Grev's Avatar

Grev

@circusgrev.bsky.social

Aerialist, walkabout, magician and Body Control Pilates teacher. Artistic director of Badoosh Circus Theatre. www.grevillematthews.co.uk www.grevillematthewspilates.co.uk www.badoosh.co.uk www.youtube.com/user/Gr3v

39 Followers  |  112 Following  |  3 Posts  |  Joined: 17.11.2024
Posts Following

Posts by Grev (@circusgrev.bsky.social)

I've just emailed "Write To Your MP: Make the National Commission on Electoral Reform Real" - Will you support the campaign too? actionstorm.org/petitions/wr... @OpenBritainHQ

25.02.2026 20:02 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

I've just signed "Back the National Commission Amendment" - Will you support the campaign too? actionstorm.org/petitions/nc... @OpenBritainHQ

15.02.2026 15:12 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0
Is our Government Complicit in Genocide? The Genocide Convention imposes obligations on states and individuals not just to punish the crime of genocide but to actively prevent it. Two years into the war in Gaza and over 20 months since th…

1. Many here seem bemused by the anger and disappointment this government attracts. Please bear with me while I try to explain it.
Let’s begin with Gaza. Starmer’s complicity is one of the major reasons so many people are disillusioned.
rethinkingsecurityorguk.wpcomstaging.com/2025/10/07/i...
🧵

10.02.2026 07:31 — 👍 682    🔁 317    💬 46    📌 42
Highlighted paragraph: Evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine 1038. We turn to address the evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine, which the parties had described as “research evidence”. That is not, so far as we are aware, a term of law. Nothing was cited to support the use of that term. It is not skilled evidence as explained below, and the parties did not suggest that either witness was skilled or expert in that sense. It was not necessarily inadmissible, given the terms of Rule 41, and until read and considered the extent to which it might be relevant could not be assessed, but the weight to attach to it was a different consideration

Highlighted paragraph: Evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine 1038. We turn to address the evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine, which the parties had described as “research evidence”. That is not, so far as we are aware, a term of law. Nothing was cited to support the use of that term. It is not skilled evidence as explained below, and the parties did not suggest that either witness was skilled or expert in that sense. It was not necessarily inadmissible, given the terms of Rule 41, and until read and considered the extent to which it might be relevant could not be assessed, but the weight to attach to it was a different consideration

Highlighted sections: 1040. In many respects the evidence in the statements was more in the nature of material for the public debate on wider issues as to what the law should be, and on occasion it appeared to us to be polemic, rather than evidence relevant to the issues at an Employment Tribunal. 1041. Opinion evidence was addressed in Walker and Walker on Evidence, Fifth Edition (“Walker”), which explained the distinction between evidence of fact, and of belief or opinion. Opinion evidence may be led from what Walker describes as an ordinary witness (the classification of witnesses is between ordinary and skilled), and examples of that are given. Ms Forstater 1042. The statement from Ms Forstater was not presented as impartial evidence, but specifically as one given in support of the claimant. It had at paragraph 10 an argument as to facts, of which Ms Forstater said that she was certain. They are however we consider not facts, but expressions of her opinion. The assertion at 10 (b) for example was “Sex is in general readily perceptible and is salient to other people.” That we consider cannot be other than her opinion, for which no support from any document in the Supplementary Bundle appeared to be referred to in her written witness statement. It was contradicted by other evidence, and the terms of a Note issued by EJ Tinnion on 5 January 2025 in relation to the second respondent. It did not appear to be an assertion related to the second respondent in particular, but as a more general proposition. 1043. The assertion at (d) had a further series of propositions which were opinions although presented as facts. If the 1992 Regulations, then as discussed they are not within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the comment appears to be an argument over the policy of the law, or how the law should be interpreted, neither of which are relevant evidence before us. 1044. The sub-paragraphs include, by way of example, (ii) “women are in general more fearful of men than men …

Highlighted sections: 1040. In many respects the evidence in the statements was more in the nature of material for the public debate on wider issues as to what the law should be, and on occasion it appeared to us to be polemic, rather than evidence relevant to the issues at an Employment Tribunal. 1041. Opinion evidence was addressed in Walker and Walker on Evidence, Fifth Edition (“Walker”), which explained the distinction between evidence of fact, and of belief or opinion. Opinion evidence may be led from what Walker describes as an ordinary witness (the classification of witnesses is between ordinary and skilled), and examples of that are given. Ms Forstater 1042. The statement from Ms Forstater was not presented as impartial evidence, but specifically as one given in support of the claimant. It had at paragraph 10 an argument as to facts, of which Ms Forstater said that she was certain. They are however we consider not facts, but expressions of her opinion. The assertion at 10 (b) for example was “Sex is in general readily perceptible and is salient to other people.” That we consider cannot be other than her opinion, for which no support from any document in the Supplementary Bundle appeared to be referred to in her written witness statement. It was contradicted by other evidence, and the terms of a Note issued by EJ Tinnion on 5 January 2025 in relation to the second respondent. It did not appear to be an assertion related to the second respondent in particular, but as a more general proposition. 1043. The assertion at (d) had a further series of propositions which were opinions although presented as facts. If the 1992 Regulations, then as discussed they are not within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the comment appears to be an argument over the policy of the law, or how the law should be interpreted, neither of which are relevant evidence before us. 1044. The sub-paragraphs include, by way of example, (ii) “women are in general more fearful of men than men …

