How Far To Go, How Far
We thought we should keep track of all the issues with the Peggie tribunal judgment, now that Sandie Peggie has officially announced her intention to appeal it.
Because this story has some distance left to run.
PROBLEM 1 – THE FAKE FORSTATER QUOTE
Severity: HIGH
Status: PARTIALLY RESOLVED
The judgment cited a quote from Forstater vs CGD which was entirely fictitious.
This has now been removed and replaced with a genuine quote from the judgment in that case, although there are still serious issues with the pertinence of the quote.
Nobody at all had asserted that there WAS a “hierarchy of protected characteristics”, and any potential discrimination or harassment against “Beth” Upton was not a matter before the tribunal and should not have been a factor in the decision.
(It’s also embarrassing that even the revised judgment can’t get the name of the case right – it’s CGD, not CDG.)
PROBLEM 2 – THE FAKE ASHERS QUOTE
Severity: HIGH
Status: UNRESOLVED
The judgment cited a quote from Lee v Ashers which was entirely fictitious.
The quote remains in the revised judgment.
PROBLEM 3 – THE DOCTORED FWS QUOTE
Severity: HIGH
Status: UNRESOLVED
The judgment cited a quote from For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers which had been edited to create a seriously misleading impression of the ruling in that case.
As well as changing “trans women” to “women” – a change loaded with political implications – it avoided the pertinent fact that “Beth” Upton does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate, so NEITHER party in FWS was arguing that he had a right to use single-sex facilities for women, yet the tribunal judge used it to construct an argument suggesting that he may have.
The quote remains in the revised judgment in its doctored form.
PROBLEM 4 – THE SECOND DOCTORED FWS QUOTE
Severity: HIGH
Status: UNRESOLVED
Another quote from For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers was also heavily and selectively edited to entirely change its implications.
The tribunal judge decided that the quote meant that service providers could decide on a case-by-case basis whether to admit transwomen to female spaces for reasons other than biological sex.
But in fact the FWS judgment had done the exact opposite – pointed out the practical impossibility of determining access individually, because any attempt to do so would logically and inevitably result in ALL men being entitled to access female spaces, whether they had a GRC or not and indeed whether they were trans or not.
The tribunal judge simply deleted the inconvenient passage.
PROBLEM 5 – THE RENAMING OF “NOT ALL GAYS”
Severity: MODERATE
Status: UNRESOLVED
The gender-critical campaign group Not All Gays had lodged an intervention in the case, which the tribunal judge dismissed. But in doing so, he changed their name to mean the opposite of what it actually means.
While this appears to have had no impact on the decision and is on the face of it a simple typographical error, it’s one of only two references to the group and would therefore likely cause considerable confusion to anyone reading it, who might quite reasonably form the inaccurate impression that they were a homophobic organisation.
They’re understandably furious and have filed a formal complaint.
PROBLEM 6 – SEXUAL CONFUSION
Severity: MODERATE
Status: UNRESOLVED
In a case of this nature, terminology can obviously lead to confusion. So it’s important for the judgment not to make errors like these, especially right at the start when you’re setting out what terms mean.
So transwomen and transmen are BOTH “assigned male at birth”? Anyone new to the subject is going to be extremely bewildered by everything that follows, then.
It’s also worth noting that using the phrase “assigned at birth” is extremely problematic in itself. It is contested language favoured by one side of the debate and strenuously opposed by the other side. Human sex is observed in the womb, many months before birth. It is a medical fact, not an administrative choice.
All of these are significant problems, over and above a slew of relatively minor grammatical, typographical or technical errors that nevertheless also make the judgment difficult to parse, like the missing “m” here that turns “form” into “for”.
(Which “identifiable group” were we conducting these operations for? Vegans? Hibs fans? Penny-farthing riders? And where is the “United Kingdo”, while we’re at it?)
But so far, the Scottish judicial system is adopting a policy of “LA LA LA LA WE’RE NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA” when asked to address these issues and explain how they could possibly have come to pass.
And even the single partial correction may have been done improperly.
We know from Wings passim that Scotland in 2025 is a country where pretty much nobody is actually responsible or accountable for anything. If that continues to be the case over this judgment, things are even graver than we thought.
The Daily Record and Wings are of one voice here. This will not do.
“Scotland in 2025 is a country where pretty much nobody is actually responsible of accountable for anything”
Should be “responsible or accountable”?
What, if any, provisions exist for public funding of Mrs. Peggie’s costs?
Will we see the day when a Judge is accompanied by his McKenzie Friend? There are sometimes signs that a Judge is effectively a party to a case. I recall a quote or paraphrase, ‘…come awa Master Horner’ (Dundas).
It is almost unbelievable except for atrocious precedents of corruption in criminal cases of which we might soon see more in the metropolis.
Giesabrek, give him a break.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN
More excellent analysis, Rev. Thank you. [typo – there’s two number 3 problems.]
Zounds, the irony!
I mean, I’m sure no actual judge would do the following, so I’m talking about a hypothetical judge in a hypothetical case…:
Imagine, if you will, a judge has sat listening to tribunal evidence for months on end. He knows the outcome he wants, but how can he interpret the evidence in such a way as to reach his desired outcome? It’s a tricky one for sure.
But wait, what’s this? There’s this new fangled AI, taking the hard work out of what you’re trying to do. And according to its manufacturer, it’s great at it, even better than humans. Tell you what, why don’t you just tell it that you want to reach a particular conclusion, and supply it with the minutes of the tribunal to justify that conclusion with?
Great.
Except anyone that actually uses AI on a regular basis knows that the manufacturers are talking through their hoop most of the time, and it makes mistakes. BIG mistakes, not least of which is literally making things up.
That would be a disciplinary offence, and a sacking at the very least, surely?
Luckily, I’m sure no judge would be that stupid, and there’s a perfectly rational explanation, should that hypothetical situation ever arise, obviously…
Yet again, I feel the MSM are following where our host leads.
Utterly shameful! It’s also interesting that even the Record can’t use English properly. “nurse Sandie”? FFS! Nurse Peggie, surely. As an aside – did anyone hear that clown Webberley on the Tom Swarbrick Show yesterday evening on LBC? An absolute car crash littered with scientific falsehoods. It’s available on ‘Catch-up’.
You have two Problem 3’s.
Best not to have errors when criticising the errors of others.
Anyway, keep up the good work – your takedown of this ‘judgement’ was brilliant.
‘The laws an ass’, that’ll be regarded as a top notch compliment now.
Make sure you’re credited for all this research and analysis Mr Wings.
The judgement was bizarre if not cynical in intent.
The whole thing reeks of AI slop. You’d have to be especially retarded to write “Not For Gays” – good grief.
I don’t know which is more unbelievable
1) That a judgement could contain so many errors
2) That even if they were fixed we would still have a judge failing to understand that if you let a male into a female-only space it ceases to be female-only.
My understanding is you can only make an appeal if you have a point of law. The judge might have just given her the right to appeal if there are errors in his or her judgement.
I honestly would love to see other women and organizations put their weight behind her appeal.
This needs sort and sorting for good.
Breathtaking – that Tribunal Judge has written himself into a whole world of trouble. It is a real concern that both quotes included the phrase ‘hierarchy of’ in relation to protected rights, which concept was core to the Tribunal’s reasoning for finding that it was not unlawful to allow Upton into the changing room in the first place. Writing as an advocate It is difficult to overstate how serious this is – every populist who wants to say that the ‘elite’ has completely absorbed liberal nonsense and is willing to cheat to get its way has some unfortunately powerful ammunition to deploy.