The Valley Of The Dolls
The first and most important thing to note about yesterday’s judgment in the Sandie Peggie tribunal is that it’s a very big victory. The tribunal found that Sandie Peggie was gravely and heinously harassed by her employer through no fault of her own, and she’ll be entitled to substantial compensation as a result.
It also ruled, repeatedly and unequivocally, that Dr “Beth” Upton (who’s referred to in the judgment as “the second respondent”) is a man.
After that, it lost its mind.
Because this is extraordinary.
In fact that’s EXACTLY what the Supreme Court DID find, because if you grant access to even a solitary male then IT IS NO LONGER A FEMALE CHANGING ROOM. It’s a unisex changing room.
(As visual shorthand, extracts relating to the For Women Scotland judgment in this article will be presented in inverse colours to distinguish themselves from extracts in the Peggie ruling. Click pics to enlarge.)
Early on – paragraphs 61 and 62 of 1,272 – the judge flew a red flag.
Fewer than 1 in 100 women are six feet tall or above.
The mere fact of his height alone is very good reason for anyone to believe Upton is a man. But time and time again throughout the ruling, as we’ll see below, the judge basically adopts a policy based on the transactivist slogan “PROTECT THE DOLLS” – that is, that whether a transwoman should be treated as female or not depends on how pretty he is.
(Transactivists divide transwomen into pretty ones they think pass as women – “dolls” – and ugly ones that don’t, who they call “bricks”.)
And that’s remarkable, because there is no ambiguity about NHS Fife’s provision of changing rooms. They are clearly marked as being for females only.
And the Supreme Court was absolutely clear that that could ONLY be interpreted on a biological basis.
It even specifically included changing rooms.
So this isn’t a “belief”. It’s the LAW, and an employment tribunal judge is not entitled to single-handedly over-rule the Supreme Court’s findings about it.
The tribunal grudgingly acknowledged the fact.
And so this makes no sense whatsoever.
The Supreme Court said that you cannot call something a female changing room and let males into it. You can call it a unisex changing area. You MAY, depending on circumstances, not have to provide a female-only one at all.
But what you definitely can’t do is have one and then let even one man into it. If it says “females only”, as the changing rooms used by Sandie Peggie did, then it means BIOLOGICAL females only. (As opposed to what the Supreme Court called “certificated” ones, ie men with a Gender Recognition Certificate.)
(It’s important to point out that the Supreme Court was only even considering whether single-sex female spaces should be accessible to transwomen with a GRC. Dr Upton does not have a GRC, and NHS Fife should never have been even contemplating admitting him to a women’s space.)
But then the tribunal judge starts getting ideas above his station.
Disturbingly, paragraphs 791 and 792 appear to be wholly imagined. The quoted phrase about a “hierarchy of protected characteristics” – nor anything resembling it – does NOT appear anywhere in the Forstater case, either in the original 2019 judgment, the 2022 appeal judgment or the 2023 remedy ruling where Maya Forstater was awarded £106,000 in damages.
The Supreme Court DID refer to Forstater as “a comprehensive and impressive judgment”, but since it wasn’t talking about anything to do with a hierarchy of protected characteristics, the tribunal judge appears to have based this entire section of his judgment on a fiction.
The passages (paragraphs 23 and 24) referenced there by the FWS judgment are from the Supreme Court’s appeal ruling in another case, RC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from 2017, which also concerned transgender issues. But neither the Supreme Court judgment in that case nor its press summary feature the word “hierarchy” at all, let alone the full quote.
(In the interests of scrupulous fairness we’re searching for the initial findings which were the subject of that appeal – a First-Tier Tribunal ruling from Southampton with the case number SC266/16/00055 – but they don’t appear to be online. All we’ve found so far is the Upper Tribunal decision which remitted the original decision back to the FTT for rehearing before it ended up with the Supreme Court, and it doesn’t mention hierarchies either.)
Worryingly, on the evidence before us, that quote about a “hierarchy of protected characteristics” appears to have been completely invented by the tribunal judge.
The next paragraph says this:
But guess what? That quoted paragraph doesn’t appear in Lee vs Ashers either, either in the judgment or the press summary. The closest it gets is this:
The tribunal judge appears to be fabricating quotes about hierarchies of rights all over the shop in his attempts to overrule/disregard the FWS judgment.
The Supreme Court in fact addressed that matter at considerable length. Indeed, it described the conflict as “the principal question” with which it was concerned.
And its findings were crystal clear. (“SDA” is “Sex Discrimination Act”.)
The SDA was amended in respect of trans people in 1999.
But:
Crucially, the Supreme Court found that the correct comparator for a transwoman making a discrimination claim could only be a (non-trans) man, not a woman.
It’s difficult to see where the tribunal judge found any of this to be of relevance at all, since Upton was not the person making a claim and he doesn’t have a GRC. The judge was meddling in matters that were not before his court, and seemingly trying to repeal the Supreme Court’s ruling on his own initiative. Nobody had suggested that Upton had lost his rights to complain about discrimination.
