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?

It really wouldn't surprise me if male individuals had no real insight into why we have women's anything, to be honest.

Especially those who think that the purpose of women's spaces and sports is to validate their own self image.

What is the point of women's sport? is a very common, male refrain.

So holding the opinion that men don't have an advantage, but nonetheless they should be able to be in the women's category, purely on the base that it is for women, with no underlying reasons as to why women have it in the first place, really wouldn't surprise me.

When you see women's stuff purely as a tool for yourself, you tend to miss the actual reasons why we have it.

And even if you know the reasons, you won't care. Because that's not the point of women's stuff. The entire point of women, their space and all their stuff, is as a tool for men to utilise as and when they like.

And I suspect that for this barrister, the inability to see anything through a lens other than one of male entitlement, is going to become pretty clear, pretty quickly.

I’ll catch up on the comedy gold this evening (as it happens I think I am cooking chicken). It was slightly unfortunate timing for the prosecution that the two finalists in yesterday's ladies pool competition of 32 contestants were the claimant and another person looking pretty similar. I understand that Piers Morgan referred to them as “Cheating Bulls”.

i'm sure i saw a tweet about the pool (the one that finished yesterday) where 3 of the 4 semi-finalists were not biological women? or did i dream that?

I’m in. It would be unkind to comment on here about the size of people involved but I’m reminded of a cat I nearly rehomed from the cat reside who was called Chunk for good reason.

@Datun “What is the point of women's sport? is a very common, male refrain.”

But you’ll notice they very much get the point of different classes in boxing depending on weight. The welterweight man has to have fairness and opportunity as much as the heavyweight.

So, it is wilful disregard in my opinion.

The barrister for the respondent would get on much better if she used correct sex pronouns for all the males involved.

I agree. It hobbles her, and undermines the whole basis of the case.

It is the same in society in general. Which is why the transgender movement is so very very keen on wrong-sex pronouns and so very very hot on any “misgendering”.

NC would make mincemeat of this witness

We’re now onto the hurt feelings part of the case. Harriet’s hurt feelings, there’s been no mention of the women’s hurt feelings. Harriet is now blaming the federation for other people’s social media posts.

Here you go: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/482595ba5e4e0e26

Apologies, I meant to tag @Brefugee

Major lols. Evidence for damages has been brought in from another competition under a different federation. Defendants barrister asks why?
HH: errrrrrrr….

I still believe sports is the best way to illustrate the issue to a man who doesn't get it. Because the unfairness is so visual.

I know men who prefer to watch women's tennis because it's about technique more than power. They absolutely get that introducing a bloke into the game undermines its whole purpose.

So, yeah, if they don't see it then it's wilful blindness.

HH is complaining that the federation didn’t contact him directly.
I’m reminded of Emily Bridges and his mum wittering on when British Cycling changed their trans policy “they didn’t even reach out to us!”
It’s all me, me, me, me, me, me with these men.

So, he was stressed or/and distressed at a reference to fairness and safe environment (for the women’s category I presume).

Then going on the facebook group and asking them to declare if he makes them feel unsafe. That is more bullish than distressed. In fact, I’d be more worried that the women might feel distressed/stressed being coerced/manipulated on facebook like that. I suspect they knew not to walk into that trap. Knowing not to put any limb into that snare might possibly be ‘evidence’ that the women found it just wonderful having him (and all men I’m sure) in the finals taking the prize money and trophies in the women’s category. Just like last night. You couldn’t make it up.

And, from what he said, I suspect whatever the women think about the fairness aspect is immaterial to him. He said that it was only if he (as in me, myself, I) felt he had a ‘massive’ advantage that he’d consider the issue.

The entitlement is strong.

I've often wondered, watching other women players play HH, how they feel about. It's all smiles and hugs at the end, regardless of result (I'm talking about UP here), but I can't help wondering what they really think. Doubtless complaining in public would see them bunged off the tour.

As a former member of a winning women’s first pool team at Uni (back in ancient times), this is indeed the case.

I used to play pool a lot with both men and women (procrastinating essay writing, usually!), and while skill is the main factor, height, strength and hand span also play a crucial role. It’s not possible for the best women to consistently beat or have fair competition with the best males.

The fact that the male people do so well in women's pool compared to the women in women's pool competitions strongly suggests male athletic performance advantage.
But in any case, having women's pool competitions can easily be justified under the Positive Action exception in the EA2010. It allows organisers to restrict events to people who share a protected characteristic, if they are under-represented in the pastime, sport, area of study, etc. It is makes lawful equality measures which address the social disadvantages certain groups may face.

The fact that the male people do so well in women's pool compared to the women in women's pool competitions strongly suggests male athletic performance advantage.

It does, but surely it also highlights that there are a hell of a lot more male pool players than females (however they present). There are fahsands of them! Yet only a handful of females reach the elite level of the top few women in the game.

Him and Robin White, just two lovely ladies having a chat. What a world.

The trouble with that is that if they claim discrimination on grounds of GR, the comparator is other men. Who are also excluded.
And if it's not lawful to have a women's category because pool is not held to be gender-affected, it's still lawful to exclude all males under the Positive Action exception.

If HH has a GRC, RMW may be claiming that HH should be included as a woman if the women's category is lawful under the Positive Action exception, but that would require the court to agree that HH+GRC = woman and that therefore the EA2010 Positive Action exception for excluding males with the PC of GR is trumped by the GRC. Apart from the fact that the SC is debating the question of whether woman includes males with GRC, I think this is a very ambitious argument.

Hence the relevance of the Positive Action exception to address the under-representation of women in pool.

I’m confused as to where we are with the correct sex pronoun censorship a la 2019.

I read Becky Mumsnet’s update as we can generally use correct sex pronouns unless somebody whinges about it, then they get special treatment. So we can’t correctly sex the claimant’s barrister, because they’re special and different. And if we refer to material facts we get deleted if that person gets upset about it and complains. Is that correct, or have I missed something?

@BunfightBetty At a guess mumsnet does not fancy being a test case for RMW to pursue.

I would quite fancy my chances up against RMW as the tree themselves bark up appears always to be the wrong one.

Do you think? It’s WORIADS, so that person would be highly unlikely to get anywhere. And I share your opinion of their skill set even if they tried.

Yes i know it’s WORAIDS, but not so legally clear around the issue of misgendering on a social media platform. And the misuse of the malicious communications Act by the police. Who knows what the TRA’s might try.

If i were Justine i might be careful.