TailWindHome
Active Member
There's more than the bits in bold then.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Quoting one paragraph from a lengthy judgment carries the usual risk of selective editing; context is lost.
Early/ongoing interpretations, led by the EHRC over bathrooms and changing facilities suggests that the Supreme Court drove a coach and horses through settled law in the Gender Recognition Act. The proper response of government in a case like that would be to legislate so as to restore the status quo ante.
The present Administration shows no sign of doing so and, IMO, lacks the cojones to even try.
I think there was always a point of view that FWS wasn't actually about toilets and that the SC case might not be as definitive as it seemed.
I suspect Peggie and the Leonardo case, together with work done by The Good Law Project and Stonewall (boo hiss?) are showing the way forward but appeals etc will take some time before some sort of legal consensus emerges from the gloom.
Early/ongoing interpretations, led by the EHRC over bathrooms and changing facilities suggests that the Supreme Court drove a coach and horses through settled law in the Gender Recognition Act. The proper response of government in a case like that would be to legislate so as to restore the status quo ante.
The present Administration shows no sign of doing so and, IMO, lacks the cojones to even try.
I think there was always a point of view that FWS wasn't actually about toilets and that the SC case might not be as definitive as it seemed.
I suspect Peggie and the Leonardo case, together with work done by The Good Law Project and Stonewall (boo hiss?) are showing the way forward but appeals etc will take some time before some sort of legal consensus emerges from the gloom.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
The Judgement stands until it's set aside by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Corrections under the slip rule are hardly new.
Does what was, to use a neutral phrase, misquoted carry any weight?
Corrections under the slip rule are hardly new.
Does what was, to use a neutral phrase, misquoted carry any weight?
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Not comfortable personally but has enough nous to understand that his own moral compass isn't the right tool to determine policy.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
Nothing ever good comes from injecting kids with permanent life altering drugs.
So many of these kids come from disturbing upbringing, often coupled with multiple problems.
Discovering these damaged kids earlier through social services and treating these underlying conditions before injecting them is the way to go
So many of these kids come from disturbing upbringing, often coupled with multiple problems.
Discovering these damaged kids earlier through social services and treating these underlying conditions before injecting them is the way to go
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
These are not slip errors, some serious obvious errors or manipulation of court cases
I'd bet no other cases will refer to this judgement.
It will sit on a narrow shelf above the shredder
View: https://youtu.be/BI3EmDs0gns?si=VHYk9lEB4h0-6tJU
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
It's a first instance decision on its own facts. First instance decisions are not authority though they may be quoted if a party thinks they may be helpful or persuasive.
We already know Mrs Peggie intends to appeal so the Employment Appeal Tribunal will hold its own hearing and reach judgment in its own time.
We already know Mrs Peggie intends to appeal so the Employment Appeal Tribunal will hold its own hearing and reach judgment in its own time.
Ianonabike
Esquire
The judge misquoted the Supreme fucking Court.
View: https://x.com/newsandpics/status/1999221766787420518
View: https://x.com/newsandpics/status/1999221766787420518
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
You're trying to put out a burning tower block with a watering can.
Its blindingly obvious, even to lay people this judgment in the Sandi Peggie case was cobbled together.
Omitting complete blocks of paragraphs which change the whole meaning of that paragraph will not stand.
Its not just one error, there are multiple omissions.
Even you can see that?
No one will dare quote this case in current and upcoming decisions. Only when these points are clarified in a higher court will others use it.
By then I expect women will have won and have restored their safe spaces against TiMs
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
@CXRAndy
Tribunal Judges are a long way from the summit of the Judicial tree and Peggie's case is complicated. I suspect part of the reason for the (alleged) errors/omissions is that she and her GCF team mates have massively over burdened them with evidence and submissions. I'm not surprised if a few mistakes have been made.
Can you highlight the errors that undermine the 'verdict' or are team GCF just nitpicking
We need to see what the Appeal Tribunal decide in due course.
It won't be quoted in other cases because it's under appeal and is a first instance decision on its own facts.
Interesting though that the Leonardo case found against the claimant on what are, at first reading, similar facts.
Nice to see you actually engaging and debating instead if posting sh1t from X.
Tribunal Judges are a long way from the summit of the Judicial tree and Peggie's case is complicated. I suspect part of the reason for the (alleged) errors/omissions is that she and her GCF team mates have massively over burdened them with evidence and submissions. I'm not surprised if a few mistakes have been made.
Can you highlight the errors that undermine the 'verdict' or are team GCF just nitpicking
We need to see what the Appeal Tribunal decide in due course.
It won't be quoted in other cases because it's under appeal and is a first instance decision on its own facts.
Interesting though that the Leonardo case found against the claimant on what are, at first reading, similar facts.
Nice to see you actually engaging and debating instead if posting sh1t from X.
TailWindHome
Active Member
You've let the cat out of the bag there.
The strategy is to meme everyone into their interpretation of the SC judgement and bank ground before it's challenged.
Last edited:
