Sandie Peggie has lost her case against the nursing union.

[RhannionKPSS]

Terrible news

Some useful sunlight shone on the RCN.

Sexist as well as useless, it seems.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/10/bullying-misogyny-and-sexual-culture-at-royal-college-of-nursing-inquiry-finds

It would appear that only people who that poster considers 'sensible gender criticals' are entitled to justice. Anyone outside their categorisation isn't...

Sandie wasn't discriminated against because of her beliefs. She may wish to be a victim - but she demonstrably is not.

Oh bollocks.

As for you alcove, you do realise that regardless of whether you think Sandie Peggie is a bigot, she had the right to expect representation from her union after 30 years of paying subs? Or do only perfect people have rights? That's you out, then.

Ignored my point completely then. As usual with anything a bit tricky.

"As for you alcove, you do realise that regardless of whether you think Sandie Peggie is a bigot, she had the right to expect representation from her union after 30 years of paying subs?"

According to the previous poster this was declined as she had already instructed outside counsel- a policy found to be consistently applied by the union.

I'm sorry for Sandie, who is just an ordinary nurse (but an extraordinary woman) let down by all the people in the NHS and RCN who should have had her back. However every case, win or lose, appealed or not, is shining sunlight on the grubbiness of gender ideology and the rather incompetent and/or misogynistic public sector managers that promote it. Sunlight is what the ideology fears most.

And that fact is relevant, whether alcove thinks she is a bigot who doesn’t deserve legal protections isn’t.

Do I really need to bring out the Andrea Dworkin quote again?

"Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy in behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with anymore. It doesn't matter who the individual women are."

Arguably it is those that have the most objectionable views that SHOULD be those that are at the centre of the test cases.

Human rights are for everyone. Even those we don't like. Even those we find objectionable. Enforcing them for those we find objectionable means we are more likely to enforce them for everyone.

Even if someone IS homophobic, or racist, or <insert blank>, they should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their sex or their lawfully held beliefs. For example, I can think of some people that I know with strong religious views that I find problematic because of the way their beliefs influence their views of (in particular) women and homosexual people. I abhor their views of women and homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that they should be denied the services of their union because of their beliefs - which is what SP is alleging has happened.

(FWIW I am not surprised about this judgment - I thought it was inevitable once it became apparent that RCN have a policy not to support someone who has already instructed an external legal professional.)

Such a shame for Sandie, fingers crossed for her other legal cases 🤞🏼

👏

She received the same help as anyone else would have done with her behaviour. You can't behave like she has done and then demand to be backed up by your union.

Gravy train? You don’t seem to understand how tribunals work.

So the union you pay handsomely into in order to gain employment protection will wait until your case has nearly timed out and then when at last minute you pay for your own legal support will say ‘aha! You have external counsel so we won’t support you!!’

Always bears repeating.

Women's rights apply to all women, whatever anyone personally thinks of them, their politics, or personal life.

Women's rights have been protected because of a lot of hard work from 'gender critical' women, including the rights of women who don't even want to call themselves women.

FWS ensured that 'transmen' have maternity and pregnancy rights protected.

NHS Fife have been found in court to have discriminated against her.

What movement would that be - the one that knows men with delusions should not be given free reign to women in states of undress?

You’ve engaged with other posters about the name calling so won’t derail anymore on that but interesting that you don’t answer the actual question, whether it’s ok for you to name call behind anonymity, or what the ‘movement’ is supposed to be (are we back to the mythical US right wing funding) or your sudden concerns for ‘sensible gender critical’ - can you define the latter or ‘the movement’?

One count yes? The rest were dismissed? And all of Sandie's claims against Dr Upton were dismissed? And Sandie had trouble with being a reliable witness too, I seem to recall. Unfortunate, isn't it?

What was defamatory in what I wrote? Back up your claims.

How is Sandie currently funding her lifestyle? She's not working...