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?

Details are here. I’m not 100% which email to use. I guess it’s the civil court admin email but I contacted them Friday and no response yet. If anyone knows better please update us :)

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/canterbury-combined-court-centre

Thank you - just sent this to the email I found online - having failed to see the last few court hearings due to their inability to host observers I hope this is better.

forgot image

Did you send to this email?

[email protected]

Yes - forgot images need vetting now by MN due to the previous abuse images

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

I wish TT would put this info on their substack.

I also tried phoning court but it goes unanswered then bizarrelt says the phone number is unavailable

Hello new thread. Following this with interest. I could have gone and watched HH last night (was it?), then; local to me! I'm unsure quite why HH is sueing EBPF, I thought people who had signed up to the UP roster, like HH, didn't play in the black-ball events. So how much skin she has in the game, I don't know. Well, UP wanted a blaze of publicity to 'bring pool into a new era', and they've sure got that, but perhaps not in the way they hoped.

Since the league offered an open category it is hard to imagine what argument RMW has available to themself, unless of course it is TWAW, which all of us non lawyers know is not the law.

Does the Open category actually forbid women from entering? If not, one of the solutions is for a few biological women to enter and this would kill the Transwomen's argument about being discriminated against stone dead.

BTW my previous post which got deleted has now been restored.

Did RW just argue that "Many sports are gender selected. Tennis - wld be easy to make a case is gender selective due to fast serve. Ave men have a strength advantage over W. So difficult to argue my case in tennis. In chess, which isnt uncontroversial, as world chess decided TW cldnt play"
ergo Tennis can exclude men but chess shouldn't.
Then follows with "Sports will be either side of boundary and I'll argue it's on 1 side. I wont argue re snooker which I'd argue on wrong side of boundary."
RW But this is pool.

i.e. the EA applies to snooker but not pool. I'm no expert but aren't they very similar sports?

Just had response for court asking for my full name. That was quick and I'm optimistic :-)

It gets complicated because of different govering bodies, but in snooker women have always been able to enter open category championships. It's just that they've never got very far.

Allison Fisher is one of the best women playing snooker and pool of all time, and she's hardly ever got past a qualifying round match playing against men.

Hence the separate women's championships, which are the only way we ever get to see exceptional women shine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/transgender-pool-player-harriet-haynes-ban-b2653361.html

There is some explanation here.

The differences between snooker and pool are considerable.The 'power' arguments apply much more in snooker than pool. Everyone talks about the break in pool, but normally, that's the only time the ball is hit very hard. On the contrary, pool generally requires the most delicate of touches. And on a table 12 foot long, reach considerations apply much more in snooker. As anyone who has ever stood by a snooker table knows, they are so much bigger than they look on the telly!

Me too.

I’ve emailed too.

On the contrary, pool generally requires the most delicate of touches.

Which might suggest that it would favour women slightly. Note I am not trying to argue for TWS!

I mean it's not necessarily the obvious physical safety aspects that you find in boxing or rugby. In chess there are about 2000 grandmasters in the world, and 40 of them are women.

That's why, if you want to watch women excel, you need a separate women's category, and if the pool of competitors is that small, it doesn't take too many males identifying into the women's category to subvert its whole purpose.

RMW appears to be arguing that men should not be competing in snooker or golf because strength give men an advantage but pool is a completely different kettle of fish. This is weird.

Well I've said before that I believe male advantage in pool is marginal, but real. And less than snooker and most other sports. But I don't like the idea of a 'line' as RMW suggests, and some sports are one side of it and some aren't. They are chipping away at what they see as a 'wedge'case IMO.

If you want to increase female interest and participation in the sport, as UP claim, this hardly seems the best way to set about it. Fairness is/should be the primary reason for having separate women's comps.

If it was marginal why would we be seeing 2 transgender males in the final of the female pool championships when overall they only make up 0.5% of the male population? This would suggest a significant advantage wouldn't it. And why is snooker so different to pool. I've played both and the same applies re advantages with strength in the break, height, hand size etc.

But I don't like the idea of a 'line' as RMW suggests, and some sports are one side of it and some aren't.

I'm fine with that. The problem they have is coming up with a reason why Haynes should be in while other males are out. If there's no male advantage, on what grounds can males be excluded?

Sex discrimination not generally legal - sports with male advantages are an exception.

If pool has no male advantage, then having female tournaments at all is legally dodgy. They need to come up with an argument that lets Haynes in to the category, not destroys it.

But surely there are still advantages to the average male in terms of being (on average) taller with a wider arm-span etc, which would give them a wider range of available shots in terms of longer reach across the table etc?

Strength might not be a relevant issue but male physiology compared to women's would still convey an advantage.

i.e. the EA applies to snooker but not pool. I'm no expert but aren't they very similar sports?

I admit that my knowledge of the games is little more than "poking balls with a big stick" but if RMW is suggesting that the EA2010 doesn't/shouldn't apply then I'd say he's wrong. It applies regardless, and not just on the basis of physical strength.

Everyone talks about the break in pool, but normally, that's the only time the ball is hit very hard.

Hitting the ball hard on the break in pool is like making a fast serve in tennis. If you can pot a ball on the break the other player may not get a look in for the rest of the match. Lynne Pinches talks about this in her interview. She's played Haynes on several occasions.