Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action

Look back to this interesting exchange in March 2022 of sneering Caroline Noakes trying to shame Kemi Badenoch, asking K
B if she would be happy if a trans child were in a dorm with her children.

It is 2:30 mins into the clip:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/no-means-no?s=r&utm_medium=email

I would actually like to hear the 'trans voices'.

I've seen so much hyperbole like 'trans apartheid' and women's rights being compared to fascism, that I would like to actually hear their reasoned points presented in a sensible way.

Stonewall started this with 'no debate' and now transpeople are complaining that they aren't being heard. Well that is what no debate is. That is what you wanted from the start.

Reasonable people are always open to debate.

More like too long in the sunlight.

"...to ask them if their child has permission to be in the proximity of a trans person when they're sleeping."

The most generous way to interpret these comments is that the person making them has lost touch with reality and requires significant professional support.

Otherwise, it certainly has the appearance of deliberate disinformation. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that what actually happened was that appropriate safeguarding actions were followed when a male child requested to sleep among female children (or vice versa). Of course parents had to be involved if that was in contemplation.

Being trans or not has nothing to do with it. Why has such blatant nonsense and disinformation been given so much power to override basic safeguarding up until the judgment.

Do people genuinely hear this twaddle and think it's about the person being trans rather than about mixed sex accommodation?

Yes. You can keep the title even if you're no longer a practising barrister . I think one of the conditions is that you make clear that you're no longer practising

So it wasn’t genuine? It had loads of signatures from medical professionals 😵‍💫

Is he still known as a KC?

https://archive.today/NIQp9
https://archive.today/OLvqQ
https://archive.today/rdu2S

Genuine letter but the poster was using it to troll.

Thanks for that.
So what was the dodgy link? does the letter actually exist?? Are the apparent buck-eejits actually buck-eejits?

He's no longer practising as a barrister

I was wondering about that too.

It was a pretty sustained take-down of the content of the letter, but that wasn't difficult, it was a target-rich environment for picking apart.

I don't recall anything personal against the signatories, it was mostly just a generalised 'what a load of misogynistic buck-eejits they must be to produce this'.

I mean I don't object to Jolyon having a midlife crisis but I can't help thinking it would have been better for all concerned if he'd just bought himself a leather jacket and a sports car.

I’m surprised he’s still able to practise. It’s activism as you say.

He must know the criteria for intervening in cases. He defended the SC when they were being called enemies of the people in matters of prorogation and Brexit against the Tory Government. But now he's waging a trolling campaign against them that ill befits a legally qualified person. I am legally qualified and if there's one thing you learn it is that you weigh up the legislation and decided cases and advise your clients of risk accordingly. He should switch full time into activism as he's an embarrassment to the bar.
I watched the YouTube video of the LSE presentation by Naomi, Akua, Ben Cooper and Sarah Vine. I really recommend it but it is almost 2 hours. They speak in measured terms and point out areas where the judgment doesn't apply. No hyperbole, just legal clarity.
Contrast with the fox botherer and I just think he's had too long in the limelight but I'm clear that he's more like a sixth former than a KC.

Yes it as deleted. It was one of those goady threads with a dodgy link and an OP who made "threats" about how many dormant Mumsnet accounts they had.

SionnachRuadh It's pure magical thinking to assume that the judges would have come to an opposite conclusion if they'd taken an hour to listen to trans people saying they were sad.

Very funny😂

You are quite right. The "Grin" quoted in this thread is Maugham's eldest daughter who here says one of her two younger sisters has now also come out as trans. https://x.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1858807094918426886

I’m sure I started to read ‘An Open Letter’ thread on here this morning 🤔 but can’t find it now. Has it been deleted?

Yeah, statutory interpretation is usually very dry, but it's at the core of what the Supreme Court does. This was always going to be mostly a matter of going through a big and complex bit of legislation and saying "if we interpret 'woman' to mean X the law makes sense, if we intepret it to mean 'Y' we get perverse consequences".

Which isn't to say that real world examples aren't relevant. The arguments about lesbian associations having the ability to exclude men obviously had persuasive power in the judges concluding that the certificated sex interpretation would have perverse consequences.

But a trans intervention would have had to be equivalent to to that. It's pure magical thinking to assume that the judges would have come to an opposite conclusion if they'd taken an hour to listen to trans people saying they were sad.

I think it really is a capacity thing. They're just not able to comprehend that the law doesn't support the version of reality in their heads.

Not GLP but a different form of ‘fight back’

www.thenational.scot/news/25171035.trans-women-protest-topless-outside-scottish-parliament/

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Thank you for making me laugh. 🙏

Just been reading some of Grin's writing and the TKDB pages for the first time.

I am flabbergasted at how utterly deranged and manipulative it is. If they genuinely believe what they have written then they have thoroughly lost touch with reality. If not, then it is incredibly sinister.

I don't think kids should be online unsupervised. It's clearly not good for them.

The implication is that the supreme court have made some random 'decision' with which they vehemently disagree. The truth is, however, that the supreme court undertook a process of thorough logical analysis of the legislation to determine the meaning of 'Sex' and. 'Woman' as used in the Equalities Act.

The ruling was very long, detailed and thorough, and all of the thinking was clearly spelled out and tested using real life cases and situations.

Yes - I notice there's only a certain kind of trans person projected onto the building. Hint: it's the men.

The Sex Discrimination Act was superseded by the Equality Act along with all the other equality legislation.