Announcement from Glinner

[AdultHuman]

medium.com/@glinner/please-note-13b56fdee612

"Regulated professional lawyer here. I only wish some of my clients were able to construe withdrawal as victory 😂 "

I know right

Hang on......isn't Stephanie suing Mumsnet? Surely they should ban Stephanie for that?

And yes, Stephanie made a big mistake assuming the boring Mums on here know nothing about the law. Tut tut. PS thanks Steph for peaking a few more of my friends......

How many police officers arrested Katie and Julia?

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/28/britains-police-chiefs-leader-sara-thornton-says-she-wants-end-to-blame-culture

Interesting to see Stepho popping up , again.

Agree with the commenters pointing out HQ are twitchy, given the nature of this person. I noted the huge thread on them going viral, after that insightful daily mail article, was deleted by HQ.

I do love to imagine Stepho reading those roll on Friday articles. Identifies as a lawyer. Hilarious

*them being our Stephanie.

Haydon really is their own worst enemy. What a plonker.

The dilemma in such situations is that the claimant wanting to walk away may say "if you pursue me for costs, I will continue my litigation'.

It's a basic shake down situation. Pay smaller costs now or face the potential for ruin.

@stephLDS18

Thank you for coming and clarifying. I have been a barrister for 15 years. Discontinuing your claim on a drop hands basis is not a victory for you. I’m really surprised you’re suggesting it is; no one with any knowledge of litigation could construe it that way. There would be all sorts of reasons unrelated to the case why GL would decide not to pursue costs eg it’s good money after bad unless he’s likely to be able to enforce.

I also am aware that the harassment warning was not a finding of unlawful conduct by Glinner - it’s an administrative way of dealing with a compliant. I have posted nothing negative about trans people at any stage and wish you all the best but I think it’s inportant non lawyers aren’t misled about such matters.

To the poster above - secondrow I think - I’m not a solicitor but I would think it would be a matter of serious professional conduct to represent to Stephanie that GL had accrued more costs than he had. If they sent a costs schedule to her and signed it then they would be in serious trouble if it weren’t accurate.

If the solicitors for whatever reason choose not to insist of payment of their full bill from GL that’s up to them but they can’t exaggerate it to try to get more from SH.

Thanks Caspiana - no I had no intention even to speculate they would exaggerate. I am sure the billable hours can be documented. I know nothing of the costs involved but I imagine it wouldn't be hard at all to accrue the amounts in question. Was more thinking of something like your latter scenario.

katvon mn only temporarily took that thread down - it's back up now

Interesting and informative caspiana.

Thank you for coming and clarifying. I have been a barrister for 15 years. Discontinuing your claim on a drop hands basis is not a victory for you. I’m really surprised you’re suggesting it is; no one with any knowledge of litigation could construe it that way.

I'm not surprised.

There would be all sorts of reasons unrelated to the case why GL would decide not to pursue costs eg it’s good money after bad unless he’s likely to be able to enforce.

Also, he is a grown-up, and his entire existence is not dependent on this sort of palaver. He doesn't appear to need validating by any of it.

I also am aware that the harassment warning was not a finding of unlawful conduct by Glinner - it’s an administrative way of dealing with a compliant. I have posted nothing negative about trans people at any stage and wish you all the best but I think it’s inportant non lawyers aren’t misled about such matters.

By non lawyers.

It is very well known that the high costs of English litigation are disproportionate to the value of claims and therefore have a massively freezing effect on defending claims.
It is also very well known that it is considered puerile (= childish) by people who know English civil procedure (disclaimer: I'm about to write a book on it...) to look at litigation as 'vindication' of one side or another. That in my opinion is wrong, and the book ought to be thrown at vexatious and pompous litigants, but that is what real lawyers actually advise their clients.

Surely, if you identify yourself as trans on social media, you are publicly acknowledging that your birth sex was different from your current gender identity? How could it therefore be harassment etc to refer to your birth sex, when it is a fact that you yourself have put into the public domain?

I would be interested to find out whether there was a pro bono element to the legal work carried out in pursuing Linehan.

ewe
That's good. I was sad because I'd just crafted a witty and amazingly intelligent response to it and it went poooft!

The latest Madigan one seems to have too.... is that me being dim or did the comparisons to an infamous dj get too much for HQ

The similarities were all too clear.

In fairness is someone is being talked about then they have a right to turn up and put their side of the story.

In fairness is someone is being talked about then they have a right to turn up and put their side of the story.

I couldn't agree more. Personally I am always happy to hear a transactivist's side of the story.

I wonder if the GL's costs are something Steph is allowed to publicise - seems to be private information to me....

I wonder if Steph would like to comment on this.

A man named Anthony Halliday was convicted of affray in an incident involving a golf club, with a charge of assault being left on file? It's also a fact that the judge stated that Halliday had in the past been convicted of other crimes including a number of offences of dishonesty.

I would like to know if Steph believes being convicted of crimes such as assault and offences of dishonesty should prevent people identifying, and advertising themselves as lawyers.

Actually I would also like to know if anyone made an application under Clare's Law to find out about convictions such as the above, what would happen with name changes since the convictions?

I'm sure someone knowledgeable here will be able to tell me. I don't want to derail the thread but I'm genuinely interested.

As a precaution, Glinner should now identify as something other than Glinner and get a new birth certificate like certain individuals have done. That way, no one could discuss what the artist formerly known as Glinner has said or done under his former identity. Right?

Whatever happened to the case in Ireland where a new woman stated that their crimes had been committed in the past when they were a man - and that since this man no longer existed, the case should just be thrown out of court because this would also be very traumatic for the - now - woman to be reminded of their male past.

No this was not a joke.

Thankfully I think that rationale was rejected, Fekko.

Stephanie, stop trying to make #nuttersnet happen. It's not going to happen.