Strike One
This is absolutely extraordinary.
In the light of revelations exposed and detailed by Wings that the original contained several misleadingly-edited or completely made-up citations from previous cases, the Employment Tribunal today issued a corrected version of its judgment in the Sandie Peggie case. And much like NHS Fife’s repeatedly-edited previous statement on the tribunal, we suspect it’ll only be the first of many.
Firstly, the new quote – which is at least real, replacing a completely fabricated one in the previous version – is laughably unrelated to what it ostensibly proves. “Beth” Upton had no complaint of discrimination or harassment before the tribunal, and absolutely nobody was ever claiming that women’s rights to single-sex spaces removed his right not to be harassed or discriminated against. But as a man, he never had any right not to be discriminated against as a woman.
The quote the judge selected has nothing whatsoever to do with any “hierarchy of protected characteristics”, which was what the initial fake quote (below) claimed.
(And we note the embarrassing typo of “CDG” for “CGD”, which is only one of a whole raft in the judgment, hasn’t been fixed.)
But what’s astonishing is that the new version of the judgment has done nothing about the other dodgy quotes. It still contains this totally invented one from Lee v Ashers, also refuting an argument about hierarchies that nobody had made:
Those words simply do not appear anywhere in that judgment.
And the new version still includes the selectively-edited quote grossly misrepresenting the judgment in For Women Scotland.
But the original version of that line is very different, saying “trans women” rather than “women”, and going on to make an extremely significant point about men without GRCs (like Upton) not being entitled to access female spaces, which the tribunal judge didn’t just edit out but also ignored in terms of his actual decision.
And more and more such questionable edits are being discovered.
It’s barely believable, even in the mobile shambles that is modern Scotland, that the tribunal has issued a “corrected” version with these two shocking errors still present, and we’re agog for further developments.
This judgement seems to be the kind of farcical result you get if you mis use an AI
Stellar investigative journalism Stu; never stop doing what you’re doing
Hear, hear. Stu’s journalistic rigour is exactly what is needed these days!
This and everyone else involved in uncovering what cannot be put down to idiocy.
…brilliant news….the Peggie team are going ahead with an appeal….well done!
Challenging to believe that our legally qualified “Judges” are unable to discern what our forensically astute host points out so well.
Yet again WOS leads the way.
Boak! And it ain’t even the dry boak… what a mess.
This farce isn’t accidental, it can’t be, not after taking so long to write. Place feels less safe by the day, when is it my turn, when is it yours..?
Even just saying ‘2027’ or ‘2028’ fills me with dread now, and wtf are the Thirties going to look like, they’re just round the corner, will we be back in black and white again I wonder?
And with Fish-Face standing by in the wings we will soon all be “waiting for the worms…”
Rev, it would be very interesting to know what prompted this Certificate of [non] Correction. Was it your article, or the lawyers who tweeted, or the Times’s article?
Very gratifying to see you were credited in The Times. Perhaps they’ll invite you to do some opinion pieces!
Wow. Nailed it again, Rev.
It seemed before the amendment that the judge certainly appeared to be, according to his language usage, both during the tribunal and throughout the judgement, an activist for the ‘trans’ lobby, or, at the very least, on the side of Upton and his ilk, but, could it now be that someone in a more lowly position who helped him with the huge amount of work to be drawn together, could be responsible for this mish-mash of misquotes and factual error? Is the judiciary already compromised by the ‘trans’ lobby or is it AI? Or is it all a horrendous mistake that cost Sandie Peggie a fair ruling?
We all know that AI gets a lot wrong, but the weight of evidence would suggest that the errors here were deliberate and not just clerical errors. A BBC-on-Trump type of deliberate scam, perhaps, tampering with quotes and misinterpreting crucial legal statements? Sorry, but I would put absolutely nothing past this lot. Anyone who has seen them in action knows how unhinged they can be, and their early infiltration – a la Denton’s Document – of every public institution would suggest that the legal system is not safe from them either. I could be wrong and I’d happily hold up my hand if I am, but these are not the mistakes, on the face of it, of an experienced tribunal judge or a trained legal/clerical staff member or even AI.
It is simply too precise in its misinterpretations of existing law before the UKSC ruling and also the law as clarified by the UKSC ruling, as well as actual case evidence, to be a hit-or-miss error. It is also the language – TRA activist language – that suggests it was not accidental, but deliberate. If this turns out to be the case – although we will very likely never be told who did it – in keeping with the BBC farce on the Trump misuse of quotes, the law will not recover from it. Any residual trust will be gone, as the BBC has discovered.
The law of Scotland is not, however, the BBC, and the implications go far, far wider than tampering with news, right to the very heart of the justice system itself. This whole affair has been a mess from beginning to end, with tweets of a joke – admittedly, not a very savoury one, but totally irrelevant to her case and delivered by a witness claiming friendship, yet so obviously hostile to Sadie Peggie – having been used to undermine her evidence so that she was considered to be less credible than a doctor who believes he is a “biological woman” and is treating patients in A&E. No one believes that a man is a woman and vice versa. No one. Not Upton, not the Health Board and not the judge – no one in that tribunal. So, if politics is interfering in the law and in active cases, we are screwed.