Glad to say none of those "artists" exist in my music collection.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Haech? That'll be the Scottish spelling for "aitch".
It later says glass panel of their office.
I keep swinging between laughing at the ridiculousness of this woman’s behaviour and being absolutely infuriated by the pandering by both her employer and also the tribunal.
The judges included this:
We live in a binary society and the use of the pronouns they/them is unfamiliar territory for many of us. At times in this Tribunal, both counsel and the Judge have failed to use the claimant's preferred pronoun. On each occasion the person involved apologised. The claimant says they did not take offence.
and whilst they critised her approach, they think she should be taking the opportunity to “influence and educate” others
The claimant's approach: In considering the environment which the claimant says has been created by the respondents' conduct, we consider that it is reasonable to look at how the claimant has contributed to it. Although the claimant says that it was not up to them to, for example, tell someone their pronouns, that takes away their opportunity to influence the environment and educate colleagues as to the environment they seek to create - particularly where the social norms are binary, and there are such a small number of non binary people in the organisation. The claimant approach has, as indicated by one of the witnesses, been unforgiving.
I have nerded out on the judgement, apologies…
First off, I am staggered by this, given the absolutely flimsiness of the complaint: “An agreed hearing bundle consisting of 747 pages was provided”. What a massive waste of resource and time! And our tax money.
After a cursory read of the judgement, it all starts to become clear that this is obviously a high conflict individual, who saw her work as less a service she provided than an opportunity for interpersonal conflict and an ideological campaign. They’ve clearly struggled to get a hand‘s turn of work out of her.
Started work there 5 November 2021.
Requested system name change to reflect her new name on 17th January 2022. Chased up in February.
“[The IT reboot to implement name change] was put on hold, as on 2 April 2022 the claimant was signed off as unable to work by reason of “stress and Covid”. The stress apparently being that the IT systems hadn’t caught up with the name change and she’d been deadnamed. Four months into her employment, two and a half months after the adoption of the new name.
Despite her incapacity she did, however, have the moral fortitude and energy to raise a complaint on the 5th of April.
Subsequent to this howling injustice, the IT manager issued a fulsome apology for all of the stress caused and fixed the issues but the claimant rejected this as being insufficient redress for the grevious hurt feelings and dysmorphia.
Following ANOTHER grovelling apology from IT, the claimant returned to work on 30 August 2022, but continued to have other periods of absence between August 2022 and October 2023. Second grievance was raised over allegations of harassment that occurred between 4 October 2023 and 31 January 2024. So she was barely back before she was casting around for aggro.
The Helpdesk accidentally misgendered her (didn’t know pronouns), then apologised, but as I’m sure you can guess, that wasn’t remotely good enough. Then the IT system accidentally misgendered her, for which they again grovelled, but guess what? That wasn’t good enough either, even though it turned out to be a problem with the claimants own laptop, eg she misgendered herself (LOL)
Then one of her colleagues possibly quoted a client misgendering the claimant, though the claimant couldn’t specify how, at which point she taped up an anti-bigot shield across their shared office window to keep her “safe”, and, despite the confused but sincerely warm and apologetic email from the colleague for any unintended harm, added this incident to her grievance pile (After sitting on it for a week).
She then raised a grievance against HR because when she requested a copy of her 2021 contract, so from a time pre-dating her name change, it was in her “deadname” , and apparently HR’s inability to time travel and alter the past upset her most grievously.
With regard to the issue around a client requesting a female therapist, and the claimant being distraught about this- the client had subsequently said she didn’t mind, however by that point, everyone was so tit scared of upsetting the claimant, they were reluctant to get into any conversations with her at all, presumably due to the fact that if they erred in any way, they’d find themselves added to the great list o’grievance. ”apprehensions and anxieties existed in the working relationship between the administration team and the claimant and that had led to a breakdown in effective interaction and communication”
If you find all of this laughable, take comfort from the fact that Employment Judge Benson agrees, and a legal smack down ensues.
“[reassigning the claimants sex] requires a from and a to. As sex is binary, that process has to be with the intention of changing from one sex to the other. In our view it is not sufficient for the claimant to be moving from away from the female sex, to qualify for the protection within section 7, they need to have the purpose of reassigning their sex to that of the opposite sex.
98. On our reading of section 7 Equality Act 2010 in light of the clear direction from the Supreme Court that sex is biological sex and as such is binary, the journey can only be from one sex to the other”
Non binary isnt a legal category capable of being protected, basically.
