Today is the second anniversary of my submission of an appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the DBS for putting me on the Children’s Barred List for not socially transitioning a child, and on the 13th January, it will be three years since New College Swindon referred me to the DBS for not following their Gender Reassignment Policy. In relation to these, some of the key events: Two weeks after New College Swindon referred me to the DBS they removed their Gender Reassignment Policy and now have a Freedom of Speech Policy which effectively replaces it. Given this, my solicitor has repeatedly demanded that NCS should inform the DBS that their referral was in effect a submission ‘of a blank sheet of paper.’ This follows a principle that has been trite law since the repeal of the 1885 Labouchere Amendment by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 mandating that all convictions and referrals under previous legislative frameworks were annulled, a precedent carried across to the civil code under the Alan Turing principle. Neither NCS nor the DBS have responded to this. On the 22nd April 2024, the DBS acknowledged they may have erred by ascribing the things that I said to Student B when she instructed me to refer to Student A as a male as having been said to Student A. 18 months later the DBS decided that I was to stay on the barred list because I had not empathised with Student B. On the 25th November 2025, I eventually had a permissions hearing at the Upper Tribunal. As of today, I still have not had a direction from this, but I have just been informed that a direction is being prepared by the judge and should be issued shortly. Thank you again for your support and patience as this case grinds on at pace far slower than should be expected given that the judges in both the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal have said it covers vitally important issues.

Well done Harry Miller

There was a time when things were starting to improve in Afghanistan, then Trump did a deal with the Taliban and undermined an already weak and struggling government, then Biden finished it off, and it all fell to shit because that's all it could do after that, and everyone in the world suffers.

My X (Twitter) feed is now saturated with long boring AI essays, all devoid of grammar and spelling errors. It's like being forced to read the Encyclopedia Britanica every morning. They simply regurgitate what's already known and lack any original thought. Nothing I post is so constructed. If this is not somehow brought under control it'll kill X (Twitter). It's now no longer the place to find easily find raw breaking news.

I am delighted, absolutely delighted, that Sarah Redver's case has been heard so well in court, and I look forward to the judgement. I was carefully following it while I was preparing with Anna Loutfi for my hearing in the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Our cases are very similar in that both revolve around formal safeguarding concerns being raised and then counter transphobia accusations being raised against us both. The big difference is that Sarah had a much better opportunity to demonstrate her case than I did mine. By contrast, I had no legal representation the first time round. This was not intentional and not due to lack of effort. In total I went to 9 different legal representatives covering lawyers and barristers at a total cost of nearly £10k, and they all told me either I had no case, or it was too complicated, or it was safeguarding and not employment, or what ever else they could think of. In addition, my union and insurance company both refused to back me. The main advice I got was that the Employment Tribunal representation costs could be up to £100k. I was running out of time and money, so I had to take the chance of representing myself. I got hammered the first day in court when the judge changed the basis of the pleadings, and so undermined everything else. Before the case, various people asked if I had a crowd funder and I told them I didn't want to start one with such negative assessments from legal professionals as that would be unethical. Partly to put them at rest, I opened a crowd funder but gave no description or request, other than to confirm my name and case. I didn't really expect to receive anything, especially with the economic shock from Russia's invassion of Ukraine at the time. I chose a £50k target simply because it was half of £100k. After I lost my case, I was deeply depressed and had mentally shut down, then £13k was kindly donated to my crowd funder. Not only did these kind donations get me going for the following appeals, but they broke me out of the deep depression I'd fallen into. Sarah Redver has spoken of the profound impact her case has had on her - I can empathise- we share this same brutal experience. We now both await our judgements, and between the two it's almost impossible to see how the transgender ideologues can continue grooming children into their cult if we are both successful. thetimes.com/article/cfde7b4…

It's nice of @Nigel_Farage to post support on Facebook for my case. However, many of the comments are extraordinary. People are pontificating with no knowledge of the facts and relying on their ideological prejudices. That's the down side of social media. In a nutshell, the facts are: I was fired for not following New College Swindon's Gender Reassignment Policy. Because I didn't follow this and did not submit to compelled speech I was accused of bullying and harassing Student A. I was never given an instruction to follow the Gender Reassignment Policy by the college. That instruction came from another student, Student B. I raised safeguarding concerns that were never properly considered because of the transgender affirmative philosophy of the college. The Employment Tribunal never considered the issue or the legality of the policy - quite the reverse, they said it was not their concern. The basis of my appeal is that the policy was illegal by demanding compliance to compelled speech and this fundamental issue was ignored by the Employment Tribunal, and so was an error in law. Finally, it is important to child safeguarding that Labour lose the next election, and a government is formed that prohibits transgender indoctrination in schools, be that Conservative, Reform or Restore. Thank you @Nigel_Farage for being explicit on this. m.facebook.com/story.php?sto…

Well done Dr Redvers. I can sympathise with what she's been through and I hope and expect the Tribunal ruling goes on her favour. One by one, the institutional dominoes that have enabled this medical scandal are falling. Very soon, we will be wondering how the hell this mess happened.

The brilliant Battle of Ideas panel on the conversion therapy bill. I present my position on this 6 minutes from the end as a person branded by the state as a potential paedophile for not following my college's Gender Reassignment Policy and I argue that the only comparable legislation is the Nuremburg Race Act of 1935 - it is that bad.