This, then, is raving mad.
Perhaps the Supreme Court had simply thought it so ragingly, blatantly, staggeringly, idiotically obvious that a male without a GRC could not possibly bring a claim of being discriminated against as a woman – because he wasn’t one – that it didn’t need to spell it out for the benefit of dum-dums.
The tribunal judge then embarked on a series of transactivist tropes.
The idea that the ruling means you couldn’t have a male cleaner or repairman in a women’s toilet is so farcically embarrassing that a random idiot on Twitter would be ashamed of it, let alone an experienced judge. Warning signs are usually placed at entrances to female spaces when a male cleaner might be in them, and you’d expect them to be closed if plumbers or electricians were working there, for safety reasons.
That’s not the same thing as some creepy bloke dressed like a drag prostitute prancing around the washbasins taking selfies of himself with his cock out.
As for the last sentence, the EHRC’s interim statement on the Supreme Court ruling was absolutely clear that service providers must not allow a situation where trans people (mostly male-passing transmen) were left with no facilities to use.
Which renders the judge’s subsequent point irrelevant.
The judge then deploys a selective, and altered, quote from FWS.
But here’s that passage in full:
The judge, shockingly, has removed the word “trans” from “trans women”, and omitted the rest of the line which said that even the Scottish Ministers (FWS’s opponents in the case) weren’t suggesting that a transwoman without a GRC – like Dr Upton – should be allowed into female spaces.
On the face of it that’s an outrageous misrepresentation of what the FWS ruling says. The tribunal judge is attempting to give Upton rights which even the Scottish Ministers didn’t think he ought to have, and the Supreme Court unambiguously rejected their attempts to give those rights to transwomen with a GRC, let alone those without.
The SC said that NO biological men, with or without a GRC, could be admitted to female spaces, partly for the purely practical reason that there’s no way for service providers to distinguish between those two groups, since you’re not allowed to ask if someone has a GRC, let alone whether they’ve had their penis chopped off.
But the judge has claimed that the SC actually said “maybe they can, and it doesn’t matter if they’ve got a GRC or not”. That cannot possibly have been a mistake. The unacknowledged editing of the quote to significantly alter its meaning appears to be a deliberate and alarming misstatement of fact, and as a result any appeal is likely to jump all over those paragraphs in hobnail boots.
That is not a matter for you to address, sir. The Supreme Court addressed it and its findings were clear: single-sex means biological sex.
It really is, though. Can’t you read?
Oh, you can. What are you wittering about, then?
And we’ve just shown comprehensively that all of this is wrong:
Upton has NO right in law to complain of discrimination for being excluded from a female space, because – as both the Supreme Court and the tribunal found – he isn’t female. There are no other males, with or without GRCs, who are being treated more favourably than him. None of them are allowed. All males are excluded equally.
No, there aren’t. The Supreme Court considered Article 8 and threw them out.
But we do agree with this:
And we also strongly agree with the tribunal judge’s implication that NHS Fife were probably in breach of criminal law and should be arrested and put on trial in order to establish the legal position beyond doubt.
Because if it was the second interpretation, that was illegal.
This is simply gibberish:
Firstly because Upton suffered no discrimination. He was granted full access to the women’s changing rooms. And if he hadn’t been, it wouldn’t have been on the grounds of his protected beliefs, it would have been on the grounds of his sex.
While this is why the Gender Recognition Act 2004 should be repealed:
Because impossible fantasies shouldn’t be law.
At this point the tribunal judge simply loses his marbles:
How is either a service user (a woman in a changing room) or a service provider supposed to distinguish between Pete and a “real” transwoman? By reading their minds? By asking him nicely if he’s just there to ogle them?
This, it appears to have escaped the tribunal judge’s notice, is the entire heart of the gender ideology debate of the last decade. Rapists, inconsiderately, don’t wear badges saying “BEWARE, I’M A RAPIST”. That’s why we ban all men from women’s single-sex spaces, even though the vast majority of men aren’t rapists – because there’s no way to tell the difference. That’s why there can be NO distinction in law between Pete and a “sincere” transwoman. Is this a judge or Derren fricking Brown?
It’s always worth saying this again, particularly in the light of media reporting and idiot political commentary on the judgment:
No, Ross, HE went through this process because HE made himself the centrepiece of a gross injustice against an innocent nurse, as the tribunal found.
But by this point, and regardless of his repeated findings that Upton is male, the tribunal judge was fully down the rabbit hole.
What does that actually MEAN? In fact we’d been told right at the start.
So the essence of “womanhood” in law is long hair and makeup and dresses and speaking in a “feminine” tone of voice? Bad luck, women in trousers and short hair and no makeup – you’re not really female. If you want to be allowed into the Ladies, get some lippy and high heels on.