“The claimant’s approach: In considering the environment which the claimant says has been created by the respondents’ conduct, we consider that it is reasonable to look at how the claimant has contributed to it. Although the claimant says that it was not up to them to, for example, tell someone their pronouns, that takes away their opportunity to influence the environment and educate colleagues as to the environment they seek to create – particularly where the social norms are binary, and there are such a small number of non binary people in the organisation. The claimant approach has, as indicated by one of the witnesses, been unforgiving”
In short: vexatious employee accidentally clarifies that non binary isnt capable of being taken legally seriously. Thanks, “Haech”!
First off, I am staggered by this, given the absolutely flimsiness of the complaint: “An agreed hearing bundle consisting of 747 pages was provided”. What a massive waste of resource and time! And our tax money.
After a cursory read of the judgement, it all starts to become clear that this is obviously a high conflict individual, who saw her work as less a service she provided than an opportunity for interpersonal conflict and an ideological campaign. They’ve clearly struggled to get a hand‘s turn of work out of her.
Started work there 5 November 2021.
Requested system name change to reflect her new name on 17th January 2022. Chased up in February.
“[The IT reboot to implement name change] was put on hold, as on 2 April 2022 the claimant was signed off as unable to work by reason of “stress and Covid”. The stress apparently being that the IT systems hadn’t caught up with the name change and she’d been deadnamed. Four months into her employment, two and a half months after the adoption of the new name.
Despite her incapacity she did, however, have the moral fortitude and energy to raise a complaint on the 5th of April.
Subsequent to this howling injustice, the IT manager issued a fulsome apology for all of the stress caused and fixed the issues but the claimant rejected this as being insufficient redress for the grevious hurt feelings and dysmorphia.
Following ANOTHER grovelling apology from IT, the claimant returned to work on 30 August 2022, but continued to have other periods of absence between August 2022 and October 2023. Second grievance was raised over allegations of harassment that occurred between 4 October 2023 and 31 January 2024. So she was barely back before she was casting around for aggro.
The Helpdesk accidentally misgendered her (didn’t know pronouns), then apologised, but as I’m sure you can guess, that wasn’t remotely good enough. Then the IT system accidentally misgendered her, for which they again grovelled, but guess what? That wasn’t good enough either, even though it turned out to be a problem with the claimants own laptop, eg she misgendered herself (LOL)
Then one of her colleagues possibly quoted a client misgendering the claimant, though the claimant couldn’t specify how, at which point she taped up an anti-bigot shield across their shared office window to keep her “safe”, and, despite the confused but sincerely warm and apologetic email from the colleague for any unintended harm, added this incident to her grievance pile (After sitting on it for a week).
She then raised a grievance against HR because when she requested a copy of her 2021 contract, so from a time pre-dating her name change, it was in her “deadname” , and apparently HR’s inability to time travel and alter the past upset her most grievously.
With regard to the issue around a client requesting a female therapist, and the claimant being distraught about this- the client had subsequently said she didn’t mind, however by that point, everyone was so tit scared of upsetting the claimant, they were reluctant to get into any conversations with her at all, presumably due to the fact that if they erred in any way, they’d find themselves added to the great list o’grievance. ”apprehensions and anxieties existed in the working relationship between the administration team and the claimant and that had led to a breakdown in effective interaction and communication”
If you find all of this laughable, take comfort from the fact that Employment Judge Benson agrees, and a legal smack down ensues.
“[reassigning the claimants sex] requires a from and a to. As sex is binary, that process has to be with the intention of changing from one sex to the other. In our view it is not sufficient for the claimant to be moving from away from the female sex, to qualify for the protection within section 7, they need to have the purpose of reassigning their sex to that of the opposite sex.
98. On our reading of section 7 Equality Act 2010 in light of the clear direction from the Supreme Court that sex is biological sex and as such is binary, the journey can only be from one sex to the other”
Non binary isnt a legal category capable of being protected, basically.
“The claimant’s approach: In considering the environment which the claimant says has been created by the respondents’ conduct, we consider that it is reasonable to look at how the claimant has contributed to it. Although the claimant says that it was not up to them to, for example, tell someone their pronouns, that takes away their opportunity to influence the environment and educate colleagues as to the environment they seek to create – particularly where the social norms are binary, and there are such a small number of non binary people in the organisation. The claimant approach has, as indicated by one of the witnesses, been unforgiving”
In short: vexatious employee accidentally clarifies that non binary isnt capable of being taken legally seriously. Thanks, “Haech”!
