I thought AL was on the back foot all the way through. No need to consult women, because it all just evolved. (In other words the TiMs just started using the women's loos and nobody had the guts to stop them.) It's fine, we didn't have any complaints. But then when someone finally complains, it's all so terribly complicated and difficult and we shouldn't change anything without taking advice and consulting widely - with a union whose male reps were "very vocal" about not implementing the SC judgment.
But I thought he basically lost it with this one.
NC: Now that you think about it. The proportion of your female workforce that do have that expeience of sexual trauma. Your policy is excpetionally cruel to those women?
AL: Yes, it could be.
NC: Thank you.
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Polk County (FL) Sheriff Grady Judd struggles to not chuckle... and the people beside and behind him in the Press Conference appear to be biting the insides of their cheeks to not start laughing
The employer is Leonardo, IIRC a defence engineering company which has claimed to be strongly supportive of women in engineering.
Having followed some of the tribunal on twitter, this looks like the start of a new trend where the aim is not simply a financial settlement but to put the managers who implemented the policy on the witness stand to be demolished through cross-examination.
Usually employment claims can be settled by making a large financial offer (which I suspect has already happened here) but in this case it looks as if it may need a complete apology and a renunciation of Stonewall-led policy.
You know, I actually support this tactic. For those to whom it's happened, the financial impact is a really big deal... but there's also a huge chilling effect that ends up affecting all other females. Settlements, unless highly publicized, tend to not alter the offending behavior. In this case, altering the policies that allow males to access female intimate spaces on the basis of their declaration of gendery feels is a significant objective.
One quite chilling aspect of that case is that they threatened her with disciplinary action if she started a crowdfunder, on the basis that she would have to publicise it, and this would cause the company reputational damaged, plus she would probably reveal the identities of the trans staff and so breach their privacy.
One quite chilling aspect of that case is that they threatened her with disciplinary action if she started a crowdfunder, on the basis that she would have to publicise it, and this would cause the company reputational damaged, plus she would probably reveal the identities of the trans staff and so breach their privacy.
NHS Fife’s legal team acted negligently in handling a legal argument in the board’s tribunal battle with nurse Sandie Peggie, a panel has ruled. The case, already running for two months at a cost of at least £220,500, was thrown into further wrangling earlier this month when the bo
www.scottishlegal.com
Barrister Jane Russell KC, representing NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton, contacted the tribunal to argue that she should be allowed to alter pleadings to introduce a new line of defence based on “objectionable manifestation” of belief.
This approach draws on a previous ruling which held that while people are free to hold protected beliefs, employers can act if those beliefs are expressed in ways that are inappropriate, offensive or disproportionate in the workplace.
So Barrister Jane Russell KC tried to pull a fast one. In essence, she tried to argue that while Sandie Peggie was entitled to hold her protected belief, NHS Fife should have been allowed to discipline her because of the way she expressed it. This is seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up. Russell realised they were on a loser, so she tried to pull an 11th hour rabbit out of the hat. What a shabby attempt at underhanded legal chicanery!
Well, well, well. It transpires that NHS Fife – the health board caught up in the Sandie Peggie trans tribunal case – has now U-turned on its toilet policy. After the nurse took NHS Fife to a tribunal over her suspension for complaining about having to share a changing room with a transwoman, it...
www.spectator.co.uk
The health board has said that both bathrooms and changing rooms should be used by those ‘whose sex at birth corresponds with the facility’. The move followed an impact assessment on the use of single-sex spaces after the country’s equality watchdog ordered NHS Fife to take to ‘corrective actions’. Some have pointed out that the decision is long overdue, not least because the NHS board spent months – and hundreds of thousands of pounds – defending itself in the Peggie employment tribunal.
Those NHS asshats have been dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with the law. And not before time. Its should never have taken this to make them comply with legal, objective reality.
And on the story about the amount of public money NHS Fife spent defending the indefensible
NHS National Services Scotland has been ordered to release more details on the costs of the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal after Scotland’s information watchdog ruled it wrongly withheld figures from The Herald.
Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton rejected every argument put forward by the health service — including claims that sharing the cost could provoke violence — and found it had breached freedom of information law.
He also disclosed that NHS officials had privately given him a completely different running total for the tribunal from the one already published by NHS Fife.
Lying to the SIC and breaking the law. NHS Fife really are a bunch of recidivist offenders.
NHS Fife’s legal team acted negligently in handling a legal argument in the board’s tribunal battle with nurse Sandie Peggie, a panel has ruled. The case, already running for two months at a cost of at least £220,500, was thrown into further wrangling earlier this month when the bo
www.scottishlegal.com
Barrister Jane Russell KC, representing NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton, contacted the tribunal to argue that she should be allowed to alter pleadings to introduce a new line of defence based on “objectionable manifestation” of belief.
This approach draws on a previous ruling which held that while people are free to hold protected beliefs, employers can act if those beliefs are expressed in ways that are inappropriate, offensive or disproportionate in the workplace.
So Barrister Jane Russell KC tried to pull a fast one. In essence, she tried to argue that while Sandie Peggie was entitled to hold her protected belief, NHS Fife should have been allowed to discipline her because of the way she expressed it. This is seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up. Russell realised they were on a loser, so she tried to pull an 11th hour rabbit out of the hat. What a shabby attempt at underhanded legal chicanery!
Well, well, well. It transpires that NHS Fife – the health board caught up in the Sandie Peggie trans tribunal case – has now U-turned on its toilet policy. After the nurse took NHS Fife to a tribunal over her suspension for complaining about having to share a changing room with a transwoman, it...
www.spectator.co.uk
The health board has said that both bathrooms and changing rooms should be used by those ‘whose sex at birth corresponds with the facility’. The move followed an impact assessment on the use of single-sex spaces after the country’s equality watchdog ordered NHS Fife to take to ‘corrective actions’. Some have pointed out that the decision is long overdue, not least because the NHS board spent months – and hundreds of thousands of pounds – defending itself in the Peggie employment tribunal.
Those NHS asshats have been dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with the law. And not before time. Its should never have taken this to make them comply with legal, objective reality.
And on the story about the amount of public money NHS Fife spent defending the indefensible
NHS National Services Scotland has been ordered to release more details on the costs of the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal after Scotland’s information watchdog ruled it wrongly withheld figures from The Herald.
Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton rejected every argument put forward by the health service — including claims that sharing the cost could provoke violence — and found it had breached freedom of information law.
He also disclosed that NHS officials had privately given him a completely different running total for the tribunal from the one already published by NHS Fife.
Lying to the SIC and breaking the law. NHS Fife really are a bunch of recidivist offenders.
The weird thing about that is that when he gave evidence, Upton said she wasn't abusive and didn't shout at him or anything. Just stated her position in a normal voice.
Barrister Jane Russell KC, representing NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton, contacted the tribunal to argue that she should be allowed to alter pleadings to introduce a new line of defence based on “objectionable manifestation” of belief.
This approach draws on a previous ruling which held that while people are free to hold protected beliefs, employers can act if those beliefs are expressed in ways that are inappropriate, offensive or disproportionate in the workplace.
It occurs to me this line of argument could backfire spectacularly. Peggie's team could argue that, whilst Dr Upton is free to hold the protected belief that he is a woman, the way he expressed it (by, for example, insisting on staying in the women's changing room and watching a nurse change her bloody knickers instead of giving her her privacy as she requested, as any actual woman would have done) was inappropriate, offensive or disproportionate in the workplace.
"Being friendly with your dog maybe proves that I'm not as bad as everyone thinks I am." On the heels of a death threat, that's not exactly convincing. Bravo to Paddy for doing the interview and staying so calm throughout, but I couldn't even listen to that psycho for more than a couple minutes.
