Professor_Bombari_Professor

Last night full council meeting @bristolcouncil bare more grudges than experienced & knowledgeable Supreme Court judges (apologies to #TheSmiths) #bristol #bristolcitycouncil #bristolcity #supremecourtruling #lawbreaker @UKSupremeCourt

@Jebadoo2 Is this Helen Joyce being skin walked? The tone etc is copied.

I’d like to see Counsel’s advice on the chance of success of this action, and donors might want to see that too given the UKSC comprehensively dealt with the GR protected characteristic aspect of the case. This sounds pretty doomed to fail to me.

@sleepy_devo @ShineMo40710472 Why don't you do your own study Dev?

@ShineMo40710472 Nope. If there was a study without problems that legit said that transitioning was bad, i would seriously consider the idea. But these studies are not that.

the problem with this study, like other similar studies, is that the control group is c!s people. they're not comparing people with GD who transition with people with GD who don't transition, to see if things actually get worse specifically as a result of transitioning.

@Tinkerjojo @ThePosieParker I *almost* feel sorry for them.

@ThePosieParker Safe to assume that this is not going to end here?

Seventeen year old at college. One sentence = gross misconduct and a written warning.

@daniellismore You know the time for your bogus 'reports' is over, right?

J. K. Rowling is explicitly named in a red flag warning issued by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. It’s no longer a debate it never was a debate, or about your opinions. This is the result of your opinions. An official Genocide warning to the UK. That is not commentary. It is in the report. The Institute refers to the UK Supreme Court case brought by For Women Scotland and notes that the group is financially backed by Rowling. That case is then placed within a wider analysis of policy, legal change and public narrative affecting transgender and intersex people in the United Kingdom. The report describes these developments as part of a broader process of erasure. It points to the removal of privacy, the creation of rigid legal categories, and the framing of a group as “other” within public life. It situates these actions within patterns the Institute monitors as early warning signs, including what it defines as the denial or prevention of identity. This is not a passing reference. It connects influence, law and outcome. The significance is not that Rowling is the focus of the report. It is that her position is part of the ecosystem the report is analysing. That is where the discussion changes. Because this is no longer just about individual opinion. It is about how ideas move into institutions, how they shape decisions, and how those decisions affect whether people can exist safely and openly. The report does not rely on rhetoric. It relies on pattern recognition. Legal change. Policy direction. Public narrative. Taken together. That is what is being flagged. @Keir_Starmer @wesstreeting @LGBTLabour @UKLabour @labourpress lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alert…

@speakoutsister What I especially love about online lawyers is that they all sound like bad Dickens characters. It's a special joy, a euphoria, if you like.

I think we can agree here. It will be extremely interesting to hear labour argue they've been operating a conference in defiance of the Equality act since 2010. Since i assume that is what they intend to argue.

@BillAckman @X This is riveting. A cancellation parable.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

@Vroniholzmann @DearRebelAda Nobody hates trans people. Calm down.

@DearRebelAda @SabreBab Or maybe they believe that trans women are women? You are so lost in your hate that you believe everybody has to be hateful.

WI Bristol closes down in protest that they can’t admit men in dresses. It began in 1964. A “special meeting” was held, and majority voted to close. Who was there? How many? We should FOI them: I smell a rat. This is TRA modus operandi, dog in the manger attitude.co.uk/news/longwell-…

@sappholives83 The people around him are not in arctic gear.

Someone posted this pic of a participant in the Naked Bike Ride, and I have a question.

@Aurora736835 @DearRebelAda I think someone up-thread identified the publishers as 'Attitude' and that they say dreadful things about women.

@SabreBab @DearRebelAda Is this for the Bristol Group? If so the artical misrepresents the voting decision.

@Andrews1850 @DearRebelAda Google tells me Longwell Green was undergoing transition from a rural village to a residential area. Likely the only transitioning going on in the area at that time.

@DearRebelAda Apparently they've had admitted male members for the last 40yrs so that's 1985, which I find hard to believe as I would hazard a guess there were very few 'trans' people living in Longwell Green then...if any.

@realBenBloch I bet the cops were delighted!

Hilariously, the man was arrested while attending the hearing the court hearing of three others charged with the Golders Green attack.

@Gaynotqueer1 I've practically begged Carla Denyer to talk about safety and services for women &girls in Bristol and all she does is send back long emails about trans ideology. This lot are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

"We need to be having conversations about the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act." Yeah we do, Zack.

@DearRebelAda Trans ideology destroys everything it touches.

@SabreBab Incredible - forced to agree that “transwomen are women” even as they are signing a document stating the law is that they are not. This is real corruption, intending to destroy the organisation.

@BrightBlueFly @stueymaco Ah, now I understand. Transmaidens kicking off. Understood. Thanks.