Highlighted sections: That is again an expression of opinion without cross reference to any document in the Supplementary Bundle. Sub-paragraph (v) was “unless rules about single-sex spaces are clearly stated and enforced it leaves women open to risk of sexual harassment and assault, and makes these spaces feel unsafe.” That again is an expression of opinion. The witness statement purports to expand on the comments at paragraph 10 stating that the facts stated are true. In our view they are not reliable as evidence from a person not a skilled witness on the propositions that are advanced. 1045. Where there was reference to documentation it is in our view both partial and incomplete. Part of it is based on research undertaken by Sex Matters, an organisation of which she is the Chief Executive Officer. It is a campaigning organisation, as set out in paragraph 4. There is an obvious risk that that research is impacted by the nature of it, which is not suggested to be an independent academic study .... In our view it would not be dealing with a case fairly or justly to rely on expressions of opinion from a person campaigning on one side of the argument on such an issue. We did not consider that the case of Connor on which the claimant founded, cited above and which indicated that in some situations evidence which was not expert in nature could be sufficient, was applicable to such a matter. 1047. Our review of the literature referred to by Ms Forstater reveals that the broad generalisations she seeks to take from it are not sufficiently supported by the document or document founded on, both from the terms of the document and the other documents in relation to the same broad issue, to be treated as reliable evidence.

Highlighted sections: That is again an expression of opinion without cross reference to any document in the Supplementary Bundle. Sub-paragraph (v) was “unless rules about single-sex spaces are clearly stated and enforced it leaves women open to risk of sexual harassment and assault, and makes these spaces feel unsafe.” That again is an expression of opinion. The witness statement purports to expand on the comments at paragraph 10 stating that the facts stated are true. In our view they are not reliable as evidence from a person not a skilled witness on the propositions that are advanced. 1045. Where there was reference to documentation it is in our view both partial and incomplete. Part of it is based on research undertaken by Sex Matters, an organisation of which she is the Chief Executive Officer. It is a campaigning organisation, as set out in paragraph 4. There is an obvious risk that that research is impacted by the nature of it, which is not suggested to be an independent academic study .... In our view it would not be dealing with a case fairly or justly to rely on expressions of opinion from a person campaigning on one side of the argument on such an issue. We did not consider that the case of Connor on which the claimant founded, cited above and which indicated that in some situations evidence which was not expert in nature could be sufficient, was applicable to such a matter. 1047. Our review of the literature referred to by Ms Forstater reveals that the broad generalisations she seeks to take from it are not sufficiently supported by the document or document founded on, both from the terms of the document and the other documents in relation to the same broad issue, to be treated as reliable evidence.

Post image

Remember when Helen Joyce was called out as "not an expert" by Australian courts - Now Maya Forstater has been told the same in the Peggie judgment! 👏👏👏

The judgement states outright that the evidence submitted by her & Sex Matters was “not skilled evidence.”

This is the Tribunal’s exact wording!

09.12.2025 10:36 — 👍 583    🔁 161    💬 13    📌 18

When are we to expect newspaper front-page interview features with Dr. Beth Upton about her two-year ordeal of having her right to anonymity removed and her name dragged through the mud and being decried as a sexual predator only for a tribunal to clear her and find SHE was discriminated against?

09.12.2025 10:26 — 👍 390    🔁 127    💬 4    📌 1
Preview
Getting Britain out of the hole A plan for the UK economy

This is a vital essay by @johnspringford.bsky.social & @acjsissons.bsky.social - diagnosing the British malaise and providing a set of clear policy solutions. You will be much better informed for having read it getting-out-of-the-hole.uk

17.11.2025 13:04 — 👍 178    🔁 65    💬 11    📌 3

Statement from Trans Safety Network on the Linehan arrest.

TSN understand Linehan's tweet to be an unambiguous call for vigilante violence against trans women in toilets. And yet senior government figures and police have jumped to find a way to make excuses for it.

04.09.2025 13:01 — 👍 348    🔁 117    💬 5    📌 6

Racism, transphobia and homophobia are not protected characteristics; nor should expressing such views be free from consequences
If your ‘belief’ relies on denying someone else’s humanity, it’s not a right; it’s a prejudice.

23.08.2025 10:42 — 👍 85    🔁 31    💬 0    📌 0
Video thumbnail

The Carrots will be at the new part of Camden Market, London, on Easter Sat and Sun. Come down and say hi!

camdenmarket.com/journal/east...

#bunny #easter #bouncystilts #stiltwalker #walkaboutentertainment #circus

17.04.2025 16:01 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0