Maya back in court tomorrow (20th Oct)

I'd put good money on the Judicial College having a cowardly reason why it's reluctant to give up a list of the judges who've 'had the training', knowing it'll be compared against their subsequent rulings.

This is appalling. This is not Open Justice, this is back-door, hidden from view, open to corruption Justice.

We've had some FWR threads on the ETBB (one posted upthread) and it's long past the point at which this needs to be addressed.

The lack of transparency will undermine the public understanding of the fairness of the judiciary.

I've said it before this is an absolute scandal.

The presentation started with information about the wider context for trans identities, which is much broader than is covered by the EqA. There was an exploration of how sex, gender and sexual orientation interact as well as discussion of key terms and use of language. Additionally, the talk covered the basics of legislation with regard to the rights and responsibilities around trans identities (such as the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

One would have thought that ET Judges would have been well aware of the basics of legislation and how they apply. I would hazard a guess that the rights and responsibilities around trans identities referred to Stonewall Law not the actual law as written and passed in Parliament. What's the betting the use of language was to do with misgendering which isn't recognised on any Statute anywhere.

Following the session, delegates were provided with a comprehensive document signposting links to a wide range of resources and list of relevant organisations.

I bet they were and I bet I know where those resources came from and which organisations were listed as relevant.

Why do Judges require training on Law from a lobby group that has NO legal qualifications, why is the public paying for this and why is what the training entailed being hidden from the public and why is the cost of said training being hidden?

There is a putrid smell about this.

"and I'd take large bets against it given that the erroneous statistics turned up in J Tayler's ruling against Maya (overturned on appeal)."

It was a particularly outstanding example of policy-based evidence-making.

🤞Maya.

Vaclav Havel, 1978 has some prescient observations about mantras and the unthinking adoption of an ideology and the true cost of the absolution that it confers.

In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’ s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority.

hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23

Re the Chacko piece, I'm reading the foreward by Charles Wide QC former Senior Circuit Judge sitting at the Old Bailey.

He writes,

It is hard to avoid the impression that, in relation to what is ‘acceptable’ terminology, the ETBB has taken its tone from activists.

The judges' Judicial College should be fucking ashamed of this travesty. Wide further notes,

The Judicial College has refused to disclose the identities of the experts and organisations which have contributed to the preparation of the ETBB

This Bench Book affects us all. It affects the justice we're all allowed to have. But we're not allowed to know anything about the shady activists who pushed its contents on to the judiciary.

Maya's definitely mining a rich seam here.

Oh god it reminds me of PC Gul when he was waffling on to Harry the Owl about gendered foetus brains and said proudly, "I've had the training".

(We use that as a joke in our house now, when someone has said something spectacularly stupid. Have you had the training? )

An excerpt:

Judges found the session was of considerable interest and appreciated the opportunity to ask questions on a sensitive topic in a safe environment(my bold)

Ffs beam me up Scotty, these people are Judges.

[quote MrsOvertonsWindow]Don't think this has been linked but here's an excellent analysis of the conflict of interests and dangers of this regulatory capture of the judiciary by trans lobby - written by a barrister, Thomas Chacko:

policyexchange.org.uk/author/thomaschacko/[/quote]
That looks interesting - I'll have a look now, thanks.

Don't think this has been linked but here's an excellent analysis of the conflict of interests and dangers of this regulatory capture of the judiciary by trans lobby - written by a barrister, Thomas Chacko:

policyexchange.org.uk/author/thomaschacko/

It has certainly opened my eyes even wider, and I thought they were already at full-on wide-eyed gawp status.

I looked for and found the in-house magazine btw with the article about the 'training'. Click on the link on the right to the p 10 article by Judge Sian Davies.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/tribunals-journal-edition3-2018.pdf

Not a single fucking thing about conflicts of rights, and how women will be impacted; plus the usual emotive language and dodgy statistics & terminology.

And don't get me started on that bloody 'Equal Treatment Bench Book'.

When are the EHRC going to get a grip on this festering shit?

Thank you for the sunlight, Maya.

I am thinking of you Maya and your bravery and tenacity. You are fabulous and let's hope justice finally prevails.

I don't know why there is no crowdfunder, but as the barrister (Naomi Cunningham) runs Sex Matters with Maya, they may have felt it was inappropriate.

Am sure a donation to Sex Matters would be gratefully received! They are doing important work here.

I'm glad that Maya is throwing some sunlight on this appalling situation, @JurassickJay. It's absolutely scandalous that our judges are being trained by an extremely controversial outfit.

Good god what has become of us ! I’ve been involved in the training of advocates and the judiciary in the Maldives in China and in South Africa. All was 100% transparent and content was about ore existing statutory rules of evidence/police codes operating in the uk etc. All had to be authorised and I was checked out rigorously - experience and ability to deliver really quite him drum content.

I agree. I wish there was a crowd funder. For Maya. I contributed to the last one, and would like to again.

Here

Training of the judiciary.
Says so in her intro / job description.

Is that your job?

I don't know!

Going to say the exact same thing.

AW says 'I don't know' a lot!

Amelia Wright, Executive Director of the Judicial College.

Is the witness.

The Judicial College witness AW says 'I don't know' a lot.

So the Judicial College is arguing it's not a public body subject to FoI regarding its role training judges, and that MoJ is the public body that's FoI-able?