Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

It even says ''permission hearing''. Permission hearings are not to reach decisions per se, they seek permission for a later hearing. The hearing is set for November so GLP were successful, they got permission for a two day hearing. Anything is lies.

No, they were told to go away and resubmit with greater detail and clarity. If the judge decides their resubmission has merit in November then the case will be heard immediately.

Here's Jolyon Maughan spinning it as a win - immediately followed by a request for more money of course.

When in fact ....

 

[AuroraSaab]

The internal investigation said that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing on either side.

This is blatantly untrue. The internal investigation was only about Sandie Peggie - and she was cleared of all 4 misconduct charges. The 2 most serious charges - concerning patient care - were only made by Dr Upton months after they happened. He only brought them up after the changing room incident.

She's been treated appallingly but whether Peggie wins will (should) hinge on interpretation of employment law, not whether either her or Upton are nice people or not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

World Athletics introduces cheek swab for female category, starting from 1st September.

https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/sry-gene-test-athletes-female-category

 

[CXRAndy]

The WNBA are starting sex tests after dudes were found playing in the game

 

[monkers]

Only a small proportion goes against the NHS rest will from public purse.

Those bringing the vexatious disciplinary should face the costs - that would sharpen their mind before jumping headlong into a false case

Do you actually know what a vexatious claim is? Do you actually know that the NHS is funded from the public purse. Do actually know that the public purse is money raised for tax? Do you actually know that people who pay tax are called taxpayers? Do you actually know what a complainant is? Do you actually understand anything at all? Probably not.

 

[monkers]

In 30 years there doesn't seem to have been a complaint from either staff or patients about Sandie Peggie's work, so it doesn't look like her personal views came into her work.


Employment law exists to protect all of us.
The fact that you think not being a nice person is somehow relevant to whether women should have to get undressed in front of a man says a lot about you.

Does the law only apply to women who pass the moral approval of one of the forum's misogynist?

Correction: The Equality Act exists to protect all of us from discrimination. But the ''all of us'' part was spot on.

 

[monkers]

This is blatantly untrue. The internal investigation was only about Sandie Peggie - and she was cleared of all 4 misconduct charges. The 2 most serious charges - concerning patient care - were only made by Dr Upton months after they happened. He only brought them up after the changing room incident.

She's been treated appallingly but whether Peggie wins will (should) hinge on interpretation of employment law, not whether either her or Upton are nice people or not.

It is not untrue. It was Beth Upton who brought the complaint through the correct procedure. In the ensuing internal investigation, there was no agreed evidence of what had been said by each party in the dispute. Without evidence being produced by either side, Sandie Peggie was reinstated.

The ''months after they appeared'' claim probably comes for timestamp misalignment which is easily explained from the evidence given by MacDonald.

 

[CXRAndy]

After a doctors chitchat about what to do 🤔

 

[monkers]

No, they were told to go away and resubmit with greater detail and clarity. If the judge decides their resubmission has merit in November then the case will be heard immediately.

Here's Jolyon Maughan spinning it as a win - immediately followed by a request for more money of course.

View attachment 9357

When in fact ....

View attachment 9351

There's you interfering in a discussion between other people again. I did not mention Falkner or reference her words.

Instead I was responding to this From Forstater ...

An update from
@MForstater
from the High Court permissions hearing on
@GoodLawProject
v
@EHRC
. No decision made, and no discussion of the substantive issues.

As stated by her - it was a permissions hearing. She then continues with the claim that no decision was made. While this is superficially true, it is intended to deceive. A permissions hearing is not to discuss substantive issues beyond testing if there are reasonable grounds for a hearing. While the court are not fully satisfied, it is not true to say that GLP claim has been rejected, or that permission is not achievable. In other words the permission hearing is delayed.

Most often, in these cases of emergency motion, it is often accepted that submissions may not need to be as rigorous or substantive due to time constraints.