Dewie
LightNews LightNews
banner
judgedewie.bsky.social
Dewie
@judgedewie.bsky.social
450 followers 200 following 4.2K posts
Just some bloke
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Dewie
paullitchfield.bsky.social
Advent Calendar Day 9.

Picture of a haunted diving board.
Chocolate Samurai.
December 9, 2025 at 9:04 AM
Reposted by Dewie
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
judgedewie.bsky.social
Those were the days. Deeply bitter resentment still exists between these two and thankfully Joe has moved to America otherwise I suspect they would have fought to the death on the steps of Pret A Manger near Trafalgar Square
December 9, 2025 at 12:30 AM
Reposted by Dewie
glennyrodge.bsky.social
Call that an argument? THIS is an argument.
cc @mutablejoe.bsky.social

(With thanks to Glenn Scrivener who collated this shit)

www.christthetruth.net/2013/08/11/e...
Epic Twitter Battles: Round 1 – Christ the Truth
www.christthetruth.net
December 7, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Reposted by Dewie
jontofski.bsky.social
My Wales/Japan Eki stamps will be available to use at the Japanese Embassy in London until the 16th of January. Please check their website for opening hours. www.uk.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_en/2512...
December 8, 2025 at 11:08 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Sandie Peggie is a bully.

She is a racist.

She is a transphobe.

She lied in court.

The headlines you won't see in the papers because they're all missing out key elements of the judgment.
December 8, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
Also worth noting, the Tribunal found that Sandie Peggie had harassed Dr Beth Upton in a "hate incident".
December 8, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
I can't help but remember that "it" is also the word used by the man who murdered poor Brianna Ghey in a transphobic attack.

These people don't have "reasonable concerns" - they are revolting bigots.
632. A wider aspect of evidence we considered concerned an attack on her position in cross examination to the effect that she was generally transphobic, which she denied both when giving evidence initially and on recall (which is addressed further below). Some of the messages she sent are indicative of views which could be described as trans-phobic. In one dated 10 January 2024 the claimant described the second respondent as “it”. In an earlier part of the same message there is reference to the second respondent having a shadow (being in our view a reference to the appearance of stubble on the face) and a “pathetic voice”. These are disparaging remarks in relation to the second respondent in our view, because of the second respondent being a trans woman. 633. In another the second respondent is described as a “weirdo”, which the claimant sought to explain as someone acting weirdly, but which we did not accept as being what she had intended by use of that word. These remarks we consider to be consistent with other evidence of her making comments the second respondent was liable to find offensive that went beyond the simple expression of a gender critical belief, but amounted to personal attacks on the second respondent.
December 8, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
Oooft. Sandie Peggie shared highly offensive messages and was then "untruthful" in giving evidence to the Tribunal.

This is the 'hero' Gender Critical campaigners have chosen.
631. The third aspect was her evidence given when recalled in relation to a message she had passed on to her group of friends which related to floods in Pakistan in the most highly offensive terms. She initially described the messages as “dark humour”. Her evidence later was that the message had been sent to provoke a reaction, in broad summary. We did not consider that latter evidence to be credible given the content of the message sent and her initial evidence about it. In our view it was an untruthful attempt to downplay what she had done, which she recognised as having included very offensive material. We consider that it was clear beyond serious argument that the author or authors of the original message considered the remarks humorous, and that the claimant had also considered them humorous which was why she had passed them on. That was supported in our view by her reference to dark humour
December 8, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
This is a real disaster for those - pretty much the entirety of the British media - advancing a maximalist reading of the For (Some) Women Scotland decision.
796. Thirdly, the claimant’s contention was in our view not consistent with the court’s comment that “we have concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people (whether with or without a GRC).” 797. After that comment the court explained that a person with gender reassignment as a protected characteristic could pursue a claim of direct or indirect discrimination, or of harassment, if the circumstances so warranted. There was no qualification to it to the effect that that was not applicable in, for example, the context of a single sex space under Part 5 of the Act. If their decision had been that all trans persons must be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets for the sex they identify with because it was not the sex assigned at birth, and may also be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets of their biological sex, that in our view certainly does impact on their rights under section 7. 798. Were the claimant’s contention to be correct that would have the effect of materially reducing the extent to which that protected characteristic could be relied on by trans persons, to their disadvantage. What was desired by the trans person when living their life may not be permitted in a large number of practical instances, and would not have been consistent with the view expressed by Lady Hale in Work and Pensions, and the line of authority in relation to human rights. Such a construction in our view would also not be consistent with the interpretation of the Equal Treatment Directive from the CJEU and its predecessor as referred to above, which remains as assimilated law, and would not be consistent with a purposive interpretation still required. The development of the law in relation to what is now the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is set out above. At the very least we would have expected these considerations to have been addressed speci…
December 8, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
Some robust criticism is made of the way in which Naomi Cunningham conducted herself. Query whether this is going to come before her professional regulator.
There were some rather unusual questions asked in cross examination, for example Ms Cunningham asked a question seeking to compare the second respondent to the torturer in the novel 1984, to which objection was taken and after the lunch adjournment but before a decision on that was made it was withdrawn. It ought not to have been asked, but does indicate the extent to which the second respondent’s position was challenged in cross examination.
December 8, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
This is the second decision - both first instance - since the appalling For (Some) Women Scotland decision to find that there is no trans bathroom ban. www.gov.uk/employment-t...
B M Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd: 8001497/2024
Employment Tribunal decision.
www.gov.uk
December 8, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Reposted by Dewie
goodlawproject.org
Decision in the Sandie Peggie case.

