monkers
Shaman
I will reply to you by pm if you don't mind?
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I will reply to you by pm if you don't mind?
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
As already advised I'm happy to use PM but don't feel you need to justify yourself.
I thought there was a question of 'etiquette' but you've said you have privacy concerns that's dandy.
I thought there was a question of 'etiquette' but you've said you have privacy concerns that's dandy.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
The arguments stand on their own merit regardless of who makes them. What I object to is the invention of the lawyer niece persona in order to give authority to your opinions and mislead readers.
You had your photo on your CC profile for years.
Here you are confirming that the Twitter post in your name - which is the same person but isn't the same as the CC photo - where you called lesbians 'dumb f#cks' for not wanting to sleep with transwomen was in an account in your name, though you claim you didn't set up the account. So you've confirmed your name. It isn't credible that the account was set up by someone else because although you deleted the account there are many references still on X to posts from that account, posts made over several years. Those don't disappear when you delete an account. Why would someone set up a fake account and post lots of sensible posts on Green Party issues and the EU for years? All so they could post one nasty post to discredit you?
Apart from which you're all over the internet for reasons that you well know. You continue to post elsewhere too.
Quite funny that you would interrupt your death announcement to correct Andy on a minor point. That fact alone should give the more gullible - who think that a lie must be true if it's been kept up for a long time - a hint.
You had your photo on your CC profile for years.
Here you are confirming that the Twitter post in your name - which is the same person but isn't the same as the CC photo - where you called lesbians 'dumb f#cks' for not wanting to sleep with transwomen was in an account in your name, though you claim you didn't set up the account. So you've confirmed your name. It isn't credible that the account was set up by someone else because although you deleted the account there are many references still on X to posts from that account, posts made over several years. Those don't disappear when you delete an account. Why would someone set up a fake account and post lots of sensible posts on Green Party issues and the EU for years? All so they could post one nasty post to discredit you?
Apart from which you're all over the internet for reasons that you well know. You continue to post elsewhere too.
Quite funny that you would interrupt your death announcement to correct Andy on a minor point. That fact alone should give the more gullible - who think that a lie must be true if it's been kept up for a long time - a hint.
Last edited:
monkers
Shaman
All nonsense.
If you think laying the trap that I must prove my identity to you of all people to disprove your lies will work, you are mistaken.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
All I will say is I know whose account rings true with me and it's not AS's
monkers
Shaman
Then argue on that basis, something I've repeatedly asked you to do.
monkers
Shaman
No actually. When Monica joined and introduced herself on the main site she displayed a photograph of herself and used her real name.
When Monica joined this site, she continued to use the profile name monkers, and continued identifying herself as Monica.
She used a photo which had been used a few years before by a person who opened a Twitter account using that photo and her name to discredit her political position on an issue they disagreed with. She did nothing dishonest.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
That's actually reminded me a bit about how forums have evolved.
When I first started posting around Y2K I used my proper forename and surname. As did many others including one or two still on the main site though we pretty much universally adopted pseudonyms as the 2000s progressed.
Avatars also used to be mostly of posters; Arch for example.
Mine is me but I think you'd need to be family to recognise me.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Here you are, a fortnight before you died, pretending you've never heard of the post made from a Twitter account you now seem very aware of, to the point you say you know exactly who maliciously created it. No doubt you'll say you never mentioned it to Auntie Monkers, hence their ignorance. That would be very odd though.
You're in too deep to be honest on here now. Fair enough. Just give up with the fake lawyer bs.
monkers
Shaman
I think that is actually your position.
mickle
Regular
A former crown prosecutor for the Health and Safety Executive has said the Sandie Peggie tribunal ruling failed to take into account the proper "hierarchy in law" 🤔
Roger Livermore said British health and safety law supersedes equality law and states categorically that there should be separate toilets and changing rooms for both men and women.
He said the requirement for separate toilets for women "goes back in legislation" to the factory acts of the Victorian era.
The Factory and Workshop Act 1901 states that "every factory and workshop... where persons of both sexes are, or are intended to be, employed or in attendance, [must be provided with] proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex."
Ms Peggie was suspended by NHS Fife after complaining about a biological male, trans medic Dr Beth Upton, using the women's changing room at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy on Christmas Eve 2023.
Although the nurse won her claim of harassment against her employers, the majority of her claims were dismissed and the ruling failed to state that transgender people cannot access single sex spaces on the basis of their acquired gender.
Mr Livermore said: "It's 100% the wrong decision in law."
Roger Livermore said British health and safety law supersedes equality law and states categorically that there should be separate toilets and changing rooms for both men and women.
He said the requirement for separate toilets for women "goes back in legislation" to the factory acts of the Victorian era.
The Factory and Workshop Act 1901 states that "every factory and workshop... where persons of both sexes are, or are intended to be, employed or in attendance, [must be provided with] proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex."
Ms Peggie was suspended by NHS Fife after complaining about a biological male, trans medic Dr Beth Upton, using the women's changing room at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy on Christmas Eve 2023.
Although the nurse won her claim of harassment against her employers, the majority of her claims were dismissed and the ruling failed to state that transgender people cannot access single sex spaces on the basis of their acquired gender.
Mr Livermore said: "It's 100% the wrong decision in law."
TailWindHome
Active Member
DId Peggie's legal team make that argument?
mickle
Regular
I dont think so. Maybe they will as part of her appeal.
monkers
Shaman
Roger Livermore was a Crown Prosecutor for the HSE. Primarily then we can infer from that his role was to prosecute criminal failings. The Employment Tribunal system is not within the criminal prosecution system, it finds on the basis of detriment or disadvantage, victimisation, and non-criminal harassment.
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 came into effect in January 1993. The Gender Recognition Act came into force in 2004, and the Equality Act in 2010.
If Mr Livermore claims that the HS&W regs supersede the EqA, Either he is referring to some unmentioned later amendment, or it follows that his claim of supercession is incorrect.
While the 92 regs give some definition to facilities, it does not define the meanings of the words 'men' or 'women'. Neither do the later acts it has to be said, but the 1999 amendments of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act (repealed) and later the deeming provision of the 2004 GRA establishes the start of a timeline. The 2004 act does recognise that future acts can change that position, but the SSMA of 2013 leaves the principle intact, leading to an assumption that the 2010 act was not intended to conflict with the 2004 act.
Therefore the discrimination laws pertaining to this show that immediately precedent and subsequent legislation to the 2010 act were established as respecting the deeming provision of the 2004 act.
In other words the HS&W workplace regs made obligations concerning provision back in 1992 when legal precedent in case law defined 'men' and 'women' but the deeming provision of the Gender Recognition Act later changed that in relation to people with a GRC - statute always holding preponderance over judicial precedents.
Last edited:
