LightNews LightNews
seenvolunteer.bsky.social
@seenvolunteer.bsky.social
26 followers 52 following 40 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
natacha.bsky.social
The only person to come out of the SPeggie/NHS tribunal vindicated and with a completely untarnished reputation is Dr Beth Upton.

Not SPeggie,
Not the NHS management,
Not Four Women Scotland,
Not the media,

Just Dr Upton.
December 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM
Reposted
jessothomson.co.uk
The tribunal seemed very unimpressed by the fact that Peggie waited around to challenge Upton, and considered this an impermissible manifestation of her beliefs.
goodlawproject.org Jolyon Maugham KC @goodlawproject.org · 13d
An important point to come out of the Sandie Peggie case is that 'gender critical' employees can't take matters into their own hands and confront trans employees. If they do that it is likely to be harassment/ bullying/ a hate incident.
So far as her other comments are concerned, they were impermissible manifestations of her belief and were in our view what amounted to an incident of harassment by the claimant of the second respondent related to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, reasonably perceived by the second respondent to be so, and were a breach by the claimant of section 26 of the Act and of the Bullying and Harassment Policy. The second respondent was entitled to view the actions of the claimant in those particular regards as being such harassment, or as a “hate incident” within the policy, and the first respondent was entitled in principle to act on the complaint made, but the detail of how it did so depends on all the circumstances as more fully addressed below. The second respondent was also entitled to regard the claimant’s actions as a breach of the second respondent’s Article 8 rights, so far as the claimant’s expression of her beliefs was impermissible. 1034. We also considered that the claimant had acted deliberately to be able to challenge the second respondent whilst they were alone. What she did was to wait until other members of staff had left the changing room, and for the second respondent to leave the cubicle, before raising her own beliefs directly with the second respondent in the manner we have set out. 1035. Whilst the claimant had not been informed as promptly and in the detail we considered appropriate, and the first respondent did not consider whether to revoke permission at all, the claimant did not herself raise any formal grievance under the policy. She is an experienced member of staff who had access to union advice. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the first respondent having granted permission to the second respondent she required to have raised her concerns with the first respondent as the decision-maker rather than with the colleague to whom it had been granted, and in any event ought not to have done so in the manner that she did.
December 9, 2025 at 9:21 AM
Reposted
jessothomson.co.uk
You can be angry at those who back down, or feel love for those who keep fighting by your side (or both). But this evening I am feeling a lot of love for the latter. Don't expect anyone to join me, but wanted to express that love.
December 8, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Reposted
jessothomson.co.uk
Just want others in the trans community to know that stuff like this is only possible because of the extreme hard work of really good allies most of whom you will never see or hear from. But they are willing to fight for us at immense personal cost, when others back down. This is my cheers to them.
December 8, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Reposted
jessothomson.co.uk
I also want to express my love for Dr Beth Upton. That woman truly has more courage than any of us.
December 8, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Reposted
thatelizabeth.bsky.social
Doctor beth upton is a brave woman and the absolute best of us.
jessothomson.co.uk Jess O'Thomson @jessothomson.co.uk · 13d
I also want to express my love for Dr Beth Upton. That woman truly has more courage than any of us.
December 8, 2025 at 9:08 PM
Reposted
mimmymum.bsky.social
Remember when Helen Joyce was called out as "not an expert" by Australian courts - Now Maya Forstater has been told the same in the Peggie judgment! 👏👏👏

The judgement states outright that the evidence submitted by her & Sex Matters was “not skilled evidence.”

