Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

pip

@gooeytime.bsky.social

110 followers 160 following 330 posts

writer, artist, musician | formerly: PESTERQUEST, Our Life: Beginnings & Always | them

Posts Replies Media Videos

pip

@gooeytime.bsky.social

the ruling also makes reference to some plainly disgusting behaviour on the part of the claimant's representation. they were deliberately cruel and malicious towards Dr Upton during cross examination and presentation of evidence, so much that some of their questioning had to be withdrawn

700. 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novel 1984, to which objection was taken and after the lunch adjournment but before a decision on that was made it was withdrawn.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 7:41 PM

pip

@gooeytime.bsky.social

idk man i don't know how you can read this stuff without it breaking your great a little. this poor woman did absolutely everything right in the circumstances. she was open, attempted to be compassionate, tried to de-escalate and to appeal to the appropriate authority. and still, it's not enough!

141. The claimant told the second respondent that she did not think that it was appropriate for the second respondent to use the changing room. She explained that she felt intimidated because of the presence of the second respondent, who she said was a man, in the women's changing room, that the second respondent could not be in it, it was wrong, and lots of others felt that way. The second respondent said that the second respondent was very sorry she felt intimidated but had been told that the second respondent could change there. The claimant said that she had no problem with the second respondent, that she understood that the second respondent was going through some process but the second respondent was not a woman and could not be in there.

142. At some point during the conversation [precisely when was not identified in the evidence] the second respondent moved from the area by the sink to collect the second respondent's bag. The second respondent walked around the claimant to do so, after which the second respondent was closer to the door than the claimant was.

143. The claimant asked the second respondent "what are your chromosomes?" The second respondent did not answer that question.
The second respondent repeated being sorry that the claimant was intimidated but that the second respondent was a woman and allowed to use the space, and said that if the claimant had concerns could she raise them formally as the second respondent did not think that this was the most appropriate time, place or process for the conversation. The claimant repeated that she was intimidated, that lots of people were talking about it and are all intimidated by the second respondent. The claimant repeated that the second respondent was not a woman. The second respondent stated that no one else had raised a concern but that if they did have a (continued in next image)

concern the second respondent hoped that they would raise them through the proper channels or come to the second respondent to raise them.

144. The claimant said that maybe she was the only one who felt able to, that she would not change in front of men because she had a bad history with men. The second respondent started to say that the second respondent understood and sympathised. The claimant interrupted the second respondent and said that the second respondent did not understand or sympathise enough or would not be changing in the changing room. The second respondent repeated that the second respondent was sorry the claimant was intimidated but did not wish to have the conversation there, did not think that that was appropriate, and that if she or others had concerns to raise them formally. The second respondent said that there were protocols to follow if the claimant was unhappy. The second respondent said that the second respondent was not sure what could be done to resolve the matter, repeating the comment about being sorry the claimant felt intimidated.

145. The claimant said that the second respondent could not change in the changing room and that it would help if the second respondent did not do so. She said that women have a right to feel safe and that it was just like that person in the prisons. That was a reference to the case of Isla Bryson/Adam Graham.

146. The second respondent repeated that this was an inappropriate time, that the second respondent did not wish to talk to her about it now, and did not think that a discussion between two people at the end of a long shift was productive or the best way to resolve matters. The claimant repeated her concerns and the second respondent repeated the comments about appropriate channels and having a formal conversation. The claimant said that she would raise the matter and the second respondent then left the changing room. The claimant remained in the changing room.

December 8, 2025 at 7:29 PM

pip

@gooeytime.bsky.social

it never ends!!!! i collected this much about three times just this past week. also onion bucket

a garden bucket full of homegrown red and brown onions

July 30, 2025 at 5:49 PM

pip

@gooeytime.bsky.social

13/07/25

July 14, 2025 at 11:50 AM

pip

@gooeytime.bsky.social

was googling a quote to make sure i had the wording right and was smacked in the face by the sheer inescapable force of human stupidity. we need to end it all