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
judgedewie.bsky.social
The court ruled that:

She sent racist messages to colleagues.

She lied in her evidence.

She bullied her trans colleague.

Trans women do not present any risk to other women in changing rooms to toilets.

The headlines don't seem to mention those facts.
December 9, 2025 at 12:23 AM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Tickets booked for January. Cannot wait.
December 8, 2025 at 10:41 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Exactly. I'm disgusted that the BBC brand the outcome a "partial victory" for her.

Also glad that it is being reinforced that the SC judgment does not exclude trans women from bathrooms and changing rooms.
December 8, 2025 at 10:16 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
judgedewie.bsky.social
👏
December 8, 2025 at 10:12 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Considering all their racist reporting you'd think they'd employ people who could speak English
December 8, 2025 at 6:45 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
Like pretty much all trans women I don't think any viewer would be able to tell. Despite all the transphobes saying "you can always tell". The fact that it's even an issue saddens me. Always brave of you to reference it and defend all our trans siblings from the awful bigotry out there
December 8, 2025 at 5:24 PM
judgedewie.bsky.social
You watch today as his barrister says how sorry and remorseful he is and then Barton will be on social media by tomorrow saying the Judge was a baddie etc
December 8, 2025 at 10:10 AM
judgedewie.bsky.social
😂When they can do Moto GP then I'll be impressed. I've done Donington and Silverstone on a supersport bike and that's exhausting. The professionals are a whole new level
December 8, 2025 at 1:26 AM