## Video Summary This video discusses the government's dishonesty and poor judgment, particularly concerning the recruitment of teachers and the Sandy Peggy case involving a trans woman using female changing rooms. The host critiques Bridget Phillipson's claim of 2,300 new secondary teachers, contrasting it with evidence showing a net loss of 400 teachers. The video further critiques a tribunal ruling over the Sandy Peggy case, questioning its alignment with a Supreme Court decision on sex and gender reassignment under the Equality Act. The tribunal's conclusion that it is lawful for a biological male to use female facilities contradicts established legal definitions of sex. Broader implications regarding education and safety are raised, urging viewers to engage with the issues presented. ## Transcript Right, I'm going to have to be a little bit more opinionated in this video because these things are utterly infuriating. We have lies, deceit, and judgments that don't make sense, including a tribunal judgment that appears to quote from another case that doesn't exist. You really can't make this up. There are big question marks over that. I'm coming back to that in the second half of the video. I was going to do this video on my main channel, Black Belt Barrister, but I felt that I really need to be a little bit more opinionated on it, so I'm doing it here on Black Belt Secrets. Please do subscribe here, and I will do more videos off the record. I'm in the middle of deciding whether this channel is going to become a blog or vlog channel, or whether my opinions will stay here on Secrets. Let me know in the comments what you think, as I have a number of channels and need to streamline them. So let's go first to this post here. In no particular order, let's go here first. This is from Bridget Phillipson talking about teachers. She says it’s infuriating when they seem to make up figures that are simply wrong and are called out as such, not just by me, but in Parliament as well. They promised, remember, that they would recruit 6,500 new teachers by imposing a 20% VAT on private schools, which was supposed to fund these new teachers. This has resulted in tens of thousands of children being displaced from private schools, including those with special educational needs who have lost their places. Local authorities have had to take them back and forth with taxes and numerous other complications as a result. That was all on the promise that they would recruit 6,500 new teachers. That's the background. Then she posted this literally yesterday, stating 2,300 more secondary and special school teachers. Now, the initial goal of 6,500 teachers included the entire spectrum, including primary and secondary education. They moved the goalposts because they realised that just wasn't going to be feasible. So they changed it to only include secondary schools and have still missed the target. Despite her claim of 2,300 more teachers, that is patently false. In fact, have a listen here to what Kem Benidok said about it in Parliament. She put the question to Kia Dharma: 'How many more teachers have you recruited?' He stood up and sarcastically said, 'More than you did,' without really answering the question. In response, Ke Bay told him the answer to the question. Listen to this: 'Wrong!' Mr Speaker: 'There are now 400 fewer teachers since she came into office.' She's shaking her head. It's on the DFE website. Does she not check it? It's utterly embarrassing. She sits there and posts, 'We've recruited 2,300 more teachers,' when in fact, it is fewer. We have two sets of facts and figures that we can reference here, and these are from the DFE website. Even if you thought she might be quoting the wrong one, it doesn't matter because neither supports her position that there are 2,300 more teachers. This one, the school workforce in England, provides headline figures just for maintained schools. That’s the one Kem Bay was referring to. The full-time equivalent of all teachers in maintained schools is 400 fewer for the year reporting 2024 to 25 than in 2023—400 fewer teachers, not more. The intake for those coming into full-time equivalent roles is 1,400 fewer. Even if you take this data from the education and training statistics for the UK, encompassing all schools, including independent ones, even then, looking at the overall picture, the full-time equivalent number of teachers has decreased by 1,390. So, it’s still wrong. This post is patently wrong. She's been called out here as being flat out wrong. Now, as you know, I like to protect you from scams, but here’s one I bet you didn’t know about. In June this year, HMRC lost £47 million to scammers who were impersonating 47,000 taxpayers after acquiring their details and information. They had enough information to impersonate them and convince HMRC to issue tax refunds totalling £47 million. Now, why am I telling you this? Because we all tend to overshare. Your information is out there, and if you want to get rid of it, to disappear after all, they cannot harm you if they cannot find you—you need to use a service that supports my channel called Incogn. This service is designed to remove your information from the internet, helping you to effectively disappear. You’ll have access to a dashboard detailing the hundreds of companies that have your data which they might sell. So, if you want to disappear, check