Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

So this is the latest message to intimidate after their idea to compile a list of gc women

As a pp said they link to Hayden's blog. Which is not definitive, but suggests ownership.

I'm just amazed that a person puts up the (not inconsiderable) amount of money to get a law degree as a mature student and effectively pisses it up against a wall by behaving in this manner.

What's their plan? Being a z-list 'sleb on the trans gravy train? Because it's all being flushed straight down the pan with this sort of ridiculous carry on.

How much has it cost Hayden to get the details of a throw away email? Thank goodness Hayden is only a lawyer and not a solicitor or barrister. It’s embarrassing

(On the witness statement point in just about all litigation people bringing a claim write a witness statement from themselves - nothing wrong per se with that - it is just their own formal statement of the facts. They might have other witnesses giving a statement too in support of theirs too.)

OMG. Just ventured to the fruity place and now I understand why fragrant Steph is working so hard to keep details if any past legal problems hidden.

Harrop has addressed Hayden's views on self ID. They disagree but apparently Steph has a unique insight and is a key stakeholder in these discussions so entitled to their views. Unlike women then

What a hypocrite.

mobile.twitter.com/AdrianHarrop/status/1116432897802739713

AncientLights no, that's not dodgy, the process is as described. You send off the application with a medical report from someone who does know about gender dysphoria, another from your GP, a small fee, and evidence of having lived in your acquired gender for 2 years, such as 2 years worth of council tax bills / bank statements / certified copy of driving licence. Nothing wrong with adding a witness statement for yourself either.

It's significantly less faff than applying for PIP / an EHCP / citizenship / a visa / any other comparable state bureaucracy process.

Thanks for clarifying Samoture. Yet they claim applying for a GRC is unnecessarily slow & cumbersome.

'Stephanie and I have significant differences of opinion on a number of issues. But we are irrevocably bonded by our utter hatred of women, and let's face it, that is the only important issue here'.

Spot.on.

I just do not see what standing Hayden has to make court applications of this type. There must be something to ground a court order - but what?

I think the clue to Stephanie's potential legal case against MN and/or ALittleHelp18 is in the email MN sent SH today. It states "We also keep a close eye on our obligations under the Defamation Act"

A quick search for the Defamation Act, led to Section 8 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Rehabilitation and actions for libel under English law

Section 8 of the Act, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with a primary motive of causing damage to the subject (malice), then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not.........

^en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974^

Presumably ‘ALittleHelp’ was trying to help the women of Mumsnet by warning them about a large human being with a history of violence?

Hayden’s own words, as reported in the Daily Mail:

'Before I started medical transition I was a big strong bloke. Imagine a woman like me in a women's team, that's ridiculous.
'I was 16 stone, a strong heavily-built man - come on, that's just common sense.'

That’s not malice, it’s safeguarding. Or as Hayden might say, ‘common sense’.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6912343/Transgender-activist-vows-sue-Mumsnet-founder-site-ignores-High-Court-order.html

Yes and with Hayden's own constant references to golfing and visiting places where specific individuals live I'd say it was a sensible warning.

Section 8 of the Act, if a person can prove that the details of a spent conviction were published with a primary motive of causing damage to the subject (malice), then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not.........

"Yes and with Hayden's own constant references to golfing and visiting places where specific individuals live I'd say it was a sensible warning."

^^ this.

How can public knowledge of the golfing charge be damaging to Hayden, when they are entirely reliant on that knowledge being public in order for the golfing emojis, etc, to be effective?

How can public knowledge of the golfing charge be damaging to Hayden, when they are entirely reliant on that knowledge being public in order for the golfing emojis, etc, to be effective?

They don't call you "the brains of the operation" (NonExistentFox) for nothing, Datters

Well done DM & MN 😁

Yes, the constant references to Hayden sporting background, coming from Camp camp, seem to suggest it's not damaging at. Datun Mic drop.

*at all.

Although it seems that the golfing thing is the thing here, it seems like that isn't the actual thing that is needed to be supressed.

The golfing thing is the distraction, the other thing is the thing...allegedly.

Which begs the question, if the golfing thing is not the thing, and the golfing thing is already pretty bad, what thing is so bad that the golfing thing is ok to use as the distraction thing?

Quite! What would be worse than assault and fraud that you would want to hide from everyone? What sort of thing might you have in your background that would instantly turn off your supporters and make you into a pariah, so it was better to focus people’s attention on your violent past instead?

This person has dropped the legal action against Lineham. I don't know on what basis - presumably a mutual "drop hands" with neither side paying the other's costs nor any damages agreed to be paid kind of compromise.

The golfing thing is the distraction, the other thing is the thing...allegedly.

I found it interesting that Roll On Friday published everything from that court paper except the potential alleged thing.

I can’t lie, this is massively entertaining. Pompous meltdowns are the best

That email from MNHQ was a thing of beauty.

Go well.

II found it interesting that Roll On Friday published everything from that court paper except the potential alleged thing.*

Is there reference to this alleged thing, anywhere?