There is an amazing part in the last two minutes where the interviewee threatens to rape someone with an object, and the interviewer is like "Wait, I thought she was on remand." Absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. I didn't count up the number of times that the subject of the interview made is clear that all of their future sexual assaults will be achieved using objects, because "that's how women do it," but it was certainly too many.
I see "Barbie Kardashian" has been released from jail. He was in solitary confinement there because of the danger he posed to the women in the prison he was held in, but they've just turned him loose on the streets of Limerick. He's already giving out the list of people he intends to murder, I understand, starting with his own mother.
And according to the law in Ireland, he is absolutely permitted in any and all female single-sex facilities, and to attempt to exclude him would be a crime.
"Being friendly with your dog maybe proves that I'm not as bad as everyone thinks I am." On the heels of a death threat, that's not exactly convincing. Bravo to Paddy for doing the interview and staying so calm throughout, but I couldn't even listen to that psycho for more than a couple minutes.
I didn't get very far with it either I have to say.
I mean, I'm sorry for the men who would have to cope with his presence in the men's facilities if justice were done and he were to be excluded from women's facilities. But the fact is that he is a man, and women should not be forced to accept him and his like in women's facilities on the basis that excluding him might make him, or indeed other affected men, sad. I'm sorry, but I think men are better able to look after themselves in the presence of homicidal maniacs than women are. I think women's feeling are a bit important too, not just the feelings of delusional men.
Indeed. The logic appears to be that there are some trans-identifying men who are shy fragile flowers, these "dolls" maybe, and they will be sad if they are denied the right to all the facilities set aside for women. We can't allow that, have you no empathy, for goodness sake just be kind! Therefore all men who claim a trans identity must be allowed anywhere they damn well please.
It goes further than that with many of the advocates, and we hear passionate declarations that no matter what a trans-identifying man has done, his trans identity remains sacred and it's just as unacceptable to treat him as a man as it would be any other "transwoman". That's explicit in the insistence that all these trans rapists and murderers must be referred to using feminine pronouns in court and in the media.
No man must be sad. Be kind! And any woman who expresses her feelings of discomfort, disgust, fear or indeed sadness, is an evil bigot.
There is an amazing part in the last two minutes where the interviewee threatens to rape someone with an object, and the interviewer is like "Wait, I thought she was on remand." Absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. I didn't count up the number of times that the subject of the interview made is clear that all of their future sexual assaults will be achieved using objects, because "that's how women do it," but it was certainly too many.
Anyone else notice how quiet the doll protector clan have gone since the facts about this piece of human scum has been the topic? Now, I wonder why that is? Its almost as if (and hear me out here) they are not comfortable with discussing this kind of example of the people to which we are supposed to "be kind".
You know, I actually support this tactic. For those to whom it's happened, the financial impact is a really big deal... but there's also a huge chilling effect that ends up affecting all other females. Settlements, unless highly publicized, tend to not alter the offending behavior. In this case, altering the policies that allow males to access female intimate spaces on the basis of their declaration of gendery feels is a significant objective.
Things became clearer towards the end of the cross-examination, with the suggestion that the employer KNEW they were in the wrong but because of 'institutional cowardice' it was easier for them to lose the case. The employers arguments included: 'no-one has complained', 'the law is not clear', 'unions consulted did not support a change in policy', 'it would be unfair to transwomen'.
A change in policy to single-sex toilets could then be justified on the grounds that this was by direction of the tribunal, not by their own choice.
An interesting strategy, but the 'law is not clear' argument keeps cropping up. It will take repeated legal losses for this to change.
Things became clearer towards the end of the cross-examination, with the suggestion that the employer KNEW they were in the wrong but because of 'institutional cowardice' it was easier for them to lose the case. The employers arguments included: 'no-one has complained', 'the law is not clear', 'unions consulted did not support a change in policy', 'it would be unfair to transwomen'.
A change in policy to single-sex toilets could then be justified on the grounds that this was by direction of the tribunal, not by their own choice.
