Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

twitter.com/btp/status/1557323520862035968?s=21&t=jBYqCEnP5HD1_Qa6-iPTCg

Oh ! Here is another sign of the celebrated win for Stonewall!

British Transport Police being forced to reverse ferret on their fucked up tweet from the other day. This one saying :

The tweet was is no way intended to imply that BTP would discriminate against people who hold gender-critical beliefs, which we recognise are capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Yep! Winner!

Wouldn’t have seen that a few months ago. Stonewall rules winning all the way!

But again, just so everyone can hear….

I believe the over turning of Keira’s case on appeal was celebrated as a WIN.

Does anyone think Stonewall and Mermaids are celebrating at the moment?

Are Stonewall supporters still confident that Stonewall ‘won’!!!

I mean the JR Ann Sinnot brought was also celebrated as a ‘WIN’. But all the judgement said was say that a more focused example was needed to be successful. And so the ball rolls on. It wasn’t a ‘WIN’ in the judgement, it was one step clearer.

It forced the EHRC to work on this . And while hearache cannot see the impact of the Agent General now stating even clearer examples because hearache prefers to only ever get their legal advice from Stonewall, the confidence in stonewall from businesses and organizations is being shaken.

They are celebrating a win, dancing, while Rome burns behind them !

I agree necessry

But look at what that case has now brought about!

It's just occurred to me that we've been kind of doing the Socratic method through the medium of court cases.

The Socratic method (also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate) is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions.

The Socratic method searches for general commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, explore definitions, and characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances.

Each case poses new questions, and regardless of the legal outcome, the answers we get then lead to the next case and its set of questions.

That one works.

The article has been pulled.

not pulled. But that link doesn’t seem to be working.

Try this one

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=16b75b4dd733efd816e759bd29405737

By the way… I remember the overturning of the Keira Bell case on appeal as being celebrated as a HUGE WIN!!!

But look at what that case has now brought about!

I am glad Dr Cass got her announcement out that new clinics were opening and a more holistic approach was being taken. Obviously she knew this was happening and about to hit the media. Or that announcement was what the firm announcing the class action needed before making their own announcement.

I know. Let the Tavistock use hearaches esteemed lawyer. I mean, they specialize in discrimination law so there is a part for them in this coming group action. No?

But yes. The overturning of Keira’s case was well celebrated as a ‘win’ too!

😁

Better start praying then.

If a pair of guides on a difficult mountain path were as consistently flummoxed as the authors of this book, their clients would be saying their prayers.

That there is misinterpretation there and that there is now explicit examples, unopposed by the EHRC who surely would have also been consulted about this speech.

sorry. I hate posting on my phone.

Explicit examples of practical application of the law, where female’s single sex spaces can be set up to exclude males. All post pubescent males regardless of feelings or how that male identifies to be clear.

Just reposting this here at the top of this thread.

The article has been pulled.

Tavistock gender clinic ‘to be sued by 1,000 families’

Eleanor Hayward, Health Correspondent
Thursday August 11 2022, 12.01am,

If you plug the URL into wayback you will find it. I am sure it will reappear across Mainstream Media over the next few hours though.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=485af9527de58533cf4579b7d4c53d7b&s=09

The Tavistock gender clinic is facing mass legal action from youngsters who claim they were rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers.

Lawyers expect about 1,000 families to join a medical negligence lawsuit alleging vulnerable children have been misdiagnosed and placed on a damaging medical pathway.

They are accusing the gender identity development service [GIDS] at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust of multiple failures in its duty of care.

This includes allegations it recklessly prescribed puberty blockers with harmful side effects and adopted an “unquestioning, affirmative approach” to children identifying as transgender.

Just to be clear.

THE TAVISTOCK IS BEING SUED IN A GROUP ACTION and it is expected to be around 1000 families!

Now, how successful they will be is another matter.

However, the wider impact strategically for the lobby groups who fostered a culture of no-debate and personal attacks on those who questioned or dissented that meant families had little support outside those lobby groups (also doubling as ‘support groups’) is getting clearer every single day now.

This isn’t about ‘you’ hearache at all. What ‘you’ think is irrelevant.

That ‘you’ cannot understand that people who are the decision makers for their organisations are the ones who are watching this and taking note, simply is irrelevant. In fact , that ‘you’ and many others crowing about how poor her reputation is on the internet continue to fail to grasp, is that she is delivering the message that another government department is saying Stonewall is wrong and is complicit in misinterpreting the law.

From other threads you have show you fail to understand how law making in countries with the Westminster government work. This is another example.

Do you really think Suella Braverman is not supported by the government? hearache, she has been warning about this speech now for days! Do you honestly think if their wasn’t the majority support for her in her department for the interpretation of the laws she discussed yesterday that someone wouldn’t have taken her aside and influenced the final speech?

You really have a siloed approach. Ministers don’t act by themselves. They don’t last long as Ministers or with any senior role if they did. And you can decry the Tories and scream into the void.

The topic of my post was and is that those responsible for decision making , those stakeholders with accountability (not their wonderfully idealistic social media co-ordinators) will certainly be now thinking that Stonewall’s guidance is problematic. That there is misinterpretation there and that there is now explicit examples, unopposed by the EHRC who surely would have also been consulted about this speech.

We have seen testimony from executives in Maya’s case and in Allison’s case that have proven that they simply don’t quite grasp the complexities (hence their liability!) .

Do you think senior execs are still sitting around ignoring this when there is now so many other legal minds saying Stonewall’s guidance is flawed… but hey Stonewall don’t care because in their eyes they ‘won’ over Allison Bailey?