At this point the judge moves back onto another transactivist trope – that access to female spaces shouldn’t be by blanket rules but on a “case-by-case” basis depending on how far along in their “transition” they are.
But as we’ve already shown, the Supreme Court expressly rejected that argument because, among other reasons, it’s impossible to police. It ruled that definitions of people’s sex in the law always meant the same thing.
There was no “nuance” whatsoever in its findings.
As we’ve seen repeatedly above, what it actually found was that males had no right to female spaces, and never had had such rights, the end. They had simply been lied to, by people like NHS Fife and the Scottish Government.
The tribunal judge, however, continued to jump the shark.
Good heavens. It’s not often you see a Family Guy meme come to life.
The tribunal judge attached enormous weight to the fact that Sandie Peggie was the only person who’d complained about Upton, and bizarrely rejected the idea that anyone would have been put off from doing so by fear, despite the uncountable examples of women being vilified, discriminated against and even assaulted for doing so.
(Sandie Peggie wasn’t claiming, or required by law, to “speak for all female staff”. She was entitled to complain under the Equality Act both as an individual and on behalf of a group to which she belonged, without consulting any other member of that group, on the basis of a reasonable general assumption.)
Perhaps even more unbelievably, he went to far as to disregard the fact that when Peggie had done so she’d been suspended, and that this may have had a chilling effect on anyone else in the hospital who might have wished to object to Upton’s presence.
All of which, it ought to go without saying to any reasonably sane person, is an open invitation to bullying and intimidation. It says that if transwomen act so menacingly towards women that they’re scared to complain, that fear can actually be weaponised against them in court.
And then came the real show-stopper.
Like, wow.
It was this site, almost three years ago, that established beyond any credible doubt from official crime data that trans-identifying men weren’t just vastly more likely to sexually assault women than women are, but also vastly more likely than non-trans men.
But since the tribunal was unwilling to even follow links in the evidence presented directly to it, far less do any checking of its own, it’s perhaps not surprising that it allowed itself to remain in ignorance of that fact.
(Interestingly, that paragraph would seem to rule out any possible defence that the tribunal judge might have been quoting the original First Tier Tribunal judgment in R(C) vs DWP, since it seems unlikely that either side included the transcript of the FTT in their bundles.)
It seems that the tribunal judge, perhaps alone on the face of the planet, simply doesn’t accept the premise that men are a danger to women.
Presumably, unless specific evidence is put before him in the court, he also isn’t sure that the Earth is round, the sea is wet and fire is hot.
But mindbogglingly, it appears that even if the judge had accepted the basic fact that men are a danger to women, it would have been trumped by the fact that Theodore “Beth” Upton thinks he’s a lady.
We had to stop and walk around the room for a bit at that point. But fortunately we were pretty much at the end.
In summary, aside from finding that NHS Fife had indeed harassed Sandie Peggie, the tribunal asserted that the Supreme Court ruling was wrong in numerous respects (including the practicality of policing access to female spaces based on how ladylike a man looked and how many bits of his body he’d surgically modified, even though gender reassignment law specifically prohibits such requirements being made on people who want to transition).
It also asserted that there’s no evidence men are a danger to women, and even if they are it doesn’t matter as long as they make the women too scared to complain, or if someone’s given them permission to break the law.
Every legal professional we’ve spoken to has been scathing about the judgment, perhaps most briefly summarised by equality law specialist Audrey Ludwig.
We also enjoyed the heroically understated last line from Oxford University associate professor of law Michael Foran on the Today programme this morning:
“From my look at this judgment there’s quite a lot to think about that we might warrant having further consideration by a more superior court on this.”
An appeal seems overwhelmingly likely. But in the meantime the tribunal’s opinion has no effect on anything other than this specific case. It does not set precendent, or bind future tribunals, and it does not alter the Supreme Court judgment that it appears to have misunderstood so catastrophically badly. Men are still not women.
I don’t say this often enough Stu but a big thank you for this forensic analysis of what is a more than usually bizarre set of circumstances. It beggars belief that anyone involved in this pile of contradictions might have thought that Team Peggie might say “OK that’s fine! – let’s move on”. I await the challenge with some relish
The ruling shows a complete contradiction to the high court ruling.
If this trans doctor has male genitalia then he has no right to have it
exposed in a born female only area.
Similarly if a born female feels safe to be partially naked while changing in a born female changing room then she has the right to protect her modesty from born male individuals.
It looks as though everyone in authority is terrified to say boo about anything related to a trany. Is it the violent threatening nature of their more outspoken representatives that causes this?
It is simple, male reproductive organs stay in male only areas and the opposite for born females. I would allow born males who have had surgery to remove their male organs access.
That show commitment to their change and keeps male appendages out of where they shouldn’t be.
