DfE settles in Cornwall case

On DfE, it’s a shit place to work if you are gender critical. You could say you’re just a corpse, such is the level of institutional capture.

It’s considered transphobic even to mention that some people don’t have a gender identity. The LGBT+ network is all about self id, so there is no safe space for same sex attracted people. And of course the LGBT+ network is consulted on the D&I policy, so those excluded by that are voiceless.

What chance is there that this complaint was treated fairly? I’d guess next to none.

If I were this couple, I’d do a subject access request to find out if there are any internal emails dismissing me as a transphobe.

It’s all #bekind but only to those who rightthink.

Brilliant 🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣
You have to love a dictionary definition….

“Where the hand of tyranny is long we do not see the lips of men open with laughter.”
— Saadi

“Laughter takes the tyranny of the lies we are told and told and told and it blows them apart.”
— Kate Clinton

“Laugh at tyrants and the tragedy they inflict. Such men welcome our tears as evidence of subservience, but our laughter condemns them to ignominy”
– Dean Koontz

“Laughter is something we have against oppression and oppressive people. Dictators hate people who laugh at them. It's easy for them to destroy people who resist them. But if you create jokes against them, write funny poems or articles against them, then they feel helpless and desperate. They can't do anything.”
– Burhan Sonmez

“[Humanity] has unquestionably one really effective weapon - laughter.

Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution - these can lift at a colossal humbug, push it a little, weaken it a little, century by century…
but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast.

Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”
– Mark Twain

But‘Mumsnet’ is no longer a suitable space for mature discussion as is is shown by the last few posts.

Ah yes, any handful of posts is completely representive of an entire forum consisting of tens of thousands of people. Of course.

I've kept out of this discussion because my opinion of RMW is formed in part by one of their posts that had to be deleted some time ago and I don't really want to bring it up again but it's not an area where I wish to direct my energies.

😃

To poach. Trespass with intent to steal, Appropriate as ones own. Yep.

Sigh!

Read the judgment. Look at para 20. A great deal of effort was put in by those I worked with.

And I prefer my pears poached.

It's very aggravating to feel you're constantly accused of something you're not guilty of. You should discuss it over a cup of tea with JKR.

That the bundles for the high profile case you worked on were so notoriously shambolic that they’ve gone down in Mumsnet lore.

it’s very unbecoming to repeatedly shift blame to less prominent team members - you are a self-styled, book writing ‘expert’ on transgender law who gives commentary to both specialist and general publications so of course you will attract some flak for the failures of the faceless members of your team. That’s what comes of the media profile you’ve courted.

The gracious thing to do would be to say ‘WE’LL do better next time’ rather than ‘THEY did it! Not me!’.

It’s awfully reminiscent of a toddler demanding a cutted up pear.

Thanks, Bluebell. Helpful to hear from a barrister with clear, sensible advice.

'a staple too short to penetrate the full thickness of the bundle.'

Evocative. And somehow metaphorical, I feel.

If you say ‘bundle’ 3 times while looking into a mirror….

The bundles I had no involvement in producing?

Your point was?

Sedley's Law

😆

I know that the bundles have their own place in MN lore now, but in fairness, they weren't Robin's responsibility (or even Robin's client's responsibility IIRC - I can't be bothered to go back and check)

Unfortunately it's not unusual for bundles to be a complete nightmare. It prompted Lord Justice Sedley to write Sedley's Law of Documents. At least with virtual hearings the Eleventh Law can be dispensed with.

www.civillitigationbrief.com/2020/05/10/covid-repeats-17-sedleys-law-of-documents/

Astonished.... but not surprised at all...

Naughty, naughty wims!

Bluebell - how embarrassing, I bolded my own typo 🤣

Still not as shambolic as those bundles though, eh?

Thank you Bliuebell - it’s very reassuring to see that some barristers are able to maintain a professional demeanour even while posting on Mumsnet.

There is another current thread on a legal case involving schools transing children that our learned plopper has weighed in on - would be grateful if you could add some professional insight over there, should you have the time.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4641071-teacher-sacked-after-refusing-to-use-preferred-pronouns-without-first-checking-with-parents?page=5&reply=120280512

Helpful, thank you!

it did occur to me that when you are so sure about something that you think the rules of language and the law should be rewritten to accommodate it, you’d be ready and eager to explain why at any opportunity

I mean if you’re so sure you’re right it must be super easy to articulate why, no?

some people seem a little coy though

We answer questions all the time 😄

Questions from lay clients on anything from procedure to what to wear to court. Questions from solicitors on strategy and tactics, time limits, case law. Questions about prospects of success. Questions on cost : benefit ratio especially if we do legal aid work. Questions on the advisability of accepting an offer to settle. Questions on costs. Questions from the other side. Questions from judges, and if you can't answer those you're in difficulties.

Just to reassure any MNetters who are in current legal proceedings, if you have a conference with your barrister, it is positively encouraged to ask questions. The last thing we want is an unnecessarily anxious and unprepared lay client who is wishing she'd asked more questions but felt too overawed to do so. Sorry for the derail but I do think this is really important especially as there are so many women in here who are dealing with court proceedings.

The usual explanation is that it's all about feelings, which can't be explained, because they're feelings. And even though it's just about feelings which obviously can't be measured or shown to actually exist, it's much more important than biological reality when it comes to making laws. And of course those feelings have nothing to do with stereotypes, even though they're all based on stereotypes (Robin's blog is a good example of this).

It's also too difficult for us silly women to understand, even though trans toddlers and even babies can understand perfectly. Google 'Diane Ehrensaft' for details. And even though her explanations are all about stereotypes (which the children in question are too young to even know about), it's actually nothing to do with stereotypes.

cos we might pay attention and ask questions which would be altogether rude

I remember naively attending a talk by a female non binary person and asking them what characteristics they didn't have that made them definitely not a woman (I genuinely wanted to know. back then I thought there might be an answer). the stare I got nearly froze me in my seat

Why not?

If it's not about regressive gender stereotypes, please explain!