This is the Tribunal’s exact wording!
Highlighted paragraph: Evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine 1038. We turn to address the evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine, which the parties had described as “research evidence”. That is not, so far as we are aware, a term of law. Nothing was cited to support the use of that term. It is not skilled evidence as explained below, and the parties did not suggest that either witness was skilled or expert in that sense. It was not necessarily inadmissible, given the terms of Rule 41, and until read and considered the extent to which it might be relevant could not be assessed, but the weight to attach to it was a different consideration Highlighted sections: 1040. In many respects the evidence in the statements was more in the nature of material for the public debate on wider issues as to what the law should be, and on occasion it appeared to us to be polemic, rather than evidence relevant to the issues at an Employment Tribunal. 1041. Opinion evidence was addressed in Walker and Walker on Evidence, Fifth Edition (“Walker”), which explained the distinction between evidence of fact, and of belief or opinion. Opinion evidence may be led from what Walker describes as an ordinary witness (the classification of witnesses is between ordinary and skilled), and examples of that are given. Ms Forstater 1042. The statement from Ms Forstater was not presented as impartial evidence, but specifically as one given in support of the claimant. It had at paragraph 10 an argument as to facts, of which Ms Forstater said that she was certain. They are however we consider not facts, but expressions of her opinion. The assertion at 10 (b) for example was “Sex is in general readily perceptible and is salient to other people.” That we consider cannot be other than her opinion, for which no support from any document in the Supplementary Bundle appeared to be referred to in her written witness statement. It was contradicted by other evidence, and the terms of a Note issued by EJ Tinnion on 5 January 2025 in relation to the second respondent. It did not appear to be an assertion related to the second respondent in particular, but as a more general proposition. 1043. The assertion at (d) had a further series of propositions which were opinions although presented as facts. If the 1992 Regulations, then as discussed they are not within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the comment appears to be an argument over the policy of the law, or how the law should be interpreted, neither of which are relevant evidence before us. 1044. The sub-paragraphs include, by way of example, (ii) “women are in general more fearful of men than men … Highlighted sections: That is again an expression of opinion without cross reference to any document in the Supplementary Bundle. Sub-paragraph (v) was “unless rules about single-sex spaces are clearly stated and enforced it leaves women open to risk of sexual harassment and assault, and makes these spaces feel unsafe.” That again is an expression of opinion. The witness statement purports to expand on the comments at paragraph 10 stating that the facts stated are true. In our view they are not reliable as evidence from a person not a skilled witness on the propositions that are advanced. 1045. Where there was reference to documentation it is in our view both partial and incomplete. Part of it is based on research undertaken by Sex Matters, an organisation of which she is the Chief Executive Officer. It is a campaigning organisation, as set out in paragraph 4. There is an obvious risk that that research is impacted by the nature of it, which is not suggested to be an independent academic study .... In our view it would not be dealing with a case fairly or justly to rely on expressions of opinion from a person campaigning on one side of the argument on such an issue. We did not consider that the case of Connor on which the claimant founded, cited above and which indicated that in some situations evidence which was not expert in nature could be sufficient, was applicable to such a matter. 1047. Our review of the literature referred to by Ms Forstater reveals that the broad generalisations she seeks to take from it are not sufficiently supported by the document or document founded on, both from the terms of the document and the other documents in relation to the same broad issue, to be treated as reliable evidence.
December 9, 2025 at 10:36 AM
seenvolunteer.bsky.social
Any potential appeal of the Peggie decision has been rated at under 10% as the judgment was facts-driven and interpreted FWS unassailably.
This one - is a keeper.
December 9, 2025 at 9:54 AM
Reposted
goodlawproject.org
An important point to come out of the Sandie Peggie case is that 'gender critical' employees can't take matters into their own hands and confront trans employees. If they do that it is likely to be harassment/ bullying/ a hate incident.
So far as her other comments are concerned, they were impermissible manifestations of her belief and were in our view what amounted to an incident of harassment by the claimant of the second respondent related to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, reasonably perceived by the second respondent to be so, and were a breach by the claimant of section 26 of the Act and of the Bullying and Harassment Policy. The second respondent was entitled to view the actions of the claimant in those particular regards as being such harassment, or as a “hate incident” within the policy, and the first respondent was entitled in principle to act on the complaint made, but the detail of how it did so depends on all the circumstances as more fully addressed below. The second respondent was also entitled to regard the claimant’s actions as a breach of the second respondent’s Article 8 rights, so far as the claimant’s expression of her beliefs was impermissible. 1034. We also considered that the claimant had acted deliberately to be able to challenge the second respondent whilst they were alone. What she did was to wait until other members of staff had left the changing room, and for the second respondent to leave the cubicle, before raising her own beliefs directly with the second respondent in the manner we have set out. 1035. Whilst the claimant had not been informed as promptly and in the detail we considered appropriate, and the first respondent did not consider whether to revoke permission at all, the claimant did not herself raise any formal grievance under the policy. She is an experienced member of staff who had access to union advice. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the first respondent having granted permission to the second respondent she required to have raised her concerns with the first respondent as the decision-maker rather than with the colleague to whom it had been granted, and in any event ought not to have done so in the manner that she did.
December 9, 2025 at 9:20 AM
Reposted
alandriscoll.com
Literally just that.
alandriscoll.com Alan Driscoll @alandriscoll.com · 13d
"...unless that person is trans, in which case it doesn't even qualify as harassment."
"Sentencing Barton on Monday, Judge Andrew Menary KC told the former England international “robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech. But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.”
December 9, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Reposted
ameresolicitor.bsky.social
Would someone kindly explain a meaningful difference between Joey Barton’s hateful comments and Graham Lineham’s?