She was not directly or indirectly discriminated against, her claim of victimisation fails entirely, her claim of harassment fails largely and her claim against Beth Upton fails entirely. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sa...
Sandie Peggie -v- Fife Health Board and another (judgment and summary) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Case number: 4104864/2024 Employment Tribunal, Scotland 8 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge A KempTribunal Member L BrownTribunal Member C Russell Between: Mrs Sandie Peggie -v- Fife Health Board...
www.judiciary.uk
December 8, 2025 at 1:33 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
December 8, 2025 at 9:52 PM
Reposted by Dewie
judgedewie.bsky.social
The tribunal who ruled on the transphobic nurse have stated unequivocally that trans women pose no more risk to cis women than other cis women.

AS ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY LOOKS AT ALL THE AVAILABLE STATS WOULD KNOW.
December 8, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Reposted by Dewie
motoridersd.pug.ninja
In S17 of #Taskmaster, Nick Mohammed dressed as a vampire for his tasks. The production scrubbed all his reflections when he's dressed like this, but the only way I knew is because someone told me about it. It's subtle and very cool.
Screen grab of Taskmaster where Nick Mohammed is walking towards Alex Horne. Nick is dressed like Dracula. Alex is standing next to a wooden wall with yellow gloves sticking out. There's a big puddle of water in the frame, and we can see Alex's reflection but NOT Nick's, because Vampires don't have reflections.
December 6, 2025 at 5:03 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Shameful BBC reporting. Partial victory? Majority of her claims dismissed. Basis of her original complaint to the trust: unfounded and bigoted.

The decision was that she was given pushback for her bigotry that was too harsh in the circumstances.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
Partial victory for nurse in NHS trans changing room row
A tribunal said NHS Fife harassed Sandie Peggie but dismissed other claims she made against the health board and a transgender doctor.
www.bbc.co.uk
December 8, 2025 at 6:38 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
The tribunal who ruled on the transphobic nurse have stated unequivocally that trans women pose no more risk to cis women than other cis women.

AS ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY LOOKS AT ALL THE AVAILABLE STATS WOULD KNOW.
December 8, 2025 at 5:22 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
He's also an absolute dipshit for choosing to have a Crown Court trial. His barrister will have cost an absolute fortune and the prosecution costs will be enormous. If he wasn't a dick he'd have pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and got a small fine.
December 8, 2025 at 10:09 AM
judgedewie.bsky.social
I love Gojira but boy oh boy does Joe need to stop that craaaaazy combover. It's expertly done but at outdoor shows the wind is starting to show it up
December 7, 2025 at 6:50 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Ok that's funny but I don't really think it's fair to compare such a grotesque, evil goon with a fine actor like Reece Shearsmith.
whiterhinotea.bsky.social Chrïs @whiterhinotea.bsky.social · 1d
“This is a local society for local people. There’s nothing for you here.”
Edward Tattsyrup Keir Starmer
December 7, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Reposted by Dewie
whiterhinotea.bsky.social
“This is a local society for local people. There’s nothing for you here.”
Edward Tattsyrup Keir Starmer
December 7, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Reposted by Dewie
alexpaknadel.bsky.social
Yes, because there's a total moral equivalence between committing crimes and claiming benefits.
Fuck you. Ghouls.
December 7, 2025 at 2:25 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Check out the brilliant @5teviem.bsky.social on Instagram for all the very funny stuff she does but also to share this new fund designed to support up and coming acts:

www.instagram.com/p/DR9aDhdCMI...
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
December 7, 2025 at 2:43 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Another day. Another episode of #NotATransWoman #NotARefugee #NotADragQueen

I'm starting to think that maybe it's cis white men that are the biggest problem but the world is run by cis white men so they deflect attention from how dangerous they are by perpetuating hate speech against minorities 👀
keneakers.bsky.social Kenny Akers @keneakers.bsky.social · Oct 18
Kevin Curtis Jones, 33, formerly the lead pastor at Summit Church in Elkins, West Virginia, has been arrested on felony charges. Authorities say he solicited a minor online and faces an additional charge for possessing and displaying sexually explicit material involving a minor.
December 7, 2025 at 12:13 PM