@SabreBab @stueymaco Have a look on Mumsnet, there's a thread about it (I cannot access the site atm). It's some nonsense about "all" women, IIRC. Very much TWAW. And a lot of members are refusing to sign it, so they have to leave.

Let’s be honest, it’s a safe bet that every member in Bristol was a bloke.

@BrightBlueFly @stueymaco Could you post a link to that statement please? I understand the WI is limiting membership to women only - what else is in the statement?

@stueymaco There's a real story here, Stuart. The WI have come up with a nonsense, ideological statement that all members have to agree with. That's why branches are shutting down - *actual* women are refusing to sign up to it.

@HeidiBachram @Cosmic_924 Mmmm, puts 🇮🇱 avocados on shopping list. Thanks for reminding me skreetcherz! 🥑 🥑 🥑

@Cosmic_924 Avocados.

The pro-Pal boycotters were in Sainsbury’s in Belfast today screeching about Israel AGAIN. They claim to have gone in every day for 3 years. You’d think they’d realise nobody is listening. It’s like watching The Office. Embarrassed for them.

@sexrealistnews @FondOfBeetles Yes. I like this a lot.

#QuoteOfTheWeek @FondOfBeetles ⬇️

If those astronauts go around the moon and can find no trace of Lisa Stansfield’s baby then I really think that’s it, we’ve exhausted all lines of enquiry

@JChimirie66677 @loveradio3 Why didn't you mention it then?

You're absolutely right Edwina, and it's there in black and white in the Prescott memo. The BBC's LGBT news desk was declining to cover stories that raised awkward questions about trans ideology, and the whole organisation was accused of being captured by a small group pushing the Stonewall line. Davie left the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme in 2021, but quietly replaced it with one run by a declared Stonewall Ambassador. Same ideology, different letterhead. When he resigned, SEEN in Journalism said it plainly: the Trump-Panorama scandal was obscuring an equally urgent need for reform on sex and gender. Davie failed on both.

On his last day as Director-General of the BBC, Tim Davie gathered his staff for a farewell address. He had been in the role for five years. He had overseen the posthumous exposure of Jimmy Savile's crimes, the conviction of Huw Edwards for making indecent images of children, the departure of Gregg Wallace in disgrace, the Panorama scandal that doctored a presidential speech and triggered a billion-dollar lawsuit, and now the sacking of Scott Mills following allegations involving a minor. He looked back across this record and told his staff that the BBC's culture "will never be fully fixed." He meant it as wisdom. It reads as confession. That single sentence is the most honest thing Tim Davie said in five years. Not because the BBC is irredeemable, though the evidence strains optimism, but because it tells you everything about how he understood his own role. He did not say "I failed to fix it." He said it cannot be fixed. The distinction matters. One is accountability. The other is absolution. Davie chose absolution on his way out the door, and nobody in that all-staff call appears to have challenged him on it. Consider what he was actually defending. The BBC knew in 2017 that Scott Mills was the subject of a police investigation into allegations of sexual offences. It knew. The investigation did not result in charges, but the BBC's own reporting now confirms that the corporation was aware of the allegation at the time. What did it do? It promoted him. Seven years after that investigation, with the allegation on file, the BBC handed Mills the most prestigious slot in BBC Radio, the Radio 2 Breakfast Show, the crown jewels of the network. It acted only when new information emerged that the alleged victim was under sixteen. One is entitled to ask what the BBC imagined "police investigation into allegations of sexual offences" meant when it first learned of it in 2017, and who signed off on his subsequent advancement. This is the institution Davie spent five years leading. And his answer to it, on his final day, was a shrug dressed as philosophy. His record on editorial integrity is no more distinguished. When this paper's investigation revealed that Panorama had doctored Trump's January 6th speech, editing out his call for supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" and replacing it with a fabrication broadcast a week before the American presidential election, Davie's response was telling in its tardiness and its smallness. He said nothing of substance until the scandal could no longer be contained. He did not act until two senior executives had resigned and the US president had filed a lawsuit seeking ten billion dollars. The BBC's own standards adviser had raised the alarm internally and been ignored. Davie eventually conceded an "error of judgment." He did not concede his own. Now Huw Edwards, convicted of making Category A indecent images of children, including images of a child aged between seven and nine, is planning a documentary to challenge what he calls "fabricated claims" about his conduct. His publicist describes him sympathetically as a man whose career came crashing down. The BBC machine, even in disgrace, gravitates toward self-exculpation. It learned that from the top. Davie told his staff that people behaving badly would no longer be tolerated. He said this on the day Scott Mills was sacked for conduct the BBC had been aware of for eight years. He said it as the man who looked away from Panorama, who said nothing useful about the Hegseth mistranslation, who collected his salary while the institution rotted around him. He was right that some things cannot be fixed. He was one of them. "[Davie] looked back across this record and told his staff that the BBC's culture "will never be fully fixed." He meant it as wisdom. It reads as confession."