Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice Profile picture
Apr 9, 2024 51 tweets 8 min read Read on X
DAY 2 - will commence 10.15 am Syd/Australia Time
Abbreviations
J = Justice Robert Bromwich

Giggle's Counsel
BN = Bridie Nolan

COUNSEL FOR TICKLE:
GC = Georgina Costello
BG = Briana Goding

SG = Sall Grover
RT = Roxanne Tickle
CW = Colin Wright
AHRC - Australian Human Rights Commission
ZH - Zelie Hegel (counsel)
GE - Graeme Egerton
LR - Lara Renton
AHRC
ZH - Zelie Hegel
AC - Anna Cody - Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Further abbreviations:
LAAW - Lived as a women
TG-W - Transgender Women
GFGA - Giggles for Girls App
Counsels coming in - court is already full. Extra seats added for audience.
Giggle's Counsel has arrived, waiting on J (Judge Bromich) 10.15 am.
Part - 1 - Court in Session
J to GC cross examine of SG asks how long - 3 hours is that right.
GC says yes.
J - organises breaking cross examination of SG up.
GC asking to move this along to finish by Thursday.
J - discusses feasibility - due to consideration of all evidence. J - read all submissions - GC notes AC - Sex Dis' will be speaking.. however - framing given by witnesses. J - stating what is needed to get understanding
J - BD - discussing time frame.
BD (Bridie Nolan)- will be calling SG (Sally Grover, i.e Sall)
SG signed in , taking seat.
BD - asking name, occupation.
GC - discussing copies of evidence - screen or hardcopy.
GC - calls Sall 'Miss Tickle'
GC - Occupation CEO of Giggle asks for confirmation
SG confirms
GC - Jan 2021 - where living?
SG - Mendich.
GC - interaction with RT ? didnt you?
Do you remember excange with Ms Tickle don't you?
Put a post on twitter - sought support for petition
GC - asks content of post.
SG can't remember off top of my head
GC - look pg 164 of court book ..
GC can u see that's tweet from you? SG yes
GC how describe twitter bio
GC - would you like to check - can witness please check - J asks to check phone...
SG - Founder and CEO of Giggle
GC - has that way youve described last 2 yrs - been your role how long?
SG - app 2019, launch of 2020
GC - [reconfirming twitter bio. ] What did you mea
SG - single spaces for women -
GC - [talking about McIver Pools]
GC - reading the tweets - [ RT arguining that trans women are women - SG giving arguments about why women need single sex spaces (SSS)
GC - said RT - says males spaces terrifying - arguments for being in womens spaces - says RT
GC said - SG said - would treat RT as you want to be treated - confirms that SG and RT has been polite at all times havent they (SG says yes)
GC - would you call RT 'miss tickle'
sG - said no
GC - submit - [given all things RT did] thats not a kind a response
SG I don't think its kind to expect women to see
Ms Tickle is a biological male
GC - Ms tickle is a male -- RT shops at women stores
GC RT shops at women stores
SG doesn't know
GC asks again
SG - RT had femaile BD cert, hasnt she?
SG - yes
BN - Not for SG to comment on ..
BN - its not a matter that BD or SG can confirm that RT had genitalia surgery.
J -[ personal knowledge of the evidence - rather than personal proof] can make
GC to J- says this points to persistent discrimination for years [hence the series of questions ]
GC - arguing to J - why these series questions asked to prove - that SG persistent with misgendering
J - isn't the issue that SG doesn't accept that those processes a woman?
GC - yes your honor
GC - even if AMAB - has GA surgery, took hormones, change name, electrolysis, undergone facial reconstruction - shopped , wears woman, uses female change rooms, has bd cert - YOU DONT ACCEPT THAT PERSON IS A WOMAN DON'T YOU?
SG no
GC - suggest to you that is a woman
SG - don't aggree
GC in Feb 2021 - registered on Giggle App
And the process involved AI?
GC the AI recognised RT as Woman didn't it
SG -
SG - the purpose of ai to aid in gate keeping
GC sep 2021 - RT complained.
SG once user is blocked giggle doesn't take any inapp communication
- [SG and GC querying exact date]
GC - Look at pg 447 para 95 - your signature isn't it?
SG - Yes
GC - RT removed 0ct 2021 - SG agrees
J - trouble is the sentence - ambiguity
SG - [confirming when RT removed]- oct 2021, don't know if thats exact date of the removing
GC - reason for removing - it was decided RT
...decided RT not a woman - was coz - hadn't looked at photo till than had you? SG no
GC - [confirming that when moved ]
SG [ confirming actual date removed ]
GC - when do say seen photo
SG - various users saw - since many men were blocked [ explains the process]
GC RT evidence
...contacted you in Oct 2021 didn't have access, joined sep 2021 ?
SG - the block have happened before that - no communication wasn't received as backend not attached to the front end..
GC - Either RT filled in inapp form - or...
J -[trying to have clarity] - you can send a message doesn't mean it is received e.g. email to inactive address.
GC - moving on. RT sent a no. of emails, y?
SG - no recollection
GC looked preparing for case?
GC - so you remember right? When did you read emails of being removed from the act
BD - challenges
GC [rephrases question] When did you refresh memory
SG at challenge (?) for affadavit
GC look at 150 court book
GC - see 13 sep on pag 150?
How soon after that did you read it?
SG - I don't remember
