Thread by @tribunaltweets

The afternoon session is due to start at 12.30. Please see this morning's reporting for abbreviations and information.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1962459702253559850

NC to J Do you have speaking note?
J No. Have revised submission.
[Is being printed. Five copies needed. J has left to collect this.]

NC Sorry to load tribunal with more written material
J Can't have too much
NC May be a hostage to fortune
NC Q of convention rights in tribunal. Can't enforce HR rights unless req under HRA. R Art 8 ambitious claim for DU to have sss access rights . Would have to clear all 6

hurdles. Would have to satisfy that interference with women's Art 8 rights is justified by letting DU undress with female colleagues. Ambitious tending to unrealistic.
R would have to satisfy that ECHR would find that established. If matter before ECHR would be matter of

intense argument c right of women to not be exposed to male colleagues when undressing etc. Closer at this point to being something tribunal can be pretty confident would go the other way. R would need to id provisions of EA re R's Art 8 rights and satisfy tribunal wouldn't

go against intent of legislation. Finding would be in flat defiance of FWS judgement - that bio sex is fundamental feature of EA. Not alternatives - R need to clear all and if one hurdle fails R fail.

NC R now say Treatment of R2 by C is harassment because of manner. Surprising at this stage.

NC Not foreshadowed before in R argument so now not before tribunal for determination. But also, we say argument doesn't work for number of reasons. Case guides you through this - best one Tribunal has - is Higgs v Farmer's School. English so not directly binding on this trib

J [comments - can't hear]
NC Might as well be binding, is probably best way of putting it. Manifestation of belief in Higgs - can be objectionable in manner, so R would have to convince that manner C manifested belief was objectionable and R treatment of C therefore was acceptable.

acceptable.
NC Failure at any stage is sufficient to defeat manifestation. Real reason for treatment came out in evidence and docs - we deal with that in written closing. Also came out in R witness evidence. What was really unacceptable on C part was that she had stood her

ground when faced with man in w changing room and said shouldn't;t be here cos man. Core GC.
NC R said SP was objectionable cos said DU man, compared with prisons, was aggressive. But Du said she was calm without raising voice.
SP pointing out Du a man. Core to Sex

realist belief. And if SP can't say that without being called bigot, can't manifest her beliefs at all. Emphasise point c language. Tussles re language threaded throughout ruling. R haven't appealed your approach re lang but R have objected throughout. DU objected

NC These were futile and time wasting. He couldn't let any use of language he objected to pass. Attempts to control language C used even to this trib have been reflected by full blown hysteria outside trip inc calls for me and Judge Kemp to have citizens arrest for their lang etc

C says this is result of manifesting her sex realist beliefs. R Says hasn't done this, at same time tried to stop her manifesting/talking lang c her beliefs.
Ask tribunal to keep in mind hostility of R to C because of her GC beliefs. You have seen that prejudice through R

witnesses and it's counsel.
NC Chromosome q. C says didn't ask. No reason to doubt C credibility but much reason to doubt DU creditability. But even if SP had asked, et Lottie Miles said nothing offensive. Just a q about genitals. Pls look at judgement in Higgs which set out

lang usage. Even if you think SP did make prison comment - SP said she didn't refer to a convicted rapist - but even if you think she said this, it was towards end of conversation when DU was insisting he was a woman. SP needed to escalate her argument to persuade

him that she was really upset by him and it was on this basis.
Re chromosome q - no good reason for you to think she said it, but even if she did - if someone says this isn't a rabbit while holding up a rabbit, it's okay to draw attention to its long ears and teeth -

to draw attention to the facts that refute the claim.
NC Ask you to look at LJ Underhill's judgment in Higgs - '[reads re Devonshire solicitors]

Suggestion C manner was agressive- she was facing a man in a place where no man should be, violating her boundaries. DU is male,

bigger, higher up social hierarchy. Acceptable for her to be frightened and angry. R would still have to show their response was proportionate and I say they haven't even begun. This is all I have to say re Higgs and manifestation.

NC Re credibility. R attempt to attack C credibility by allegation re supposed racism is one of the most unattractive aspects of R in this case - attempt at character assassination. Their last minute witnesses. Going though 7 years of FB to find one unattractive joke

NC Very few people - angry, drunk, in company of trusted friends - social medial would show nothing. The animus showed towards SP by R is shocking. Esther Davison dredged up one incidence which she tried to spin against Sp and not other party

Speaks to desperation to smear SP. In my subs - R conflates sex realist beliefs with transphobia and bigotry. Treating people with ti =corollary treating them with love as other people - R says only way to treat T id people with respect is to give them what they ask for.

NC Kate Searle. F in mouth email damaging to R, in possession of several R witnesses [reads names circulated email] That is came to light so late in day is to discredit or all witnesses who had email, but esp KS and Maggie Currer. And KS other email which she must have

known was relevant and came to light v late.
Isla Bumba - her claim to be unable to speak to her own sex with certainty - extraordinary moment among many. That piece of evidence was taking the tribunal for fools. Clearly she knows for certainly that she is a woman

NC Can leave you to read re E Davidson's credibility.

NC Takes me to the remaining mysteries. Peculiar thing c R evident in highly incomplete evidence is way patient safety allegations swung in and out of view in proceedings. No good explanation from R of what was going on here

NC Unsolved mystery of what happened when board got to see DU allegations in detail. First sent to board on 11/6/24 - great deal of material in allegations seems to have been known to a number of people since Dec 2023. Profound peculiarity of R evidence. Suggest you

draw inferences. DU had seen poss professional danger to him of making allegations so late both he and board hesitated before relying on them in formal proceedings cos of danger of DU. Board had had C suspended for months since CR incident so they needed good explanation

NC Patient safety allegations- you should draw inferences and pass burden to R to give explanation.

Surprising absence of Jamie Doyle, Angela Sheppard,
[and other names] and the gaps in the documentary record. Makes it impossible for R to discharge burden against them.

NC Further mystery.

[short adjournment]

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp Please unroll