Video Summary

This video discusses the current situation regarding Labour MPs being banned from certain pubs as a protest against increasing tax rates on the hospitality industry. The speaker critiques the Labour party's claims of supporting local businesses, arguing instead that their policies harm the pub sector, which is experiencing significant job cuts and closures, especially in light of rising operational costs. It highlights a BBC report indicating that over 250 pubs have started banning Labour MPs, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction among business owners who feel neglected by governmental policies.

Further, the video addresses a controversial case involving a judge who allegedly used AI to produce misleading quotes in a legal judgment, resulting in a certificate of correction being issued. The speaker expresses scepticism regarding the validity and appropriateness of this correction, arguing it asserts points not present in the original ruling and undermines the integrity of judicial procedures.

Ultimately, this content underscores the tension between real-time economic struggles within the hospitality sector and the response from political entities, while also navigating the complexities of legal standards and judicial reliability.

Transcript

When I started this channel some five years ago, I certainly didn't expect to be talking about Labour MPs being banned from pubs or people being triggered by someone wearing a Christmas jumper. I hope you like it, by the way. Or that we’d be discussing judges who are accused of using AI to fabricate their judgments because they refer to erroneous quotes and then have to correct them. This is a really interesting point I will come back to shortly because I don't even think they’re allowed to do that. There are rules for changes, but not to that extent. I’ll revisit that in a moment.

But first of all, if you like these bizarre stories and the direction this channel is taking, please do subscribe. I'm aiming for one million subscribers—help me get there. So, let’s take a look at this. We’ve got an interesting report here from the BBC. Downing Street insists that the government backs pubs, as a growing number are signing up to a campaign to bar Labour MPs from their premises in protest against tax rates. Now obviously this dispute arises because people say that Labour is not genuinely supporting pubs due to the increase in all the costs and taxes, both for businesses and for employing staff. The increase in employee national insurance has made it more expensive. We get countless stories of companies reducing their workforce. You only have to take a quick look at the news to find out the truth and reality of this situation and that Labour is frankly being hypocritical when they claim to support businesses, including pubs. A very quick look reveals that the Financial Times is reporting businesses are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since 2021. Even the Bank of England is cutting jobs. The University of Strathclyde is cutting 70 jobs, Nottingham Trent University is cutting jobs, and Leon restaurant is cutting hundreds of jobs because it’s simply unsustainable due to the high cost of the workforce.

Returning to the pubs, they are taking a stance. This BBC report states that more than 250 pubs around a week ago started a ban on Labour MPs. Restaurants and hotels across the country are joining in, including the Old Thatch in Dorset, where the landlord stated that this protest was a last resort after multiple campaigns that clearly explained the need for tax cuts ended with higher taxes for the hospitality sector. But the Prime Minister's official spokesman claimed that the Chancellor has delivered a £4.3 billion support package for pubs, restaurants, and cafés, stating that hospitality is a vital part of the economy. He said without this intervention, pubs would have faced a 45% rise in bills next year, which has now been cut down to just 4%. However, this does not reflect the reality of how people feel on the ground. They believe these campaigns are taking place because the government hasn’t responded to the needs of the hospitality industry. Everyone's fed up because the Labour government has not listened and has instead imposed more taxes on them. They expressed frustration, saying, "What’s really angered people is that they're acting as if they haven’t been taxing us. It’s as if someone pressed the wrong button. Instead of taxing Amazon and the warehouses, they’re taxing us. We’ve been imploring our MPs for years because people are going out of business, and it’s not due to poor management; it's because they’re being taxed excessively."

This sentiment is echoed in stories across the spectrum from business owners like Steve Perez, who runs a chain of pub market hotels and restaurants. In a report for The Telegraph, he mentioned having met with Keir Starmer before the last election, who assured him he had nothing to fear from Labour and pledged to reform business rates if they came to power, acknowledging at that time that the property tax system was detrimental to the hospitality sector. Instead, he said property businesses have received the opposite of support from Labour, which has turned its back on the very sector that sustains Britain's high streets. You only need to visit any high street in the country, and you will see rows of shops, including those that you would think would survive, like Poundland, closing down because it simply isn't profitable to remain in business.

This dishonesty is what really frustrates me about this situation. Following up on my previous two videos regarding the judge accused of employing AI and using fake quotes in the judgment, there is now a certificate of correction, which I believe is not within the rules, frankly. The certificate states that it’s within rule 67, but I’ll reference that rule shortly to illustrate why I think it doesn't apply here. This is a totally bizarre situation. As I said, I never expected to discuss an employment tribunal judge accused of using AI to fabricate content in a ruling. However, here we are with this certificate of correction.

You may recall, if you missed it, I’ll link the previous video below. This judgment referenced a so-called quote from the Forstater case, yet that quote simply didn't exist. It was absent from the judgment. Now we have this: In accordance with the power set out in rule 67 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Employment Judge Kemp hereby corrects the clerical mistakes, errors, or omissions in the judgment sent to the parties on the 8th of December by deleting an entire paragraph and substituting it as follows.

Secondly, there are different protected characteristics under the act, but there is nothing stated specifically within the act itself or the court’s decision that one protected characteristic takes precedence over another. As you know, on this channel, I’m keen to protect you from scams. Here's one you might not know about. In June of this year, HMRC lost £47 million to scammers impersonating thousands of taxpayers who had their details obtained to convince HMRC to issue tax refunds. Why am I telling you this? Because we all tend to overshare. There’s a lot of information about you out there on the web that a malicious actor can compile, allowing them to impersonate you.

