Plaid Appeal results
Decided
that saying “no woman has a penis” is not discriminatory.
Such statements called ‘transphobic’
by trans-activists, supported by past leader Leanne Wood, are ‘unsavory’ but
not discriminatory, decided the Appeal Panel, overturning the previous
decision.
Appeal
panel decided - Not Guilty of ‘discrimination’ against any trans people
The decision finding me guilty of
discrimination against the trans gender community by the Plaid Cymru
disciplinary panel, following complaints by Mabli Jones an employee of Plaid Cymru at the time, was over thrown.
Instead the appeal panel have accused
me, without specifics, that I expressed my opinions on trans-gender people in
an “extremely crude and insulting way”.
In the evidence, my only tweets that
could be argued to relate to “trans-gender people” were
Women = adult
human female
No woman has a penis
A transwoman is a man (this was a
re-tweet)
Only a trans-extremist could make out
that any of these is “crude and insulting”. The Panel evidently confused my strong
statements on two individuals who are not ‘trans-gender’.
Guilty of transgressing rule 3.1 iii -
actions or statements potentially damaging to the party
Not Guilty of transgressing rule 3.1 ix
They have thrown in trivial vexatious complaints …
A single tweet to Mari Arthur was
considered conduct which included the ‘use or threat of violence bullying or harassment
‘
A single tweet to David Wilton in 2016
deleted after he raised it as issue with me, brought to a tribunal in Jan 2017 to be resolved by mediation which
he refused Wilton wrote “I was required
to attend some sort of mediation ..with the aim of ‘Cant we all get along’ I
never agreed to this fluffy
‘Let all just get along’ Same complaint sent back to 2019 Complaint
panel supported by
Plaid Chief Executive Gareth Clubb, his
close friend and neighbour, who then find me found me guilty of ‘conduct which
included the ‘use or threat of violence bullying or harassment’‘
·
Wilton
is a Director of TPAS
CYMRU consultancy on tenant engagement And Plaid Cymru election candidate and
campaigner Complaint 2016 tribunal decision was mediation.
I
declined to attend the Panel hearing because of the chair’s bias and
pre-decisions, including her refusal to supply the record of the original
Hearing Panel.
The Panel was
supposed to consider my objections to Fflur Jones serving on the Panel and as
its chair. She had taken clearly biased
decisions pre-hearing, that the ‘Minutes’ of the Panel Hearing were the report of ‘deliberations and
decisions’ required under Rule. She had refused on various excuses to disclose
the actual (lengthy) record of the Hearing.
Concealing relevant documents from the Panel was contrary to Rule. That FJ had been involved in decisions of the
Hearing Panel excluded her under Rule… from
acting on the Appeal Panel .
The Appeal
Panel ignored my first objection and misrepresented my second by saying she was not involved in
its deliberations. I had documented that FJ was involved in decisions of the Hearing
Panel. The wording of the Rule…
The Appeal
Panel has failed to judge on FJ’s claim that the Minutes of the Hearing Panel
included its deliberations. They did not
obtain the contemporaneous report of the Hearing Panel by Emily Edwards, to
compare the two. I claimed the Minutes did not properly report but misrepresented
the deliberations which Rule… requires to be made. The Appeal Panel failed to arbitrate on FJ’s
refusal to disclose it to me. In failing,
they effectively backed FJ’s bias against me.
Discriminatory decisions by the
Hearing Panel – my
specific objection over my PTSD disability based on the Equality Act and the
Panel’s refusal to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ is not addressed – no
‘deliberations’ on this are recorded. FJ supported their decision, so backed their
discriminatory action. That she reversed
the refusal for the Appeal Hearing – allowing me to use an advocate there -
just emphasises that the Hearing Panel’s decision was discriminatory, therefore
unfair and breached the Rule 9.3….
Re-judging
the complaints against me
The Panel proceeded to review and re-judge
the complaints against me, contrary to Rule that an Appeal will not be a re-hearing . My appeal was based on unfairness in the
process, which was brushed aside.
#
unfair under the Equality Act to refuse me to use an advocate to allow for my
PTSD/anxiety
#
unfair process not to make the same documents (unredacted tweets) available to
me.
I refuted Plaid’s GPDR excuse for the
latter. Saying I could have found the
unredacted tweets directly is untrue (in part) and fails to meet the ‘unfair’
point even if one judges it’s not ‘serious’ for my case. Context is everything.
Absurd claim of bringing the Party
into disrepute, breaching Rule
The Panel’s assertion that the 3
quoted statements “would potentially bring the party to (sic!) disrepute” is
absurd. If said to apply to the tweets
on the individuals, which the Panel says are “unsavoury”, they had to consider
my evidence on similar or stronger statements in tweets by Leanne Woods,
including abuse to me personally, and the evidence of Plaid staff member Mabli
Jones calling me ‘transphobic’. These
merit the description “confrontational and insulting”, not just “unsavoury” and
thereby breach the Party’s Rule 1.1 on respecting other Plaid members.
Dismissal of complaint of
discrimination against ‘trans-gender’ people
The Appeal
Panel first upheld the complaint of discrimination under Rule 3.1ix (with no
‘deliberations’, it appears (p.2)) made by staff member Mabli Jones. However, it
then judged to the contrary, that my appeal on this issue “should be
upheld” ( p.3). It says my tweets “were
not necessarily discriminatory” without explaining its deliberations. It should have referred to my evidence citing
the Supreme Court decision on the ‘gay cake’ case and the need to balance the
ECHR right to free expression. It should
also have referred to my point that “trans-gender people” are neither a legal
category nor a category under Rule 3.1ix.
Claim my offences were ‘serious’
The Panel upheld the sanction of 12
months exclusion “after much deliberation”, yet there’s no record of their
‘deliberations’ and no indication that
they considered my evidence and arguments on the sanction being “excessive” in
comparison with sanctions on others’ seriously bad conduct.
Conclude:
Leanne’s attempt to ‘stonewall’ Plaid, by outlawing statements hated by trans-activists (eg. ‘a
transwoman is a man’) and labelling them ‘transphobia’ failed, in the sense that
the Appeal Panel could only find them ‘unsavory’ but not “discriminatory”. Mabli Jones, brought into Plaid from
Stonewall by Leanne, was my primary accuser, but quit as Plaid head of staff
last January. But the flimsy case
against me still counts as harassment.
It amounts to discrimination against me as a woman
with a sincerely-held belief, which breaches my Equality Act rights. This is the Maya Forstater case that top legal feminist women are
running.
The case also exposes Plaid’s procedural failures
# their rule saying I could not have an advocate or rep speaking on my
behalf is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010
# they have no procedure for handling challenges against the Panel
(chair) as biased and/or breaching the Rules.
Though the full Committee could take action under Rule 13, the chair and
officers can just collude in blocking reference of the matter to it.