out Incogn, and as they support my channel, you’ll enjoy a massive discount of 60% off the annual plan using the code BLACKBELTSECRETS. Protection of your online information is more important now than ever. So, you have to ask yourself firstly: was it really worth attacking private schools with VAT to fund what turns out to be fewer teachers, not 6,500 more? Or is it just a spiteful act of government? Worse still, Kia Dharma didn’t actually answer the question, because if he had checked, he would know the answer is 400 fewer, not more, and that the figure she’s giving out is utterly wrong. Now, that’s the first point. There’s a multitude of other things I could pick out; that’s just one of them. Now, the other issue is the Sandy Peggy case regarding a nurse and Dr Upton, a trans woman, a biological male, involved in a dispute over use of female changing rooms in relation to workplace regulations, the Supreme Court judgement, and a very strange tribunal decision. If you’re not familiar with the case, here’s a broad overview. Sandy Peggy and Dr Upton both worked at NHS 5. Dr Upton, who identifies as a woman, was using the female changing rooms. Sandy Peggy objected, leading to a disagreement between them. Sandy then raised a complaint with the NHS health board and was subsequently suspended for doing so. She brought a claim to the tribunal for breaches of the Equality Act 2010 owing to direct and indirect discrimination, harassment (including sexual harassment), and victimisation. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the board had indeed harassed Sandy Peggy by failing to revoke the permission for Dr Upton to use the changing rooms on an interim basis after her complaint. The tribunal took an unreasonable length of time to investigate, referencing patient care allegations, and instructed her not to discuss the case until a further message confirmed that restriction applied only to the investigation. In reaching the decision, the tribunal considered the effect of the Supreme Court decision in the case of For Women Scotland. If you’re unfamiliar, in that case, the Supreme Court held that the term 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. With that in mind, considering the tribunal summary: They concluded that the decision in For Women Scotland did not mean it was inherently unlawful for a trans female, biologically male under the Equality Act, to be allowed to use female changing rooms at work. Thus, it stated it’s not inherently unlawful for an organisation to permit a biological man to use female changing rooms at work, which I personally disagree with. Furthermore, they stated that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment did not mean that the position to use the changing room was necessarily lawful. This is quite contradictory. You might think that’s good; however, it gets worse when looking at the judgment itself. Keep in mind this tribunal ruling does not bind any other tribunal or other cases or parties, nor does it override the Supreme Court decision. On this point, the former chairwoman of the UK equality watchdog, Baroness Fulker, called this tribunal ruling unusual and surprising, stating it appeared incompatible with the Supreme Court ruling. I completely agree—while I believe the claims against the board should have been upheld, the tribunal seems to have misapplied the Supreme Court decision, which is concerning. Now, let’s examine what the tribunal said when referencing the Supreme Court. Their reasoning is rather bizarre: Firstly, they assert the Supreme Court didn’t seek to address whether it was unlawful for a biological male to enter women’s changing rooms, as that wasn’t the question before it, which strikes me as exceptionally weak logic. The tribunal then attempts to construct a conflict between different protected characteristics, namely gender reassignment and sex. Bizarrely, they erroneously relied on a quote from the Forstater case, claiming that there is nothing stated in the act or court’s decision that one protected characteristic overrides another. The problem is, that quote doesn’t exist; it’s simply fabricated. Maya Forstater herself has pointed this out, calling it one of the many issues with the Sandy Peggy judgment. Accusations are being made that the tribunal used AI to write this judgment, with sections appearing to fabricate quotes and references. Back to the tribunal ruling—let’s clarify what was alleged. The tribunal claims it emphasizes that the Equality Act doesn’t create a hierarchy, which again, is fabricated as it does not appear in the actual judgment. When returning to the tribunal’s response about the regulations related to gender reassignment, it stated that the 1992 regulations do not address the risks specifically affecting women. Yet, there are innate risks associated with biological males being in female-changing environments—simply stated, to disregard this reality is illogical. I find the rationale absurd; how can it possibly justify stating these regulations aren’t applicable when they’re clearly meant to protect women? Furthermore, saying there’s no hierarchy of rights when such a quote doesn’t exist raises more questions than it answers. Let me know if you can make more sense of this than I can, as it appears patently absurd. Do share your thoughts and subscribe to the channel if you appreciate this brutally honest analysis.