If you do, those spaces become mixed sex spaces, not single sex spaces. Would you allow women who have had their breasts chopped off to enter all male spaces? Could they not still be raped or sexually molested? I suggest, with all respect, Effigy, that you look at the statistics where females – adult women and children – have been violated with bottles, sticks, and sundry other penis-shaped object, often causing terrible internal injury.. Removing the male genitalia does not a women make – just a man with no male genitals because he certainly does not have have female ones either after surgery, just a wound, and breasts that look nothing like real female breasts. Even the surgery gives these men the hots. They have their organs removed for purely sexual reasons. Read up on the studies done. You will need a strong stomach. Don’t be fooled that they are in any way not sexual towards women and children after surgery.
There was a young man in the ladies loo at Edinburgh Botanical gardens yesterday .He hadn’t even bothered to put on a frock When he noticed that I had clocked him he sidled out .There is a gender neutral toilet beside the ladies so he had no excuse .It’s the second time I have encountered a man in that toilet.
Obviously this ‘judge’ would require women and girls to immediately react ,phones at ready .Yet another unnecessary stress to add to the day .I think Sandie Peggie is very brave as most women ( myself included) are nervous about confronting a possibly deranged man in a confined space like a ladies toilet
Staggering…absolutely staggering
…outstanding work!
I really hope that someone shows that Employment Tribunal judge this post…now that so much of his chaotic reasoning has been dissected with such startling clarity…
…unfortunately, no doubt a lot of the ‘fallacy’ believers will think that this ET somehow supersedes the SC result…
It is NOT unlawful to ask someone if they have a GRC. I don’t know why the Supreme Court made that claim as it is flatly false. Hey Stu! Do you have a GRC?
Remain in your home. Officers will be with you shortly.
Indeed it isn’t. It is illegal for someone who in an official capacity knows another person has a GRC to reveal that fact without their permission. Like so much else in Stonewall law this has been extended much further than the law actually states into you can’t even ask. Though you’d be a brave person to rely on that given even legally qualified people can seem unaware of what the actual law is or ignore the bits they don’t like. Generally speaking that is, no murmuring intended!
Murmuring – in Scots Law: to complain against, to calumniate, specifically to cast reflection upon the character or integrity of a judge.
Outstanding analysis, Rev. Thank you.
A three hundred page tome that collapses under its own weight, and this is seriously held up to shed light on the case? This surely cannot stand and must be appealed.
Here is the law, as far as I can see: if I were to say, “the moon orbits around the earth,” this statement will then be forever poked at (moving words and letters around so as to redefine meaning etc.) by lawyers and judges and expert witnesses and previous cases ad nauseum, and the answer will come back that, “the moon is a balloon” and with a huge price tag attached and a few discarded human lives into the bargain. And for this absurdity we are to be grateful?
Doffs cap. Nah.
I started reading the bollocks last night and my head was whirling. If that is the judiciary now , there is no better case to highlight the need for jury’s. I know employment tribunals don’t have them, but surely a case to install them after this Judges incoherent ramblings.
In most areas of employment where judgments so overwhelmingly incompetent and negligent as were made by this tribunal the person making the assessment being dismissed.
English women here who follows you for your reporting on this issue. A huge thank you again for your time and dogged determination to defend women’s rights. Excellent analysis. This judgement must be challenged.
It will be.
I hope that Sandy Peggie has the reserves of strength needed to carry on. What she’s been put through already would break most people. All because she -a dedicated nurse with 30 years service- refuses to be compelled to undress in front of a man. It’s a f*cking disgrace.
Given the avalanche of litigation that is likely to result from the Scottish Government’s allegedly unlawful gender self-ID policies over very many years, and given that the potential costs of such litigation could amounts to many billions of Pounds, this judgement has the potential to deter or delay that avalanche. Was that its primary purpose and, if so, how much influence, if any, has the Scottish Government and Crown Office had upon it, directly or indirectly? Someone could submit a freedom of information request and try to find out but the chances of comprehensive answers being provided are remote in the extreme if past FOI requests to the SG are anything to go by.
Thanks for the Wings dissection Rev.
That was necessary & expected.
For women… cheers Sandie.
It’s too easy to point out the madness, we need to understand that to your average politician this apparent silliness is designed to some end. What are they aiming for?
They’re aiming for the institutionalized watering down of women’s rights.
It’s a war. The trannies are the leading shock troops who will inevitably fall to the defenders. But they’ll breach the defences, allowing the main bulk of the army through.
The army being, of course, the New Scots and New Brits who institutionally regard women and girls as less than human. They’re the ultimate drivers of this. They intend to reshape our society to suit their preconceptions, because they sure as hell aren’t going to change to suit ours.
It is a toxic world for any white heterosexual males and females.
I think it’s unsurprising that a judge is confused enough about the trans issue to give mixed signals in their judgment. There’s still a long way to go before this nonsense is rooted out, and biological common sense prevails.
