Women's Hour - TRA barrister on

[Apollo441]

Anyone care to discuss the content of today's women's hour. They had RMW on who's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement seems questionable. Please stick to discussing content as we have already had a thread deleted.

If it falls under Health and Safety legislation to provide single sex toilets and to tell staff they have an obligation to use the correct sex ones then I don't know how you can claim an employer doesn't have a responsibility if a staff member abuses this?!

Employers have duty of care obligations. These cover working alone and leaving a premises late at night in some circumstances.

If a staff member is KNOWN to be using the incorrect sex toilets AGAINST health and safety rules, duty of care would automatically be involved. Cos that's how health and safety legislation works.

Who could appeal is an interesting question.

The basic rule is that nobody other than the parties to the case can appeal. That's ScotGov and FWS only - not the intervenors, and certainly not the failed would-be intervenors.

It would be decidedly odd for FWS to appeal a case they won. I'm not sure if it would be technically possible.

ScotGov have said they won't.

But even if they wanted to, I'm not entirely certain that they could, because purpose of the the ECtHR is as a barrier to malign governments. So individuals and non-government organisations can bring a case against their own government. But generally a government can't bring a case, they can only be a respondent not an appellant. In very limited circumstances one state can bring a case against another state - but I can't find any definitive info in the rules about whether any type of regional government can bring a case against the overarching government of their own state.

And if a male colleague is repeatedly breaching women's legal protections and women complain to their employer about that, then yes, obviously, the employer has the same duty to deal with that employee as if they were being inappropriate or invasive towards women colleagues in any other way.

Otherwise I'd think the women in question would have a pretty good legal case of enabled discrimination and harassment.

The overall strategy is to create "uncertainty" around the Supreme Court judgment. This is being done on many fronts, and lost legal cases in response to the judgment will be part of it, and will be spun to create the "biased and unfair" narrative.

Woman's Hour also appear to be playing this game. They're going to spend the week creating a narrative that there are competing interpretations of the judgment and from this it can be seen that it must be unclear.

The current goal, at the moment, it to use the uncertainty to cause paralysis and to argue that there should be no implementations made of the judgment, those can only come after there's lots of resultant new litigation, and who knows what the outcome of such cases might be? The goal is "business as usual, ignore the judgment".

It's really not difficult is it? You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this.

A lawyer to uses his status to try and intimidate others into believing stuff that's legally illiterate is either a terrible lawyer, a liar, a grifter or a self serving piece of shit.

There aren't alternative options.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.

Also true.

NM:...any person within that organisation has a right to lodge a complaint with the EHRC .
..
RMW: well, they can lodge a complaint, what they have to come up with is a disadvantage

NM: which many people have as we have seen in the run up to this particular case

RMW: yeah, yeah, and...and...and we...[strangling sound] it frankly puts employers and service providers in a nigh impossible position (paraphrased: where men are forced into men's toilets)

RMW tells us very early on in the interview that RMW does not understand what the SC have ruled and RMW does not understand the law. Either that or RMW is trying to obfuscate. Not a good look.

RMW might think on to ask Ben Cooper for some clarity if genuinely confused. After all, the SC judges thanked BC for the coherence of his excellent submissions (para 33 or was it 34 of the SC judgment).

RMW and BC belong to Old Square Chambers so must overlap at chambers’ meetings and such.

This!

The fact that the media are yet again colluding with the trans extremist "interpretation" of the law is a real problem. Along with the determination of some men to continue to access women on the toilet and undressing of course.

This.

It needs stamping on hard.

<Looks at the EHRC, and then at the govt who are doing fuck all>

NM: So if there were accommodations for "additional privacy" for transpeople would that resolve the issue for you?

RMW: NO that's exactly the problem you see, additional privacy FOR transpeople so you force the transpeople into additional privacy

And there is the agenda writ large, it's not about being safe from aggressive men in men's spaces at all, is it?

RMW is really saying: don't force transwomen into spaces where they have additional privacy, force women into spaces where they have less

RMW: I never choose to use unpleasant ways to refer to other people

Also RMW: I will let you witches return to your cauldrons (paraphrased)

RMW the barrister who sometimes does not understand judgements and declares their past crimes of sex by deception on tv and their intent to access single sex spaces on an ongoing basis because they want to and nothing is valid that says they can’t.

Their areas of practice include Employment, Other common law, Professional discipline, Public Law.

But can’t understand a Supreme Court judgement that includes Employer obligations.

Well i call shenanigans on that as I find the term cis women unpleasant.

RMW: they [Mcloud and Whittle] are eminent squeezes from the transworld

What am I mishearing, people?

Fuck me that was an infuriating listen.

I think it was the bit when RMW was saying about the current ruling meaning that 8 year old boys could now longer be taken into the women’s toilets by their mother (“birthing person” surely RMW?) that tipped me over the edge.

But hats off to RMW suggesting a 3rd space for women who for “religious and other reasons” need a single sex space. So that would be men’s loos, women’s loos and women who don’t want men in their loo loo’s 🫠😂

Mans Hour
interviewing blokes again
because the FWS case was only about men

As I wouldn't want anyone to be accused of misquoting Robin the actual thing written was:

"... But I’m sure you will just keep stirring your cauldrons."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/sarah-phillimore-and-robin-moira-white-interviewed-by-andrew-doyle?reply=123353633

Thank you Boiled. Quite right to be precise.

I’m sure you will just keep stirring your cauldrons.

Tickles me when people resort to silly, sexist ad homs.

Battle of Cable Street? Does RMW think it's Antiques Roadshow, not WH?

Ok, I have listened finally and think if all RMW took into a WH interview was a misunderstanding of the ruling, of employment law, and a stomped foot insistence that women not be "unpleasant" (while not agreeing to take back RMW's own unpleasant remarks) ...well. They got nuttin' .

I think one point that is always completely ignored by the TRAs in this (and probably politely ignored by any GC speakers) is the idea that nobody spots when someone like this barrister waltzes into the ladies. As if we don't notice AT ALL.

So according to RMW, calling Kemi Badenoch, Baroness Falkner and the women of Sex Matters "evil", isn't an unpleasant way to refer to them?

There’s no getting away from it. Badenoch, Fawkner and the whole ‘Sex Matters’ crew are just EVIL.

https://x.com/moira_robin/status/1643458119563984896https://t.co/9YawBGfT3x" / X