If I took 2 different companies to court
With #1 being the main reason I am doing it.
Then I have all claims against company #1 dismissed.
Then have 60% of the rest of the primary claims dismissed against the remaining one, with the only claims being related to procedure, not outcome, being the successful one.
The claims dismissed all pertain to the actual outcome.
And then all Secondary claims against all parties dismissed.
Should the national media run headlines including:
"Victory for"
"wins landmark case"
and many other things painting it as a victory?
It wont take long for many to realise what I am referring to. this post is about Spin rather than anything else.
How people take a loss and present it to the masses as a win for propaganda purposes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"If I took 2 different companies to court
With #1 being the main reason I am doing it.
Then I have all claims against company #1 dismissed.
Then have 60% of the rest of the primary claims dismissed against the remaining one, with the only claims being related to procedure, not outcome, being the successful one.
The claims dismissed all pertain to the actual outcome.
And then all Secondary claims against all parties dismissed.
Should the national media run headlines including:
"Victory for"
"wins landmark case"
and many other things painting it as a victory?
It wont take long for many to realise what I am referring to. this post is about Spin rather than anything else.
How people take a loss and present it to the masses as a win for propaganda purposes."
? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For those that don't know, this thread is about the recent employment tribunal case for Allison Bailey. The full legal judgement is available online, but it is a long and dry read.
To the OP: Do you really believe that your post above is a fair description of the judgement? Do you honestly think that you are not spinning the results in any way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For those that don't know, this thread is about the recent employment tribunal case for Allison Bailey. The full legal judgement is available online, but it is a long and dry read.
To the OP: Do you really believe that your post above is a fair description of the judgement? Do you honestly think that you are not spinning the results in any way?"
I do. This is the summary of the reserved judgement from the document.
1. The claim against the first respondent is dismissed
2. The second and third respondents discriminated against the claimant
because of belief in respect of detriments 2 and 4. They also victimised
her in respect of detriment 4 because of protected act 2.
3. The second and third respondents are ordered to pay the claimant
£22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, and interest thereon of
£4,693.33.
4. Claims of discrimination and victimisation by the second and third
respondents in detriments 1,3 and 5 are dismissed.
5. The indirect discrimination claim against the second and third respondents
is dismissed.
Respondent 1 (Stonewall) is who she was raising funds to sue according to her publicity.
detriment 2 was that they tweeted they were investigating.
detriment 4 is that they mishandled the investigation by tweeting about it.
The dismissed claims (against former employer) were that she lost work from the decision (#1), That they mishandled how they procured the complaint (#3) and that the outcome was valid (#5)
Everything I said was accurate.
Now we enter the areas where I accept there may be a "bias" but it is all new information
If the above isn't enough for you she herself tweeted "I lost my case against Stonewall"
If you took all her claims and ranked them in the order of seriousness and how much she has said she wanted to win them, the 2 claims she won on, were in the bottom quarter of the list.
I was trying to make this about honesty in the media, but I guess I don't get to NOT make it about Transphobes being transphobes, even if I try. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wish I had more time to debate this issue.
However, to address your original post,:
The critical part for me is that the tribunal examined her belief that transgender people should not be able to self-identify, and that Stonewall's campaign for gender self-identity was harming women, and the tribunal found that these were protected beliefs.
The tribunal was careful to say that those beliefs might not be true, but that the claimant was entitled to hold them, and should not be discriminated against because of them.
I'd say that could reasonably be classed as 'a landmark decision' and 'a victory' for those that hold that belief. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wish I had more time to debate this issue.
However, to address your original post,:
The critical part for me is that the tribunal examined her belief that transgender people should not be able to self-identify, and that Stonewall's campaign for gender self-identity was harming women, and the tribunal found that these were protected beliefs.
The tribunal was careful to say that those beliefs might not be true, but that the claimant was entitled to hold them, and should not be discriminated against because of them.
I'd say that could reasonably be classed as 'a landmark decision' and 'a victory' for those that hold that belief."
I don't see how, as no-one claimed otherwise in the tribunal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To clarify, none contested they were her beliefs, and no-one said she had no right to hold them"
I understood what you meant, and I agree.
However there is now a written legal judgement that holding such beliefs is acceptable, and that discriminating against someone because of those beliefs is against the law.
Those that hold such beliefs can consider this tribunal's findings a significant step in reducing the venom that is directed at them.
Yes, this is only an employment tribunal, and not a Crown Court decision, but it's still an important legal precendent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To clarify, none contested they were her beliefs, and no-one said she had no right to hold them
I understood what you meant, and I agree.
However there is now a written legal judgement that holding such beliefs is acceptable, and that discriminating against someone because of those beliefs is against the law.
Those that hold such beliefs can consider this tribunal's findings a significant step in reducing the venom that is directed at them.
Yes, this is only an employment tribunal, and not a Crown Court decision, but it's still an important legal precendent."
Again they don't really have that. They got that in the Forstater tribunal. It isn't be and both are specifically classified and directly described as non landmark and not precedent worthy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who is the biggest threat to Trans people? Women, Lesbians, Men?
Just a genuine question. Not trying to trip anyone up."
That is a hard question to answer.
And really for another topic entirely.
The least supportive group in the UK is Cisgender Men who do not know any trans people.
The most Vocal against Trans people are the Gender Critical/TERF movement.
The biggest threat(s) would probably be the Tory government as they are the ones who can change the law based on pressure from the above.
Or physically it is usually Cis Men who are responsible for most violence.
Again I didn't really want this to be a Trans Rights thread. I wanted to talk about honesty in journalism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My head hurts just trying to unravel all this crap of which I and possibly most people don’t give 2fucks about "
Well the main topic is honesty in journalism, I would think everyone would care at least a little about that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Who is the biggest threat to Trans people? Women, Lesbians, Men?
Just a genuine question. Not trying to trip anyone up.
That is a hard question to answer.
And really for another topic entirely.
The least supportive group in the UK is Cisgender Men who do not know any trans people.
The most Vocal against Trans people are the Gender Critical/TERF movement.
The biggest threat(s) would probably be the Tory government as they are the ones who can change the law based on pressure from the above.
Or physically it is usually Cis Men who are responsible for most violence.
Again I didn't really want this to be a Trans Rights thread. I wanted to talk about honesty in journalism"
I appreciate your answer. It's something that you care passionately about but a spat between these two groups, is of little interest to the majority of the population.
Journalists will spin it all ways to suit their own agenda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