Other than the fact that Glinner was targeting a trans kid?
December 9, 2025 at 7:40 AM
Reposted
hleehurley.com
Surprisingly, The Telegraph did not put it on their front page either but make up for it with pieces inside the paper. Also surprisingly, this might actually be one of the most accurate headlines I've seen.

Michael Deacon & Suzanne moore also slabbering about trans people again, but not this case.
Nurse wins harassment fight but judge rules trans women are no risk in changing rooms Tribunal says it was lawful for doctor born a man to use female area in Scottish hospital + How one woman fought the NHS for two years to protect female rights The Daily Telegraph9 Dec 2025Jacob Freedland SCOTTISH REPORTER
December 9, 2025 at 8:29 AM
seenvolunteer.bsky.social
@goodlawproject.org

Counsel do get early wind of ET decisions.

Naomi Cunningham did criminally harass Beth Upton and this can now be referred to the police.
Was Cunningham’s rapid departure from ‘sex matters’ recently just a coincidence?
December 8, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Reposted
goodlawproject.org
The Times yesterday, on how trans kids, denied the healthcare they need, are buying black market hormones.

Of course, this is *exactly* what everyone said would happen. And its risks are dramatically amplified by Streeting telling GPs they must stop offering blood tests.
“He didn’t have the money, so they paid for him to get some black market oestrogen,” Fiona said. “He got it sent to a friend who passed it on at school. And he managed to get shots and syringes from an STD clinic.” Experts are increasingly concerned that an illicit trade in black market cross-sex hormones is thriving as the NHS clamps down on prescriptions of the drugs for fear of long-term side effects.
December 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
Reposted
goodlawproject.org
If you are addicted to heroin you can have your blood tested to help you manage the health risks. But if you are a child trying to access healthcare, in line with international norms, Wes Streeting's position is that you "must" be treated worse.
goodlawproject.org Jolyon Maugham KC @goodlawproject.org · 13d
The Times yesterday, on how trans kids, denied the healthcare they need, are buying black market hormones.