I saw something yesterday where a Russian spy was apprehended simply because she posted pictures of her cat, which helped track her down years later. Your information is out there, and if you want to eliminate that information and effectively disappear—after all, they cannot harm you if they cannot find you—you need a service that supports my channel called Incogn. This service is designed to remove your information from the internet and help you disappear. You can use multiple email addresses and even specifically target a company or website if you want them to erase your details. I’ve received numerous emails over the years from clients wanting to remove their information concerning their right to be forgotten, but Incogn can handle that for you. You’ll gain access to a dashboard that will show you the hundreds of companies that possess your data, which could be sold and potentially surface on the web, or even the dark web. If you’d like to disappear, be sure to check out Incogn. As they are supporting my channel, you can receive a massive discount of 60% off their annual plan using the code BLACKBELT. I will insert the link in the description below. Grab a significant discount for yourself—numerous email addresses and access to this dashboard will let you see just how many companies have your data.

To clarify, the point this paragraph attempts to make is that there are different protected characteristics under the act, but the act or the court case does not imply that one takes precedence over another. No one protected characteristic holds more importance than another, which is what it's trying to convey. This now references the Forstater case as it corrects the paragraph. In this updated context, this quote now appears in the Forstater judgment, which I can show you as well. This is the Forstater judgment that we've discussed previously. You can see the highlighted sections because I referenced this case before. The judgment states that it does not mean those with gender-critical beliefs can misgender trans persons with impunity, which is obvious. This derives from the highlighted text.

It is important to know what this case was about briefly. As you can see here, the judgment states: "This does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can misgender trans persons with impunity. The claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else." This update, this certificate of correction, alters the tribunal's judgment to reference a paragraph that does exist in the Forstater judgment. It states, “We consider that the quotation supports the assertion that the Equality Act does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.” However, that is not what it states, nor does it reflect the reality as stated.

When we refer back to the tribunal's judgment now, the quote previously in pink has been replaced with the one that appears in this certificate of correction. If I highlight the two together, you can see the two compared. So, you can observe the question, the support, and the conclusion. It is a standard legal academic exercise. What are the issues? What are the facts? What does the law say? How does the law apply? And what’s the conclusion?

So, with that in mind, the question restated now is as follows: The tribunal stated that the question arising is whether the application of the Supreme Court decision necessitates that biological males must be excluded from female changing rooms, rendering permission unlawful. The tribunal concluded no. So, does the Supreme Court decision mandate that biological males must be excluded from female changing rooms? They said our conclusion is no, a statement I disagree with; however, that is beside the point. The ruling continues, noting that the court did not seek to address that specific question. It addressed the definitions of man, woman, and sex, which in my view already resolved the question.

The tribunal relied on the Forstater quote. By depending on this quote, they inserted a false quote claiming the Equality Act does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics. Obviously, that quote wasn't present in the original judgment. This replacement has led to the conclusion stating that they believe the court would not have made that unqualified comment if it intended to establish a hierarchy of protected characteristics, with sex at the top. Had that been intended, we consider it would have been explicitly stated. But that’s just nonsensical. It no longer makes sense. This paragraph is unrelated to the question. I believe, personally, that it has been inaccurately plucked to attempt to make it fit logically with a quote that isn’t present.

Furthermore, if you consult AI and request a judgment to support this question and conclusion, it might fabricate something like this—something called hallucinations. It’s crucial to not have hallucinations. For that reason, I am developing my own AI system that will assist you, designed to avoid these errors. I will train it specifically to not produce hallucinations, focusing on particular laws in specific areas. It’s quite complex, as we have various agents—one for consumers, one for criminal law and more. I’m training them strictly on specific laws and rules relevant to their designated areas. You will find it at blackbeltbar.com, linked below. It’s the pro version which includes access to my AI. It’s not a substitute for legal advice, but you’ll find the information linked below.

Finally, I want to emphasise one more point before I let you go this Saturday: why this tribunal decision lacks coherence. This tribunal decision discusses the hierarchy of protected characteristics specifically relating to sex and gender identity, yet the Forstater case did not concern that; it dealt with the fundamental protected belief of gender-critical beliefs, which assert that a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man. Those fundamental beliefs are protected under the Equality Act.

The tribunal essentially stated that gender-critical beliefs are capable of being protected as philosophical beliefs under Section 10 of the Equality Act. That’s what the Forstater judgment was about—the capability of these beliefs to be protected under the Equality Act. The tribunal confirmed this, but it doesn’t permit one to engage in harassment or insult others. This certificate of correction, with due respect, still does not clarify the judgment in a sensible manner. Additionally, which I won’t cover in depth here because of time, it also does not address the Lee and Ashes quote, which lacks any reference to hierarchy in that judgment either.

Moreover, having removed an entire paragraph and referenced something altogether different in the Forstater judgment—this correction does not adhere to the intended purpose of these rules. The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 provide a procedure for correcting clerical mistakes, errors, and omissions in a judgment, similar to the 'slip rule' practiced in Crown Courts, which allows for the correction of significant errors in the official record within a set time. Under the Employment Tribunal rules, these must pertain to clerical errors and accidental slips, not for removing and replacing an entire paragraph that misstates a judgment that was nonexistent.

This is not to mention the numerous criticisms I’ve come across online, where the judgment contains Americanisms like 'victimization' and 'minimisation' with a 'z', rather than an 's'. While this might not seem critical at first glance, it is problematic if the judge is an employment specialist and routinely handles terms like 'victimisation' and 'minimisation'. They should not employ American vernacular, unless this too might have been crafted by AI, which some lawyers have suggested.

In summary, while there is still much to examine, this is the most recent update that I have gleaned regarding the certificate of correction following my previous two videos. I’ll link those below. Please do subscribe to the channel if you find this interesting. As always, thank you for watching.