Secondly, it seems clear, as the position of the BBC and the NHS generally on this matter make evident, that the Law is applied selectively. Should the organisation disagree with the highest Law in the land, they simply ignore it. This case is an example of that approach. In Labour’s UK, justice is incontrovertibly two tier.
Thirdly, this, plus a host of other examples from across the public sphere, illustrate that Britain is ungovernable. Ministers refuse to obey the law, are indulged not sanctioned, and return to front line politics. They embezzle and buy high end transport, and the police do not act. Women are regularly traduced on the media, in the courts, in their changing rooms, and the Law is not applied. Mass rape is tolerated, the offenders protected, fed, housed and given access to services that are difficult to access by the ordinary person. Politicians openly lie about their credentials, and nothing transpires. None of these outcomes apply to the ordinary person, who is heavily policed. The ordinary person is punitively taxed to keep this whole shitshow running.
In every respect, the country as a whole has lost . All that remains now is to sweep the broken pieces to one side and clear away for what will replace it.
Trying to fit a square into a circle is never going to work.
I’m afraid the SNP and the Greens aren’t going to give up on the trans subject no matter how many people win their cases.
As people were fed to lie about trans so were we on Independence before every election and look where we are now.
I just hope at next years holyrood election women stand up for themselves and vote against the parties who tried and failed to take away their biological rights because if you don’t they’ll be trying for the next 5yrs to do it.
I would believe that judges decision had been made at the start of the tribunal , anyone who uses the terminology “assigned at birth” immediately highlights their position and beliefs
There is NO ASSIGNATION there is ONLY OBSERVATION
Any chance for a copy of THAT dogs breakfast to be sent to the Supreme Court judges so they may see what a tribunal judge thinks of their recent ruling?
It’d be very interesting to see if the TBJ gets a word in his ear and then has to issue a reworked ruling in complete favour for Sandie and also to apologise to her publicly producing this absolute Dogs Dinner of a judgement
Excellent idea! The whole thing is stratospherically ridiculous.
There will be an appeal from both sides and the decision will go to the higher courts.
But please note (what I said on the previous thread) – the Judge was not sitting alone – there were two side members – one from an employees organisation – the other from employers. It was a unanimous decision.
I’m sure you actually believe that it was balanced, fair and an agreed finding.
Do you work for the BBC?
“Do you work for the BBC?”
No.
————————–
“I’m sure you actually believe that it was balanced, fair and an agreed finding.”
Did you deliberately ignore what I said about both sides appealing the decision? I obviously don’t go along with the decision – but I was pointing out that it was a unanimous decision by the three Tribunal members – not just the Judge.
Thank you for this breakdown, even though it may lead to a breakdown of my own. This is legitimately bonkers. What is it with these porn addled blokes that make some people strap on their armour and climb on their white horse to rearrange reality?
Because, Kate, we let them get away with the “stunning and brave” bulls**t instead of calling them out as that which they are and always were – sexual preverts. Children can suffer from the mental illness of body dysmorphia, of which ‘gender dysphoria’ is a species, although it did not have that name till recently and through ‘trans’ activism. Adult men do not have ‘gender dysphoria’, which is why they really, really need the kids to hide the truth of their predilections. They know what they are and they know why they want to be in female spaces. All of them. Everyone needs to stop believing that that they are victims.
As always, a masterful analysis from Scotland’s greatest living journalist.
Just one tiny quibble:
“It’s not often you see a Family Guy meme come to life”
If you look hard enough, you see them quite a lot.
You missed your calling, Rev. You could have been a senior judge in Scotland or England. There was a wonderful Master of the Rolls in England, Lord Denning. He came from a normal background – even had a rural Hampshire accent – and developed a whole branch of law, called equity. It made a great difference to introduce the concept of “fairness” into law.
Just think what you could have done!
Sarah:
Agreed that Rev Stu has conducted a masterly exercise of demolishing the position taken by the Tribunal, a wonderful example of reasoning! Thank you, Rev!
One must expect Appeals, no relief for the Fife NHS authorities and total humiliation for a “creature of Statute”.
Poor use of english and an unrealistic grasp of reality should preclude a place in judiciary. Matching Rev Stu’s standards of reasoning should be required for judicial appointment.
It is clear that Denning, early in his career, brought huge advance for the circumstances of women. Regrettably, he did huge damage in other ways, later-on. The branch of Law known as Equity emerged centuries before Denning was born.
Thanks for this. Excellently written and explained. I am glad I am already subscribed. You are worth it!
Congratulations rev on another powerful article.
“… The argument was essentially of a man using the façade of gender reassignment for improper purposes, including for sexual gratification or as a threat to women… ”
They all do. What other reason could they have for accessing women’s spaces against all evidence that they are not welcome? It is voyeurism and exhibitionism at the very least, and both are illegal and contrary to the Common Law of Scotland where sex is biological, as well.
What else, in both law and in practice, is a man doing when he enters a female-only space and breaches female boundaries but availing himself of sexual feelz? These men are transvestites who were known in study after study just yesterday to be sexually-driven.