Of course, this is *exactly* what everyone said would happen. And its risks are dramatically amplified by Streeting telling GPs they must stop offering blood tests.
“He didn’t have the money, so they paid for him to get some black market oestrogen,” Fiona said. “He got it sent to a friend who passed it on at school. And he managed to get shots and syringes from an STD clinic.” Experts are increasingly concerned that an illicit trade in black market cross-sex hormones is thriving as the NHS clamps down on prescriptions of the drugs for fear of long-term side effects.
December 8, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Reposted
fiercemum.bsky.social
We are hearing that those few who were on NHS GIDS prescribed puberty blockers before GIDS closed, who were transferred to a small legacy clinic at Nottingham, are now being told all referrals for MDT panel approval to start hormones have been stopped. 1/2
December 8, 2025 at 10:39 AM
seenvolunteer.bsky.social
What’s she after?
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
December 8, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Reposted
alandriscoll.com
It's like an episode of Black Mirror all this, isn't it? You know, the show that speculated on the impact of ever-advancing technology on relationships and our humanity 10-15 years into the future, that came out 10-15 years ago.
December 7, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Reposted
tacc.org.uk
www.itv.com/news/granada...
www.itv.com
December 8, 2025 at 1:00 AM
Reposted
captainlibatron.bsky.social
Rosie Duffield has assembled a "representative group of cross-party MPs" to lobby Streeting which, of the 1,500 people sitting in parliament, amounted to 7 other people.
Rosie Duffield MP @RosieD... 2h I have assembled a representative group of cross-party MPs from across Parliament. From Left to Right, @Jonathan_Hinder to @RupertLowe10, there are many others who agree with us. We must #StopthePBTrial @wesstreeting Yours, Rosie Duffield MP Jonathan Hinder MP Rebecca Paul MP Sarah Pochin MP Carla Lockhart MP Rupert Lowe MP Iqbal Mohamed MP Baroness Sarah Ludford
December 7, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Reposted
mimmymum.bsky.social
'This is an issue for everyone' – cyclists urged to join solidarity rides with trans community after exclusion from Cycling UK list

Three rides will take place in Bristol, Edinburgh and London on 14 December 👏🏻💕🚲

www.cyclingweekly.com/news/this-is...
'This is an issue for everyone' – cyclists urged to join solidarity rides with trans community after exclusion from Cycling UK list
Three rides will take place in Bristol, Edinburgh and London on 14 December
www.cyclingweekly.com
December 8, 2025 at 12:19 AM
Reposted
reactiveashley.cat
Hahaha, Keith Richards, the newly appointed commissioner, didn’t bother to turn up. I mean it would only have got him into all sorts of trouble, as a barrister, he knew perfectly well when to keep out of sight. 🤭
philippaeast.bsky.social Philippa East (Author) @philippaeast.bsky.social · 15d
New EHRC Board meeting minutes are finally up.
These are from May 🫠🫠🫠

www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/defaul...
www.equalityhumanrights.com
December 7, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Reposted
danielsohege.bsky.social
While Freeman is often more than happy to ignore evidence in favour of her own opinions, whether that be her regular transphobic rants or oft written columns minimising and dismissing ADHD, autism and mental health issues, the evidence for under diagnosis is pretty strong.

bsky.app/profile/hsw3...
hsw3k.bsky.social Hannah Shaw-Williams @hsw3k.bsky.social · 18d
An independent taskforce *just* did a huge review of ADHD in England, and the conclusion was that it's "under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated."
www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/re...
NHS England » Report of the independent ADHD Taskforce: Part 1
April 2025
www.england.nhs.uk
December 7, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Reposted
danielsohege.bsky.social
I see Hadley Freeman is back on her horse about ADHD/autism. Only this time she is obviously far more aware of the reality than...checks notes, the actual expert. Does she ever get bored of just churning out the same old ignorant attacks on different groups?

www.thetimes.com/article/476e...
In a segment of the Today programme about Streeting's review, Dr Jessica Eccles, a consultant psychiatrist, insisted ADHD was in fact “underdiagnosed" and said its rise was due to “greater awareness” and to socioeconomic factors "like the effect of Covid on people's lives". She did not mention smartphones or the internet, which have surely affected people's ability to focus as much as Covid. But the second rule of ADHD is: while it is now ubiquitous, it is never our fault.
December 7, 2025 at 2:50 PM
Reposted
jessothomson.co.uk
At least if the UK just left the Convention we wouldn't be trying to take away the human rights of *everyone else across Europe*.
jessothomson.co.uk Jess O'Thomson @jessothomson.co.uk · 14d
The Labour Party: We won't leave the ECHR, of course not! We'll just make sure it's no longer worth the paper it's written on.
December 8, 2025 at 7:02 AM