts remain civil, thoughtful and measured as far as possible. Language that appears designed to belittle or provoke is likely to be deleted. If we do anything that seems at odds with this approach, or if anything isn’t clear, do feel free to get in touch. We’re always happy to review or explain where needed.

K01CT207

What we need to know is, if we refer to the male people involved in this case as “he” or “him” are you going to delete our posts and the thread?

So can you confirm that those who are biologically male (i.e. were born male, regardless of gender identity) can be referred to as men without risk of deletion?

This would be consistent with the law as many of us understand it, where gender critical views are a protected characteristic. This allows for someone to refer to someone else's biological sex as long as it's factual rather than harassment - e.g. the difference between (i) referring to Dave (who now identifies as Susan) as "he", as in, "He's over there", and (ii) following Dave/Susan around shouting, "You're a man, you're a man!" for no reason other than to cause alarm or distress.

I'm sure we all appreciate how difficult moderating can be, especially when unseen monitors are making reports, but we need to apply the actual law, not the law as certain quarters would like it to be

A rule that allows people to use sex-based pronouns but prohibits personal attack of individuals involved in the case would be reasonable I think.

Can someone please provide the email address and details to request access please? Many thanks