Thank you to everyone who has supported my crowd funder and enabled my case to be brought to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It is unquestionably an important case, and Refreshing Law Ltd says, “this appeal is one of the most significant belief discrimination cases of the year.” The fundamental ground of my appeal is that the initial ruling by the Employment Tribunal (ET) in Bristol was an error in law in that the tribunal impermissibly narrowed down my indirect discrimination claim and did not consider the unlawful nature of the policy which was its imposition of compelled speech on me and all other gender critical staff and students. I want to share with you a summary of the key arguments in my appeal. Indirect discrimination claims are complex especially for a litigant in person as I was, and this was acknowledged by the Counsel for the Respondent. The judge also added that not only is difficult for a litigant in person, but many other legal professionals also struggle in this area. In a nutshell, such claims arise when an employer or organization imposes a Policy, Criteria or Practice (PCP) on everyone and in so doing a group disadvantage ensues, and the claimant as a member of that group suffered a particular disadvantage. In this case, the PCP was to adhere to New College Swindon’s Gender Reassignment Policy (GRP) and the group was those teachers with ‘gender critical views.’ The disadvantage I suffered was being fired for not following it. This was clearly stated in my initial pleadings. The claim was advanced to Employment Tribunal with a statement that “The respondent…..concedes that there was a PCP in place “to use the name title and pronoun by which the person wants to be addressed.” This was Appendix 3 of the GRP. Then a further statement was added by the judge at the preliminary hearing, “Did the PCP put the claimant personally at that disadvantage in that the respondent’s stance flies in the face of the claimant’s safeguarding complaint, which the respondent never resolved properly?” It was never quite clear how this came to be included in the case management notes. As a litigant in person, and as a teacher, it seemed a reasonable statement of the obvious, so I was not too bothered, as it broadly aligned with the facts. My safeguarding concerns did not get addressed by New College Swindon to my satisfaction because of the positive ethos towards transitioning in the policy, that complying with the GRP would be a safeguarding issue especially as my safeguarding concern had asked for parental consent and I was told this would not be sought, that my failure to have my safeguarding concerns addressed set in motion a counter safeguarding accusation being made against me by New College Swindon, and my subsequent dismissal was for not following the policy. Furthermore, as a teacher, the number one requirement even standing above teaching, is adherence to safeguarding, and this was encapsulated. However, at the ET, the judge immediately started a clarification process that in fact sowed confusion. His starting point was that here was no evidence of a causal link between the safeguarding concerns and the instruction to use the preferred name and pronoun. In effect he made an impermissible judgement of the facts before any had been presented. In the protracted and difficult debate that followed, I said it was the positive ethos towards transitioning that was enforced by the policy as a WHOLE that was the cause of my safeguarding failures not being addressed. The ET judge insisted that this was too broad, and one part of the policy must be agreed upon which defined this, and that we would not allow the process to move forwards until I had done this. In response I said it was paragraph 4.1 of the GRP which says, “The aim is to create a positive inclusive ethos”. He then interpretated this to be the PCP and the basis of the final judgement, whereas I had never agreed to having the Appendix 3 instruction removed. Worse still, the judgement stated in relation to the instruction in Appendix 3 that “it was not central to our determination.” As a result, the whole issue of the unlawful compelled speech embedded in the policy was disregarded in all aspects of the judgement. This was further complicated in that I was never given any instruction by the college or Student A to use preferred pronouns. Student A’s position was ambiguous. She entered a girls’ only maths competition on a voluntary basis leading to my conclusion that she was no longer interested in presenting as a male. Thus, the college’s position is that my action should have been to socially transition Student A, as per the Gender Reassignment Policy, and to do so with no written instruction from the college, or from Student A, or from her parents, or without any safeguarding guidance. The eventual instruction to socially transition Student A, and to believe that she was now a boy, came later from Student B. It was she who demanded I refer to Student A as a male under threat of complaint if I did not do so. I did not do so, and so she complained. On the basis of this, the college instigated an investigation process into me. This concluded that I was ‘right wing’ for being against transitioning. However, the Employment Tribunal ignored this and said it was irrelevant. The Employment Tribunal went on to conclude, without evidence, that Student B’s complaint was “eloquent, powerful and brave.” Dr. Anna Loutfi (my counsel) also presented the case that the Employment Tribunal had an absolute obligation to review the legality of the PCP – the need to adhere to the GRP. Instead, the Employment Tribunal stated in its judgement; “Ultimately, it was not necessary for us to determine whether the Respondent had been particularly pro-gender affirmative. There was no range for comparison. We had no evidence about how other equivalent colleges approached the issue. There was no way of determining where, on any spectrum, this Respondent fell. Ms Kitching’s evidence about the source of the Gender Reassignment Policy in particular was compelling and strongly suggested that the College was not out of step with others at the time.” In essence – they were not going to review the compelled speech element of the policy, and would ignore the comparisons with other colleges that were included in the document bundle, nor consider its lawfulness. Finally, the judgement went on to say; “There was no evidence upon which the Tribunal could properly conclude that those who shared the Claimant’s protect characteristics were put at a disadvantage by the GRP.” This overlooked the Elephant in the Room; that I had been dismissed and referred to the DBS for not following it. The college’s defence in its appeal rests on their claim that the policy did not seek to change my mind that a girl cannot become a boy, and that compelling my speech to say so was to be inclusive to those who thought they were. The result we now seek is a remittal of the case back to the ET for the above issues to be properly considered. gofundme.com/f/fight-transge…

Thank you @tribunaltweets for this outstanding transcript.

What a crap headline from the BBC. They could have chosen to say that New College Swindon's Gender Reassignment Policy was unlawful, which was the trust of the day's proceedings, but they didn't. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cmvg…

Why my case is important: refreshinglawltd.co.uk/2026/…

Update on my case in the Telegraph telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10…

A brilliant speech in a brilliant debate

Excellent talk at the Battle of Ideas on the concept of Humanitarian extremism and it's no limits operation by @epkaufm

It feels as if Trump is invoking a scorched Earth policy. He knows he's on track to fall through the floor in the mid terms, so it looks like he wants to take everything down with him.