The judge in this tribunal, if he is not an activist – look at the language used – can only be so inept in law that he should have been replaced half-way through the tribunal because some of the statements he made even while the tribunal was taking place were questionable, to say the least, east.
The judge in the tribunal concerning a female engineer, who lost her case, was also misinterpreting and re interpreting the law. The law has never changed and the UKSC simply clarified that. The GRA 2004, which granted GRAs for very restricted purposes has been used by activists to push the boundaries. The GRC was never intended to did to allow access to female spaces where safety, dignity and privacy were concerned.
The entire point of the activists’ behaviour and the governments of the UK’s behaviour in not making new policy based on the UKSC ruling is to exhaust women and women’s groups, both physically and monetarily, while financing ‘trans’ activism and its court cases, and force women to accept this despicable injustice. Frankly and personally, I do not care where these larping men go, so long as it is not in female spaces, but there are ample unisex and mixed sex spaces available to them, so their human rights are not infringed as they bleat. Every crumb of evidence available clocks them as that which they are: sexual paraphiliacs and fetishists. Thank you, Rev.
“The entire point of the activists’ behaviour and the governments of the UK’s behaviour” is to institutionally weaken women’s rights as a precursor for the integration of Sharia into UK mainstream practical law.
This won’t be done with fanfare “flagship policies” trumpeted in the MSM and subject to concerted opposition. This will be done, as it has been done for decades now, by small, incremental changes allowing the build up of a tranche of case law which will be used to shape future judgements.
And that is precisely what we are seeing here.
The longer people remain in denial about the ever-growing pressure to adapt our societies to the demands of the newcomers who have no intention of adapting their core beliefs, the harder the push back is going to be.
I got as far as the ‘Assigned male at birth’ bollocks, and gave up. Anyone quoting that should be fired, and told to re-apply when they have a Biology A-level.
Scottish judges – what are they like eh? Third rate – that’s what they’re like.
On the basis of the above, I recon they’re handing out Scottish Law Degrees in shopping centres, tucked in between the flyers for Iceland and B&M.
Any employee of B&M or Iceland will provide a more rational, socially responsible and just judgement in this case than the (allegedly) highly educated judge who did preside.
This is why we pay you the big bucks.
The only journalist who can say it as it is:
“a very big victory”
The rabidly pro trans women BBC touted it as a partial victory, nowhere stating that it was nevertheless big with an entitlement to substantial compensation.
This article itself can and should form the appeal.
The judge who made this ignorant judgement must be sacked.
Eminent lawyer friends have come to the conclusion a) ETs need to follow woke-speak to ensure continued funding from Scotgov, and b) there are deliberate “errors in law” to invite an appeal, and kick it up the food chain. This is how the law “works”.
I do hope there are criminal procecutions. I do hope the female 51% don’t vote SNP nor Green in May. I do hope this is Swinney’s downfall.
I’m dreaming of a white Xmas.
You should too, Karen. That way, there’s a small chance you’ll get what you’re hoping for.
It does seem that no matter what court rulings are made, for whatever reasons it is not implemented properly by the institutions in our society.
The only thing I can think of solving this issue is that the Scottish government passes legislation in some form that says only Biological woman are woman in the eyes of the law.
Thus is exactly the opposite of what the Scotgov wsnt.
The public gets the government they voted for.
Exactly, Bilbo. Vote Reform, and the whole thing falls away – or is that too “Far Right(tm)” for you metropolitan lefty types?
Captain Caveman
I had made a comment arguing that we are currently in a period of intellectual decline.
From your comments, it looks like you never had any intellect to start with. You’ve got an apt handle and I’ve got to admit, I admire you for not even trying to conceal your stupidity.
Yeah, great comeback. Well, it’s “stupid” working class people like me who’re going to be the ones who’ll roll back all this stuff.
Enjoy your frappuccino and smashed avocado & toast. How is Islington these days?
Captain Caveman
No ordinary working class person talks the way you do.
“No ordinary working class person talks the way you do.”
Says who? You? You wouldn’t know an “ordinary working class person” if they slapped you across the face with a wet flatfish, mate. I was on the shop floor with swarf between my toes when you were in shorts, so let’s just skip the whole “working class credentials” BS. I think you’ll find that actually, you and your ilk *despise* the working class and our views, as you’ve just demonstrated.
Bottom line: you don’t get to rewrite history and lecture us all about the supposed source of modern day “wokeism”, whose ascendency over the last ten or so years (and its effects) are only too obvious to anyone with eyes in their head. You don’t get to casually disown it all, like some well-placed pungent fart in a supermarket aisle, now that it’s all gone tits up.
(And no. FYI, said genesis wasn’t some “Rumpole of the Bailey” sitcom episode from c.1980. Good grief).
Captain Caveman
A fool and a fantasist.
You’re better off sticking to the Daily Mail site.
