The English Blackball Pool Federation have won!

[Igmum]

Case dismissed against them - Lynne Pinches has shared this on Twix https://x.com/pincheslynne/status/1951219668976369953?s=48&t=aUMrfsfvZ3ry7TIDiJkOVg

Brilliant, thanks for posting, I was hoping someone would when there was news. 😁👍

Yesssss!
This could have wrecked their lives.

Fantastic news! Thank you!

Haynes has been blackballed?

Goodness. It says the case was brought against the chairman and the administrator personally so their homes were at risk. Gender ideology is such a destructive force.

This is great news, thank you for sharing.

Excellent news.

Brilliant! They have been put through the mangle for this, but have defended their space well. I am sorry for what they had to suffer for it and hope things work out well for them.

Fantastic, although there was little basis for “Harriet’s” claim, especially following SC ruling. Vexatious bully.

Is there any written judgment or did it just get chucked out at an early stage? Presumably there is some legal reasoning.

Superb :)

There is. It is well worth reading!! 🤭

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1951243547295830016?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

I read that costs have been awarded against Haynes.

Thanks for posting

It makes it all the more delicious that Robin Moira White and Jane Russell were the losing legal team. 🤭🤭

Based on the legal feminist thread, it was very embarrassing for the losing team!

From the judgement.

The consequences of FWS

15 On 16 April 2025, five days after the trial concluded, the Supreme Court gave judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. It is the Defendants’ position that in the light of FWS the claim must be dismissed. The Claimant initially accepted that was so but then, with the Defendants’ consent and my permission, reversed her position and filed amended submissions arguing that the claim should still succeed.

16 I have decided that the Claimant’s original concession was correct. The claim cannot survive the outcome of FWS. I will explain why that is at paragraphs 61 to 124.

17 My conclusion means it is not necessary to decide whether the defences under s195 EA 2010 or
paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to EA 2010 pool are made out. However, the question of whether pool is
2a gender-affected activity was thoroughly explored at the trial with the aid of expert evidence, and I will set out my views about it. I will also deal briefly with paragraph 28 of Schedule 3.

Are they is some sort of competition with the GLP? Who can rack up the biggest number of loses.

This whole 'living as a woman' seems particularly stupid when it comes to sports. What possibly could it matter what a competitor wears, what their hobbies are outside of the track, table, etc.

Good to see the SC ruling being applied.

Only Bundlejuice was involved, not JR.

That is exceedingly well worth reading, particularly wrt NHSF v Peggie and what we suspect JR will be attempting to argue.

As a bonus, the judge does also conclude that pool is a gender-affected sport.

A report commissioned by the women players who took two other pool federations to court also came to that conclusion and as a result the federations reverted to women-only eligibility for women's competition.

Are there any pool federations in the UK that are still permitting tw to compete in women's competitions?

That is good news.

👏💪👏
Brilliant

Soooooo glad. Not had time to read it all, but it appears women's rights do matter after all :) Huge smirk here. Great start to a wonderful weekend.

Just make open category sports events you deranged cockettish cockwombles and leave women alone. No means no.