GC - In matter of days or week?
sG - yes?
GC - look at p153 - See para 18? RT says 4 Oc 2021 sent follow up - [2 ways] para 19, received a response email -request to get back - said RT
RT says SG asked for mobile to investigate - then lists dates on follow up apps - and not receiving responses.
RT attempted again - submitted a bug report for not getting on app - and further responses - not replied to..
RT then called SG 's mobile. RT makes more calls, txts , etc a number of times - recieved no response, complains SG left no voice mails or texts
tween 4 Oct - 8 followup emails - complains only recieved one response
GC confirms with SG
GC says 'you know RT where got your ph no. dont you?
SG no recollection of emailing the applicant
GC -did you see email talking about -(SG y) in the evidence.
GC so why saying didn't know where RT got ph
BN objects
J - a bit of lack of specificity in question GC
GC - have you ever said 'you dont know where RT got the ph no.?
SG - don't know
GC - would you agree at lest one occassion that you didn't know - SG - yes
GC - since Oct 23?
SG - I don't know how many interviews
GC you've given 20-50 interviews re RT
SG - given interivews on my exp.
GC - how many times talked about RT don't know where he got the ph called - can you (SG) guess?
BN objects
GC - how many times - estimate - you don't know where RT got that phone number? SG 10?
GC would you like to correct your affadavit
SG - No - I don't know thats where he got his number
GC - don't have alternative number?
[will expand off threadline]
GC - said you made a
SG - it is not in Giggle t&Cs to call personal no.
SG - receive 100s or 1000s of emails from users - read or deleted cant' cover
GC [ said creates a false imprerssion to say it scared you - to get calls from RT when didn't give phone]
GC how is RT not polite - in these communications
sG - not poliite to seed 8 emails -not polite
GC - the content was polite - tho?
[ looking at content of emails - sG etc.]
GC - look at 184 - before Oct - reads email.
GC - confirms that email signature contains SG's ph no. on it.
GC - reads RT emails -
GC - reading lots of emails -Do you agree with me thats polite emails SG?
SG - no
GC - then reads text messages - GC suggests that RT's communication is polite.
BN object
J - wrap it up
GC -RT is polite -SG not to me, no. GC txt is polite? SG - No
GC - to say RT is harrassing you -is unfair
SG - No other user ever called my phone
GC someone else call that would be polite
sG if didnt know them no
GC - normally polite?
sG - Emails mainly from males - abusing we don't get them from females
GC - if it was from a female you wouldn't find them impolite
SG - hard to answer coz i wouldnt be in ths position if RT was a female
GC - how much did giggle spend on making app
- -- about 386K - according to balance sheet , doesn't it?
GC - [confirming costs on app and confirming the following year, confirming amount borrowed, et.]
GC - asked who put up the money
SG - family and friends
GC - ppl expect ROI?
GC - names of investors?
SG - uncle - and friends don't name off top of head
GC - how many?
SG - would say about 20
GC - did you issue shares - SG no
GC - loan from F&F right?
GC - plan was to be succesful
SG - plan to create an app 4 female only platform
GC also ROI - do you agree with me to also to make profit [asks this in different ways]
BN - objects J - rephrase
GC - SG your intention get ROI - to get back more than they invested wasn't it? They get money and profit ?
SG - was intention to pay back
GC - and get profit
SG - to make a female only platform
GC asks the question a # times - for investors to get money back - isnt't it?
SG No
Gc did you plan that they wouldnt get a profit
SG No - others asked for investors
GC - asking me questions a process I wsnt involved in
GC - queries as a CEO - should know
(sorry losing track of repetition)
GC - app is being rebuilt isn't it? SG-yes GC and you might rebuild app? SG-Y, GC and you'll need money SG- not looking at more at mo.
GC - company has received income 2-3 years hasn't it 2x
SG - no money given to Giggle - given to white holidings (?)
BN - can I just ask to be shown documents
J - agrees
GC - not hard to ask the question to ask the CEO
GC - has Giggle received income in financial year and 2023
SG - I don't know
GC look at page -?
GC - refers to balance sheet - looking at sales of goods -how did it earn income from sales of good
SG - CEO - surround myself ppl who handle money etc (paraphrasing)
GC - where does the money come from?
GC - what is Giggle selling -
SG - 2021 in apps purchases - 2022-23 dk
GC June 2023 end - agree Giggle is trading
SG - no coz there is no app
- I don't understand this -numbers - that is not my role - i have another
GC whats purpose of US trip, what did you say, when was trip
SG - was being taking to court - lots of thing, march
GC did you say in those interviews in London - call RT - him / he and scary?
SG - yes
GC did you say he harrassed you? SG Y
GC - would you like to correct your view looking at the email copies?
sG - No
GC - you said bombarded by 1000s of men SG-Y
GC - you dn't know if TW do you?
SG know them men
Taking a 10 minute break. Apologies - lost some of convo - will summarise offthread.
@threadreaderapp unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice

Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets2

Feb 4
Good afternoon. This is the final session of Toshack vs GeoAmey. We expect to resume at 3pm. For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers continues on
@tribunaltweets
Image
Mr Toshack (DT) asserts that he was dismissed because of his gender critical beliefs. His appeal against his dismissal was subsequently upheld. He is claiming harassment, discrimination and indirect discrimination on the grounds of his gender critical beliefs.
Read 47 tweets
Feb 4
Good morning, this is the final hearing day of Toshack vs GeoAmey. For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers continues on @tribunaltweets Image
We expect to continue at 10 am with a final witness. The tribunal is expected to adjourn from approximately 11:30 then return to public session at 2:30 pm for any oral submissions.
Our previous coverage and background on the case can be found here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/toshack-vs-g…
We are a volunteer collective of citizen journalists, please consider following here and on @tribunaltweets and subscribing to our Substack to support our work.
Read 67 tweets
Oct 22, 2025
Thread 2 AB vs SW

IO: A diff ET may have made a different decision doesnt mean this ET was wrong
LW: Unless they erred in law.
IO: If the parties had put an approach as to how provisions should be interpreted you cant go back on that
LN: I do follow but its really about the language of causation and its not obvious to me we are helped on that
IO: It would be wrong to suggest every conceivable argument was put by each side
LB: It was a 4 week trial. We are conscious we are focussing on a v small part of the case. Thats not itself an answer
IO: No but it does provide some explanation as to the paucity of detail in the
Read 77 tweets
Oct 22, 2025
Good morning. The appeal of Allison Bailey v Stonewall re-starts this morning at 10.30am. The proceedings will also be live-streamed here:
youtube.com/@RoyalCourtsof…
Our substack page for the case can be found here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

Allison Bailey’s skeleton argument: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/upl…
Stonewall’s skeleton argument will be added to our substack should it become publicly available.
Abbreviations for today's hearing:

AB - Allison Bailey, the appellant is also referred to as ‘C’ for claimant
SW - Stonewall Equality Ltd, the first respondent, also referred to as ‘Stonewall’
Read 45 tweets
Oct 21, 2025
Continued this afternoon's session
IO Just in relation to the question asked about para 369 it is my submission is that the ET findings of fact for better or worse what is recorded there is what they heard and accepted and drew from it.
But there is nothing in decision that precedes or follows that wasn't open for them to make.
Para 370 374 some factors the ET took into consideration in reaching conclusions. My submission in that these matters were ET were entitled to have a view on.
Read 13 tweets
Oct 21, 2025
The Appeal of Allison Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd re-starts this afternoon at 13.55. The proceedings will also be live-streamed here:

youtube.com/@RoyalCourtsof…
BCRight and common ground that the term cause doesn't imply a conscious motive on the part of person A and that must be right or it would be inconsistent with emp law.
It is necessary to analyse the scope of obligation to find what the defend ought to be held for
the eat is wron
in my submission in supplying the test because as I have indicated the duty bearers need to know what it is they are and aren't allowed to do
Read 100 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(