Yeah, I’m a “fantasist” and a “fool”, says the guy who’s insisting (on a public forum) the genesis of wokeism apparently stems from some 1980s “Rumpole of Bailey” TV episode. (NB: A single, specific episode, mind).
Yeah. I think I’ll leave it there.
Self awareness not your strongest suit, then.
Captain Caveman
Didn’t your Nigel cite TV programmes from the seventies towards allegations that he made racist comments as a teenager in that same periods?
Besides, you can’t even read. I never said that wokeism came from TV shows. I said that Woke has always been present in some form on another and I cited that episode of Rumpole as a historical example of it.
To use a saying from a TV show that your Nigel cited about the hole you are digging even more deeper for yourself, ‘Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind’
“… Didn’t your Nigel cite TV programmes from the seventies towards allegations that he made racist comments as a teenager in that same periods?”
I believe Mr Farage merely made an ironic, entirely humourous reference to the (institutionally left wing) BBC’s contemporaneous 1970s output, which it was churning out en masse and at taxpayer expense, given that he’s been the target of some bizarre smear piece in the Guardian concerning stuff he was absurdly alleged to have said when he was THIRTEEN years of age, (the libertarian Left at its best, eh Chum).
Y’know, there’s a world of difference between laughing and pointing at some absurdity like this, and actually attempting to use something in all seriousness (like you were with bloody Rumpole of the Bailey, you utter berk). Note: Farage isn’t saying that the BBC should face any sanction or retribution, he’s simply highlighting yet another hypocrisy and double standard of the left wing media – the BBC and Guardian very much included within that Venn diagram. You’re really, really bad at conflating stuff like this, aren’t you?
In contrast to Mr Farage, you were citing a solitary 1970s (fictional) sitcom TV episode as being supposed proof positive that “Woke activism” isn’t a recent phenomenon. Here are your actual words [emphasis added]:
“… For a good insight into this and for those who think Woke activism is a recent phenomenon, watch the particular episode of that series “Rumpole and the Fascist Beast”.
You’re literally directly claiming, with a straight face, that Woke activism isn’t a recent phenomenon and that we will appreciate this if only we sit through a piece of lame, fictitious 50-year old TV light entertainment. What’s next, fucking Kavanagh QC or Columbo?
“… I said that Woke has always been present in some form on another”
To be more accurate, you were conflating the UK legal system’s historical propensity to largely “look after its own” (e.g. Freemasons, the landed gentry, powerful and/or monied people or whatever, like DUH, no shit Sherlock etc.) with the specific case of “Woke activism”, which is another thing entirely and utterly irrelevant – and obviously a much more recent phenomenon in any event. Sources vary, but most seem to point to c.2014 and BLM et al as being the modern-day catalyst of the explosion of “woke” politics, i.e. well over 30 years after your cherished sitcom TV episode (lol).
Honestly, if I were you, I’d just stop typing now, and go and have another shot of mung beans, or something. You’re laughably out of your league.
Outstanding analysis by our host. I have read it twice yet feel I still have much to learn from it. There is nothing comparable in the MSM as far as I can see.
In The Herald, KevIn McKenna is on the side of the angels . He identifies social class as a driver of the crazier parts of the judgment.
“I’ve sat through several employment tribunals and witnessed shocking attitudes by bosses towards their employees. The worst of these never approached what NHS Fifebosses did to Sandie Peggie.”
AND
“NHS Fife seemed to model their processes on the 1970s East German model: clandestine, cruel and utterly ruthless in quashing dissent by inducing friends and colleagues to turn you in. .. To my mind, they weren’t out merely to correct her, but to destroy her”
link to archive.ph
Lets look at the points you highlighted from a different perspective.
You have two choices in your professional career.
One is where you place hope in the system that with the merit of your personal qualities, experience, qualifications and professional conduct, you have a good chance of advancement.
The other is where all that is irrelevant and depending on your social and political views, your advancement is more likely to be achieved.
I know that is cynical but I think that is a fair assessment of a lot of our institutions today. Given that, what choice do you think the more ambitious individuals in our society will take?
“ Given that, what choice do you think the more ambitious individuals in our society will make?”
=========
Why look at a crystal ball when you can read the book?
Anyone looking at the parliaments in Westminster and Hollywood can see the triumphant advance of ambitious mediocrities promoted by gatekeepers of approved social and political views.
It was ever thus. With the rest of society taking its cue.
“He identifies social class as a driver of the crazier parts of the judgment.”
People on the Left do tend to depend on social class to explain most of society’s ills. However, here in our case, the study of colonial societies through postcolonial theory tells us that racism and colonialism always go together, whilst also inflicting upon the colonized group a form of:
“psychoanalysis embellished with existentialism”, and where: “the most down-at-heel cliches are re-soled for you and made good as new; the most absurd prejudices are explained and justified; and, as if by magic, the moon is turned into green cheese.” (Cesaire)
If an entire people are made to believe they are ‘partners in a union’ that is merely a ‘colonial hoax’, they can surely be made to believe any old hoax.
re: ‘Activist Judges’
There was a TV fictional drama from the 70’s and 80’s called Rumpole of the Bailey which was about the English legal system. As it was created and written by a former English Barrister, I’m sure it is fair to say it is a mostly accurate portrayal of the legal system.
