Almut Gadow

1/ @runthinkwrite @ProfAliceS @AFAF_freespeech While we are on the subject of REF appointing panel members who have a track record in shutting down academic freedom and intolerance of diversity of viewpoint..... I give you the case of Sarah Vicary also from The Open University

This is Judge Amjad Nawaz. He allowed a 70-year-old muslim to walk free after sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. In 2016, he did the same with a similar case involving a muslim. Yet, in the same year, he gave a white man 8yrs for rape. #twotierjustice 🇬🇧

Recently, the Women’s Institute (WI) declined support from the @GoodLawProject to maintain its trans-inclusive stance - in my opinion, (I am not a lawyer) this was a huge mistake. As a result, the National Federation has exposed itself (and its local branches) to significant litigation risk. Here is why: For more than 40 years, the WI has served as a “trusted place” for all women, including trans women. However, the WI national leadership announced that, effective 1 April 2026, formal membership for trans women will cease. Gender-critical "lawfare" has a lot to answer for! The WI’s legal strategy hinges on an Equality Act exception that is narrower than they appear to understand. While Section 101(1) and Schedule 16(1) permit associations to limit new admissions to those sharing a protected characteristic, Section 101(2) is unequivocal: an association cannot discriminate against an existing member by depriving them of membership. The FWS affected the Equality Act-protected characteristic of "sex" but NOT the membership rules of private organisations. Once a woman is admitted, the law protects her from expulsion on the basis of a protected characteristic such as gender reassignment. Singling out trans women as a group for removal is a case of direct discrimination. But that's not all. The National Federation appears to be exceeding its internal authority. Under the WI’s standard constitution, only local committees or regional Federation Boards - not the national body - have the power to terminate an individual’s membership. Furthermore, the WI constitution (Clauses 13 and 14) mandates that membership can only be terminated if the committee acts in “good faith” and provides the member with at least 28 days’ notice and the right to make verbal or written representations. A blanket, centrally mandated cutoff on 1 April 2026 ignores these mandatory procedures, rendering the termination procedurally improper and a breach of contract. And what about a GRC? For WI members who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), WI's legal risk is even greater. These women are legally recognised as women “for all purposes,” and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 imposes strict confidentiality obligations on voluntary organisations regarding their status. Conclusion IMO, by pressing ahead, the WI is putting itself in the firing line for claims of direct discrimination and unlawful termination. The fact that the WI requires members to renew their membership every year won't save them. The contract started on the first day trans women became members - perhaps 40 years ago. Branches and members should be aware that when an association expels members in breach of its own rules, a court may well declare those actions unlawful. The WI can be sued, and there ARE clear legal remedies available to those affected. Hopefully, the gender-criticals will contribute to any legal costs the WI endure. But I wouldn't bet on it. @speakoutsister @stephenwhittle @JolyonMaugham

On the @latsot arrest. It was indeed the little pudding boy Tarquin who called @DurhamPolice . He has been harassing Latsot and his partner for months and Durham might be the last force to realise he's a retarded sadist.

Our statement on the use of the term 'Ancient Palestine' in teaching materials: open.ac.uk/blogs/news/unc…

@Femi_FPolitics You have until 6pm tonight to issue me with a public apology, on two grounds. No 1: constantly referring to me as a terrorist. I have never been accused or charged of terrorism. No2: filming a lone woman on a train, minding their own business and then posting it all over the internet. Causing women to feel uncomfortable in a public space is never ok. Regardless of how you feel about me and what I said, it does not condone your behaviour since. Had you come up to me and introduce yourself we could have had an adult conversation. If you do not issue me with a public apology and promise never to do this to another woman again. I will proceed with both civil and criminal proceedings against you. I’m well aware you have no money. But sometimes it’s about more than money. People have been very supportive and I will take them up on their offer of crowd funding to assist me with my legal costs. All the best Lucy