At the risk of sounding like Joloyon Maugham, this defeat contains a significant victory; the claim itself forced change upon the Met to recognise its previously 'unbalanced' approach to GC views.
Seems to me the Met were a little lucky to not be held responsible for unleashing Eva Echo on the gender critical. As you say, hopefully this does not affect Linzi's case.
I'm struggling to understand how the Tribunal reached this decision...
“The Tribunal were critical of Newman’s team for attempting to widen the issues beyond that with which the Tribunal needed to engage” – but the Tribunal “noted that the Met’s thinking about gender critical views had ‘evolved’” – so the Tribunal considered not just the TDOV and the Met’s handling of her complaint, but has itself widened its consideration of the scope of the Met’s actions to those which occurred AFTER the issues Newman was bringing to the Tribunal? As you say elsewhere, the environment THEN was systematically discriminating against gender critical beliefs. Surely, the fact that the Met has changed it’s approach to outside speakers, and has finally recognised the Police SEEN network, is indication that the Met itself thinks it got it wrong, ie it DID discriminate against Newman, especially in it’s handling of her complaint?
I really hope you are right about the effect (or lack thereof) of this on the judicial review against Northumbria Police, but this judgment seems to be so illogical I’m finding it really hard to be optomistic.
It is difficult to follow. Why did the Met change? Only - because Tribunal notes - Newman launched action. So what does this say about the environment prior to that change? The only logical conclusion is that the Met was institutionally biased agaisnt GC views and could see no danger at all in allowing men like Echo to speak. Tribunal hopelessly wet about what he said. Even if allowed by article 10 that isn’t an answer to police failing to meet their Equality Act obligations.
So, are there good grounds for appeal? Just the Article 10 issues you discussed? Or could it be argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing evidence of the hostile environment AT THE TIME of the talk & Newman's complaint, she wasn't attempting to widen the issues beyond which the Tribunal needed to engage, she was presenting the very evidence with which the Tribunal needed to engage?
Sorry I thought I had just made exactly that point? Tribunal failed to deal with situation at relevant time. Issue is more is it fair to expect an individual to have to take this burden of appeal - the Met have apparently made genuine changes as a result of her actions. But the art 10 point is serious and has implications for many other cases.
My apologies, have re-read your 1st reply, you did make that point, I didn't grasp it. Nor did I fully grasp the burden issue of an appeal on the Article 10 question. Will stop now with the stupid questions.
I refer to Jolyon's wins as trans wins: wins that are not wins, like trans women are not women.
Thanks for this, Sarah.
Seems to me the Met were a little lucky to not be held responsible for unleashing Eva Echo on the gender critical. As you say, hopefully this does not affect Linzi's case.
Have cross posted - you are featuring a lot recently 😊https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/beautiful-thing-sweet-dreams
Dusty
I'm struggling to understand how the Tribunal reached this decision...
“The Tribunal were critical of Newman’s team for attempting to widen the issues beyond that with which the Tribunal needed to engage” – but the Tribunal “noted that the Met’s thinking about gender critical views had ‘evolved’” – so the Tribunal considered not just the TDOV and the Met’s handling of her complaint, but has itself widened its consideration of the scope of the Met’s actions to those which occurred AFTER the issues Newman was bringing to the Tribunal? As you say elsewhere, the environment THEN was systematically discriminating against gender critical beliefs. Surely, the fact that the Met has changed it’s approach to outside speakers, and has finally recognised the Police SEEN network, is indication that the Met itself thinks it got it wrong, ie it DID discriminate against Newman, especially in it’s handling of her complaint?
I really hope you are right about the effect (or lack thereof) of this on the judicial review against Northumbria Police, but this judgment seems to be so illogical I’m finding it really hard to be optomistic.
It is difficult to follow. Why did the Met change? Only - because Tribunal notes - Newman launched action. So what does this say about the environment prior to that change? The only logical conclusion is that the Met was institutionally biased agaisnt GC views and could see no danger at all in allowing men like Echo to speak. Tribunal hopelessly wet about what he said. Even if allowed by article 10 that isn’t an answer to police failing to meet their Equality Act obligations.
Oh. Not as encouraging a reply as I hoped for!
So, are there good grounds for appeal? Just the Article 10 issues you discussed? Or could it be argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing evidence of the hostile environment AT THE TIME of the talk & Newman's complaint, she wasn't attempting to widen the issues beyond which the Tribunal needed to engage, she was presenting the very evidence with which the Tribunal needed to engage?
Sorry I thought I had just made exactly that point? Tribunal failed to deal with situation at relevant time. Issue is more is it fair to expect an individual to have to take this burden of appeal - the Met have apparently made genuine changes as a result of her actions. But the art 10 point is serious and has implications for many other cases.
My apologies, have re-read your 1st reply, you did make that point, I didn't grasp it. Nor did I fully grasp the burden issue of an appeal on the Article 10 question. Will stop now with the stupid questions.
Thank you for your explanations!
Please ask, it doesn’t mean you don’t grasp it, it may mean my explanation has to be clearer.