Oh but the judges made this the final paragraph which is a bit too sympathetic for my liking but it fits with all the rest of the pandering that has gone on here.
What a bleeping nightmare of a colleague. And then she dares complain someone ignored her? What does she expect when they are probably living in fear of having a complaint made about them the minute they open their mouths and make a mistake (and it was found the colleague didn’t ignore her anyway!)
Educate????
We don't need bloody educating. We shouldn't have to follow their deluded thinking.
In another of the claims, she called the IT helpdesk and the person who took the call and raised a ticket used 'she/her' pronouns, as you would when a woman calls - the IT helpdesk person was accused of misgendering - this is nothing but bullying of a junior staff member.This woman’s employer and colleagues absolutely bent over backwards to appease her. I’m still reading but that might be why she lost her case - because they apologised profusely and made changes to suit her. Including ensuring members of the team undertake ‘rainbow pledge’ training
Even going to the flu clinic and getting ‘misgendered’ by a nurse she couldn’t even say which one it was, turned into a major deal leaving two poor nurses apologising profusely. It feels like coercive control to behave this way and complain about your colleagues every time they make a simple ‘mistake’ (because every single one of them has bent over backwards to apologise and say it wasn’t intentional, and change their working practice)
That the misgendering was not intentional and that both nurses acknowledged the distress caused and had both offered to make a full apology.
The Tribunal heard from Ms Carrington and read the statement from Ms Stein. [these are the two nurses]
It is clear that both were genuinely concerned at any offence caused to the claimant and as a result of having this issue drawn to their attention and the recommendations made by Ms De Zwaan, have changed their own practices to check pronouns as routine.
There's a fun story in the Daily Mail! She even applied for anonymity and was refused!
Oh, I don’t know, I do think she has an educational function in that she’s educated people to be extremely cautious in the presence of pronouns and what that might tell you about the work ethic of the pronoun bearer…
she’s a living illustration of a bleeping atrocious employee and hopefully HR departments are paying close attention to the degree to which they have to pander to these cranks (or not).
Operation "Let Them Speak" triumphs yet again.
I love you, Employment Judge Benson.
I love you with all of my cold, hard, cynical, septuagenarian heart. It may even be warming up a little bit.
Thank you @FourSeasonSoupObsessive for this Idiot's Guide. It was most helpful.
She doesnt think its her job to tell people her preferred pronouns but runs to HR when referred to by other pronouns..Did I read that right?
We know shes probably got blue hair. And looks and sounds female.There's a fun story in the Daily Mail! She even applied for anonymity and was refused!
What a bleeping nightmare of a colleague. And then she dares complain someone ignored her? What does she expect when they are probably living in fear of having a complaint made about them the minute they open their mouths and make a mistake (and it was found the colleague didn’t ignore her anyway!)
Plus - it's not up to "Haetch" to tell people their pronouns. It seems they have to intuit them. How? Does she have blue hair and a septum piercing? Is she covered with rainbows? An I
Jolyon Maugham tee-shirt? Or do they just sniff the air for the acrid stench of 
?Great minds . . .
When I was going through puberty 30 years ago I was a huge tomboy and hated growing breasts and starting my period. I wore huge clothes to hide my shape (I have an hourglass) and would wear my hair either long to cover my face or in a crappy ponytail. If I had the people around me like some kids do now convincing me I was trans then I would have believed them. I clearly wasn’t, I just wasn’t comfortable in a huge change.
Yes, yes you did. Extraordinary, isn’t it?
And also yes, from my extensive experience with gender confused people, of whom I have a disproportionate amount in my life, they very much do expect a septum piercing and a jaunty hair colour to clue you in to the fact that they are Not Like Other Girls/Boys.
...and wears dungarees.
Ridiculous farce of a trial.
www.bbc.co.uk
He’s a dangerous predatory man. Lock him and his pronouns up.
Woman's life 'destroyed' by Newcastle childhood molester
Natalie Wolf, who was then called Ryan Haley, is jailed for sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl.
www.bbc.co.uk
He’s a dangerous predatory man. Lock him and his pronouns up.
How the duck can a wrongly addressed letter cause you "distress"?
I cannot fathom how this head managed to run the gauntlet of getting out of their front door & getting into work in the first place.
- Status