Here, You are so deep in ideological thinking you attack the Minister whereas, she is just a figure here. Yes, she influences project and direction. She cannot stand there and say this is the government’s interpretation of the law without her legal team and consultation with the EHRC being in support.

As usual, it is just more ad hominem attack without engaging with the substance.

And you can continue to give Wright a halo. Until the law is tested that they keep misrepresenting, it will be open to debate.

But at this stage… who is going to trust Stonewall over the Government legal advIsors?

No. Hearache. Stop twisting.

Your reference to transmen as ‘men’ in any healthcare is that dangerous misinformation I am pointing out.

How can you continue to be so ignorant.

Transmen should be referred to in health communications as transmen, or as females. If the communication is about trans health, then referring to ‘men’ and ‘women’ when they should be referring to female and male respectively, confuses people reading. Communication has to be aimed at the lowest level of understanding available to the greatest number of people. Using ‘man’ without any prefix is one of the most dangerous things you can do in that instance and shows how narrow your understanding is.

Who else reads ‘Trans health’ communications, hearache? Not just ‘trans’ people. Their family, their carers, their partners a whole range of people that need to read the exact same communication and understand it as well.

Stop now. You are really embarrassing yourself and simply not showing any actual compassion for females.

I think your post is just sickening .

For the last time, this is not the ‘gotcha’ you think it is.

Another celebration worthy news item that shows just how credible Stonewall has been .

Even though this was inevitable because of the hostility that debate and open research was treated. That debate was actively shut down and shamed by Lobby groups; of which Stonewall was a prominent one, and their evangelical supporters or ‘Allie’s’. How research was influenced by mantras.

Those mantras that kept young people believing that their support groups, again Stonewall was dominant here too, knew better and anyone else was transphobic and hateful.

That detransitioner voices were not welcomed and carefully listened to and supported.

The list of how Stonewall has been complicit in this is long. Any person believing that Stonewall will be celebrating anything anytime soon, is just either hopelessly naive or hopelessly entrenched.

And yes, Allison Bailey’s case will have helped support this group action. Keira’s case was the foundation. Thank you Keira! Then Sonia Appleby. Then Maya and Allison’s cases. Even though Maya and Allison’s are more indirect in nature they allowed the freedom of discussion to be had.

They opened the floodgates to discussion to be recognised as Worthy of Respect.

This news is overwhelming to me and my loved ones. I have no idea how some families will feel waking up to this news. for those families.

Wonder how the NHS feel right now after listening to assurances from lobby groups such as Stonewall?

I’d say no where no as devastated as those families choosing to sue the NHS.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=485af9527de58533cf4579b7d4c53d7b&s=09

That book review of Robin Wrights book on law looks like it could be the review of the bundles stonewall put together for Allison’s court case. And the review isn’t very complementary

Paragraphs 19 and 20 are your friends re: the bundles.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bailey-judgment.pdf

That book review of Robin Wrights book on law looks like it could be the review of the bundles stonewall put together for Allison’s court case. And the review isn’t very complementary

LOL!

Trans law...is that on 'the other side' of the actual law?

Oh yes, RMW is a real expert on trans law all right:
www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide

Must be noted that SB is only a QC because she is Attorney General i.e. she was given a job by Boris Johnson. Prior to her elevation to the position she was not a QC.

It must also be noted that the excellent Robin White (who is an expert on trans law) and readers of this thread will know was on the winning legal team in the of Stonewall v Allison Bailey says she has delivered "a master class in how to misinterpret Equality Law"

twitter.com/moira_robin/status/1557357737947832322

I will take the advice of such an esteemed lawyer before I take the advice of one of Boris Johnson's cabinet ministers.

"I am talking about your deliberate and persistent use of 'men'."

Yes, trans men are men and it is an appropriate term to use in the context of a discussion about trans healthcare.

The news about the Stasi and McCarthyite branches of UCU raises wider points of concern for me.

If these Cheka, Stasi, and McCarthyites are ready to do a David Renton (Allison Bailey's room mate in Garden Court Chambers) and report their colleagues, even when it involves broaching effective social contracts and listening in on phone conversations and reporting them, then do we think that they wouldn't be reporting journal reviewers for wrong think? Especially given some of the standards of evidence we see for denouncing someone as akin to those who hold beliefs that are emphatically NWORIADS.

Imagine the power. A fair number of journals use the Open Review process. If there is a very real risk that somebody who is convinced of the power of being on 'the right side of history' would lodge a complaint with employers or professional organisations, or divulge the contact details for harassment purposes, I would certainly think a chilling effect would persuade reviewers to self-censor.

That's a shocking article in The Times about the UCU, Helle - thanks for sharing it.

Well, this will be another interesting situation to watch in the future....

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0ef73904-18ab-11ed-b4a0-f11f082a3a3c?shareToken=9086841b1851a93726804639c7ced9f1

Allison's case must be very relevant here too.

Oh, and look who is very entwined with UCU ....

www.ucl.ac.uk/ucu/news/2021/dec/ucl-ucu-statement-ucl-not-rejoining-stonewall

Maybe this will be part of that 'winning' celebration. Looking forward to any poster telling how this repetitive theme of Stonewall champions and Top employers seemingly doing extremely discriminatory actions against females who don't share Stonewall's beliefs can be twisted into a 'win'.

Seriously, every week now there is another story like this.

How does Stonewall expect to continue with the same senior management and have their reputation survive? But... celebrate that WIN!

Not the UK, but now that the English Rugby has followed World Rugby's decision... by ignoring Stonewall, I guess it shows just how much Stonewall is winning.

.... as in, this is the new Irish Rugby announcement following on from the English announcement.

Hardly insignificant.

Stonewall's win is more akin to won the battle, lost the war.