A THREAD TO RECORD ALL THE APOLOGIES TO GC WOMEN SINCE THE SUPREME COURT RULING

On point.

Absolutely. I misunderstood your comment.
Ive learned something new today.
The Peter Daly thread deals with your query.
1 of the 2 individuals who applied lives in Ireland so is out of jurisdiction.
the 2nd had to show that they represented a group of people who were putting forward points not already covered by Scotgov or Amnesty and demonstrate prejudice as a result.
Clearly they didn’t manage to do that.

What do you think was missing from the Scotgov and Amnesty points?
Why didn’t any of the 78 LGBTQ+ groups or organisations who commented on the GRR originally apply to comment? None?!

I wonder why the fragrant McCloud, V was not permitted to make their,
"I've always used the ladies, therefore, it's all fine for me and my cohort to continue," presentation.

I think the McCloud intervention was deemed "feelz" rather than facts of law.

@PersephoneSmith an offence under the the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and harassment. You could report to the police if you wished.

I saw that, disappointing.

Here’s the reply I had from Ocado on asking to delete my account

Thanks for reaching out to us.

“These comments are not representative of us as a company, and we believe they were made by a temporary contractor who is no longer with the business. We apologise unreservedly to Mumsnet.

In the meantime, if you have any other questions, please get in touch.

Otherwise, I hope you have a lovely day. Take care!”

I wonder what David Isaacs thinks of all this? Any remorse?

Good, they can use the money for their own services instead of stealing ours.

Another for the sinners list

Nicola Coughlan, actress. On a mission to raise loads of money for the poor trans victims. I thought she was much younger than her actual age but she's late 30's and carrying on like a teenager. Shame as I loved her characters.

Is it? Could you give examples?

I don't think it is at all usual for the SCUK to publish reasons for the rejection of an intervention.

For example, the Supreme Court earlier this year rejected the intervention of the Treasury (among others) while allowing the intervention of the FCA (and one other) in appeals related to car finance.

The only 'reason' published for those decisions was to note that Court’s approach to applications for permission to intervene is set out in the practice direction i referred you to earlier in this thread.

I wonder why the fragrant McCloud, V was not permitted to make their,

"I've always used the ladies, therefore, it's all fine for me and my cohort to continue," presentation.

I'm sure it's got nothing to do with they being invited to resign quietly, rather than be cast out, because of them's political activism.

No, it's a mystery all right; one worthy of Miss Marple and no mistake.

No it wasn't, you are lying.

Again, the Scottish government was the trans defence. And other groups could have applied, they...did....not. THEIR FAULT!

And again, not ONE feminist group was listened to during the GRR debates, why weren't you complaining then? Hypocrite!

There’s a difference between the decision on intervention, made last year, and the judgment handed down this week.

And it’s completely usual, and reasonable, for UKSC to give its reasons for a decision on intervention.

I find it’s generally more sensible to read the judgment itself than tweets from a lawyer with a clear agenda like Daly purporting to digest it.

@KnottyAuty
That is appalling. When we get to the south coast would you be ok if I quoted you for the Press? This is just so unacceptable that organisations are allowing this to happen to employees
Please do!

The fact the reasons are not published does not make the reasons arbitrary.

The politest thing I can say about that is that you have just stated in terms that you have absolutely no basis for your assertion.

Peter Daly has informative threads on X about all of these matters.

I know right?

I assume it was a decision made on the quality of the submission.

And, again, isn't it odd that no trans advocacy orgs applied to intervene? Perhaps direct your ire at them. They didn't even try.

The SC gave us 88 pages of detailed deliberations. Won’t you even give us a hint?

supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

Quite hard when UKSC didn’t show theirs clearly on the intervention decision. Oh wait, that’s what makes it arbitrary- a decision without proper reasoning.

@TwoLoonsAndASprout was keeping an eye on the list of Midlands trusts left to do. But I expect we will all be busy tomorrow- so hold on to that enthusiasm! One of us will report back on the audit thread

Ok I'm on it - can you update the regions left to do?

Good for you!

How awful. Do google the London social worker case then - sounds similar

No worries - bit of googling, print to PDF and some cut & paste. Not much tech required - fill in an online form - easy!