Yeah, that certainly looks like a cop-out to me. They are trying you avoid invoking the ire of the Unions (who, of course, are completely ideologically captured) by putting themselves in the position of being forced by the tribunal to comply with the law (as if not breaking the law isn't sufficient incentive).
These organizations and companies who bought into the Stonewall bollocks really are going to have to be dragged kicking an screaming every step of the way to compliance. @Rolfe mentioned earlier that organizations like FWS and Sex Matters are loaded for bear to take on these cases. They are going to need to be if this is the tactic these recalcitrant arsehats are going to resort to.
Trans swimmers currently able to use a mixed pond or either of the segregated ponds for the gender they identify as
www.theguardian.com
A consultation has been launched on transgender swimmers’ access to Hampstead Heath ponds, which could result in them being banned from using the pools for the gender they identify as.
The Kenwood Ladies’ and Highgate Men’s ponds are gender-segregated, with trans people currently able to swim in whichever they feel most appropriate, or use the heath’s mixed-gender pond instead.
The consultation, by the City of London Corporation (CLC), is now presenting six options for gender inclusivity in the historic institution, one of which would ban trans people from using their preferred ponds.
So we currently have a situation in which transwomen have three options, whilst female victims of male sexual abuse have zero options. Suggesting that the latter be increased from zero to one by reducing the former from three to two is, of course, "cruel and judgmental”.
So we currently have a situation in which transwomen have three options, whilst female victims of male sexual abuse have zero options. Suggesting that the latter be increased from zero to one by reducing the former from three to two is, of course, "cruel and judgmental”.
That they should be strictly single-sex facilities - Under this option the Highgate Men’s Pond would only be accessible to biological men and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would only be accessible to biological women.
That they should continue to be trans-inclusive spaces as currently operated - Under this option the Highgate Men’s Pond would be accessible to all biological men and trans men and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would be accessible to all biological women and trans women as at present.
That they should be trans-inclusive spaces based on how people have decided to live their lives - Under this option the Highgate Men’s Pond would only be accessible to people who have decided to live their lives as men (including trans men but excluding trans women) and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would only be accessible to people who have decided to live their lives as women (including trans women but excluding trans men).
That they should be trans-inclusive spaces but that the communal toilets and changing rooms should not - Under this option trans men would have access to the Highgate Men’s Pond and trans women would have access to the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond and Meadow, but would be required to use the separate accessible toilet, shower and changing room at each facility.
A hybrid approach where they are trans-inclusive spaces at stated times but are operated as strictly single-sex facilities at other times – Under this option, the Highgate Men’s Pond and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would continue to be trans-inclusive spaces at certain specified times, but there would be other advertised sessions/times when these facilities would be operated as strictly single-sex spaces.
That they should be mixed-sex spaces – Under this option both the Highgate Men’s Pond and the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond would be accessible to everyone regardless of sex or gender. The City of London Corporation does not currently favour this option, as it is believed that it would be unpopular with most users, due to the unique nature and historic significance of these Bathing Ponds. However, it has been included as an option for completeness and to evaluate support for it. This will be considered alongside other options.
Anyone else notice how quiet the doll protector clan have gone since the facts about this piece of human scum has been the topic? Now, I wonder why that is? Its almost as if (and hear me out here) they are not comfortable with discussing this kind of example of the people to which we are supposed to "be kind".
We've been over this before. Multiple examples of trans-identifying men who are rapists, murderers, child abusers and so on have been highlighted, and we're simply accused of cherry-picking the (allegedly rare) bad actors, and ignoring the vast majority of trans-identifying men who are vulnerable oppressed fragile beings who wouldn't hurt a fly. Statistics to prove that trans-identifying men are more likely to be sex offenders than other men have been demanded, but when provided, these are rejected.
It really seems as if the position of the trans allies is that women must simply suck up the Barbie Kardashians, the Isla Brysons, the Alex Stewarts, the Katie Dolatowskis and all the rest of them, because any restriction on trans-identifying men's access to women's single-sex spaces would make these vulnerable flowers sad, and that's not acceptable.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