In that series, as well as dramatising fictional court causes, it also goes into the lives of those involved in the legal profession, including judges, as well as the background politics of that profession where each individual rallies against each other for advancement in that system.
As well as all that, it gives an insight on the motivations of each involved in that profession including Judges. A lot of these judgements made by Judges are based on their upbringing, personal values/world-view and as previously mentioned, their personal ambitions.
For a good insight into this and for those who think Woke activism is a recent phenomenon, watch the particular episode of that series “Rumpole and the Fascist Beast”.
In that way, these Judges who are passing judgements in favour of trans activists are a reflection of today’s society and are no different from those of yesteryear who wanted to automatically send anyone ‘not of the right sort’ to jail whether they were actually guilty or not of the crime they were being accused of.
“For a good insight into this and for those who think Woke activism is a recent phenomenon,”
I don’t need to watch an episode of some 1980s TV sitcom to know that (entirely left wing) “Wokeism” is, in fact, a vastly more recent phenomenon than your little attempt at crass left wing revisionism implies.
My advice to you and your ilk would be to own it and learn from it, maybe pick up a little humility along the way.
The saying ‘Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned To Repeat It’ equally applies to those who try to spin it as ‘crass left wing revisionism’
“Those who cannot remember the past” – as according to some (entirely fictional) 1980s TV sitcom episode. Wow, your reference source material is super impressive, pal.
So, looks like the whole “own it with humility” thing isn’t going to happen? Jings. Imagine my surprise… 😀
Captain Caveman
“as according to some (entirely fictional) 1980s TV sitcom episode”
A fictional legal TV drama where the writer drew on his extensive experience of working in the legal profession for nearly 30 years.
“What did the left wing EVER do for me…..?” cried the neanderthal Fish-Face suporting cave dweller…..
NHS free at point of use, old age pension, free prescriptions (up here, not for you as you’re right wing, right?), bus pass, help for the poorest in society, mitigation of right wing [English] Tory policies imposed on Scotland, worker’s rights (don’t cry, please), Trade Unions, nationalised public transport (sometimes) etc etc
“who wanted to automatically send anyone ‘not of the right sort’ to jail whether they were actually guilty or not”
Indeed. A rather narrow ‘cultural division of labour’ (Hechter) via careful selection of privileged elites (Elitist Scotland report) in a colonial society is another feature; including the ever present and ‘institutionalised’ racism, which also seems reflected in Scotland having the highest prison population in NW Europe.
Nurse Peggy is Scots, her adversary not(?), and with the authorities/institutions naturally tending towards the culture and values of the coloniser.
In short: colonial society + colonial institutions = colonial judgements; and why “the native seldom looks for justice in the colonial framework” (Memmi).
link to x.com
Karen ,
I have decided to vote on one issue only this coming election .
Whoever supports the safety of women most .
Never thought we would be in this position yet here we are .
What upsets me is men telling me I have no risks .
I will never forget the fear whilst having a stalker in my twenties. Police deal with him .
Or being chased by a man I could not get away from on a train journey . I was so thankful my dad at the time had walked onto the platform to wait for me coming off . I was a very slight girl . I now fear for young women’s safety especially.
TBQH Karen and Lynn I think that ANY female that votes for the Scum Nonce Party OR the Green perverts are Tr@itors and BETRAYERS of their sisterhood
link to x.com
re: porn addled blokes
Such a demographic makes an easy target for the cause of this issue but it negates the fact that society is now allowing it. In sure even just 10 years ago, such individuals would have been ejected, even forcibly, if they had attempted to go into woman’s own spaces.
I know ‘moral panics’ are the bread and butter of the Right but I think it is fair to say that we are currently living through a period of severe intellectual decline.
This whole issue highlights this where even the leader of the democracy we live under Prime Minster Keir Starmer doesn’t know a basic fact of what a woman is.
O/T
I had posted a while back about Saltires and St Andrews flags being flown from lamposts in an area near me that I know that is solidly Tory voting.
I am starting to see the same in the specific area where I live which is solidly working class.
I can understand this being done when there is an upsurge for indy politics or at the world cup but neither is happening at this current moment.
The area where I live is in solidly working class but it has also experienced a noticeable housing of legal migrants of certain skin colours. Most likely some will be asylum applicants as well.
It’s not looking good.
Poor old Bilbo.
Congenitally unable to comprehend that working class and Tory voting have never been and never will be oil and water.
Whit utter mince…..how could anyone have thought “good one” That will clear it up.
Some need removed from their jobs…..