In court tomorrow

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

Hayden versus Associated Newspapers.

The Judge? Go on guess. Mr Justice Julian Knowles.

Remember him? I couldn’t be happier.

This is according to contacts at the NZ fruit farm

It begs the question - what use is a law degree to a convicted criminal?

Intimidation.

Worth reiterating that the GRC panel allegedly appear to have no system in place to investigate and assess fraudulent GRC's.

Something is seriously wrong with the system, it would appear on further inspection

It would take extraordinary circumstances for a GRC to be revoked. Far more outlandish than anything we've yet seen of Hayden.

Worth reiterating that the GRC panel allegedly appear to have no system in place to investigate and assess fraudulent GRC's.

Something is seriously wrong with the system, it would appear on further inspection

Wasnt there a case of a criminal (bomb maker?) turned down on a number of occasions by GRC panel & then on appeal allowed.

There were questions asked about the private Dr who provided the letter which enabled this male criminal to obtain a GRC.

Adding to those who had the privilege of attending a workshop with Julian Norman at #WomensLib2020 . - I can only say that I hope to benefit from her expertise again if WPUK can organise more workshops later this year so that we can have the opportunity to explore some issues in the detail that they merit.

My guess BustedWench is that it would require a trigger for there to be a prosecution over a false statutory declaration and if, a very big if, a trans person was found to be guilty, then perhaps the Gender Recognition Panel might act to cobble together a process for revoking a GRC. Although they might not have such a power which would mean that the GRA 2004 would have to be changed before revocation of a GRC could ever be possible.

I don't think it's going to happen unless the GRA is amended or repealed.

I'm pretty confident your guess is accurate @nauticant

The GRA 2004 should be repealed, yes. It's fucking nuts.

Yes, not just fertility treatments : as someone in my neighbourhood who openly says they have a GRC does, continue to act as a sperm donor and earn money from drug trials and medical research between gigs.

I know is still male on those records and really shouldn't be "legally" female. No follow-up or facility to recind!!!

The GRA has been a farce and open to abuse since its inception.

The panel also, allegedly, are not keen to investigate any concerns regarding falsely obtained GRC's.

I wonder why. Could it be because it would shine an unrelenting spotlight on the nonsense that a GRC is?

That it will show up male born individuals, complete with beads, penises, heterosexual orientations, and furious demands to access female changing rooms, all claiming to be women on the basis of absolutely fuck all connection to reality.

I do hope they are forced to start considering what the fucking fuck a GRC actually is.

Wasnt there a case of a criminal (bomb maker?) turned down on a number of occasions by GRC panel & then on appeal allowed.

There were questions asked about the private Dr who provided the letter which enabled this male criminal to obtain a GRC.

Apologies, Im answering my own question.
It was Dr Vickie Pasterski who also played a key role in a Child Protection case last year.

May 2019 Transgender Trend:
'Parents who Socially Transitioned Two Young Children Win Court Battle'
(extract)
All of the expert witnesses were concerned, that is, except one. Dr Vickie Pasterski is a Harley St doctor running a private clinical practice providing referrals for “gender affirming medical interventions” and has helped more than 500 individuals transition. She is recognised by the UK Ministry of Justice as a ‘Gender Specialist’ and provides reports for Gender Recognition Certificate applicants. According to this Mumsnet researcher, she approved the third application of a dangerous criminal (which would enable him to be housed in the female prison estate). The original court document has since disappeared from the Cloisters website. Her CV shows that her research has focused exclusively on ‘intersex’ or DSD conditions and from the evidence of this radio interview she clearly confuses people with DSD with transgender people and thinks that biological sex is a confusing spectrum.

As reported in the Sunday Times, Dr Pasterski is a supporter of Dr Helen Webberley, the criminally convicted GP who has given cross-sex hormones to twelve year-olds in breach of NHS guidelines." (continues)
www.transgendertrend.com/parents-socially-transitioned-two-young-children-win-court-battle/

Important thread about 'Ms Jay's' successful appeal after three refusals by GRC panel:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3481765-Jay-vs-Secretary-of-State-for-Justice-getting-a-GRC-on-appeal-after-panel-says-no-three-times

October 2018 Independent:
'Trans woman jailed for explosives offence wins legal right to change gender
Four-year legal battle with Ministry of Justice ends'
(extract)
"A father-of-seven who lives as a woman and was jailed for possessing explosives has won the right to be recognised as female.

The woman began formal action against Justice Secretary David Gauke in 2014, after a specialist panel said she did not satisfy the terms of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and refused to approve her application.

Following an appeal, a judge has now ordered the woman – referred to only as Ms Jay – be granted a gender recognition certificate.

Earlier this year, the Family Division of the High Court heard Ms Jay had “transitioned” a decade ago and made series of applications to a specialist tribunal called the Gender Recognition Panel." (continues)
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trangender-rights-gender-recognitions-exposives-womens-prisons-father-of-seven-david-gauke-a8586241.html

Pretty sure Julian Norman is one of the trustees of FiLiA so she'll be doing workshops etc there in October, too.

She is brilliant, yes.

Just whilst we’re waiting for any further news on this

Presumably the police will put a marker on an address when contacted by a member of the public who provides reasons why they believe they are at risk?
My understanding is that this is so that in the event of any reports of incidents at this address, additional information is available to those taking the call or responding?

From my own experience - I witnessed an extremely violent crime & provided evidence to the police. I received no direct threats or approaches at all, did not know the people involved previously, but as I was aware (just via local gossip/intuition) that the assailant had some less than savoury connections and was worried about the possibility of threats/intimidation/retribution, I spoke to the police and they put a marker on my address & phone number, so any calls from me/mentioning my address are prioritised.

This was done entirely by me self-identifying as feeling threatened. There was no actual threats made and no intelligence to suggest I actually was at risk.

So no, a police marker on an address is not itself evidence of any actual credible threat having been made.

I wonder why. Could it be because it would shine an unrelenting spotlight on the nonsense that a GRC is?

It could equally be that it was assumed that the 2,000-5,000* transsexuals would all undergo one-way significant medical treatment and since revoking a GRC was not of any real concern then including a revocation process would be of little practical use and would cause offence.

Nearly 20 years on it's quite easy to overlook the jaw-dropping naïvety that was involved in drafting and passing the GRA 2004.

• www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

Do we know when judgement is likely to be given?

Nearly 20 years on it's quite easy to overlook the jaw-dropping naïvety that was involved in drafting and passing the GRA 2004.

see Vulvamort's 'Thread of Threads' for Hansard evidence of this:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177699186361458688.html

Includes:
"Tweets from 2003: The Gender Recognition Bill

I'm going to tweet out a few of the illuminating comments from the debates that led to the GRA 2004, to save you all ploughing through Hansard.
One of the primary motivations (if not the foremost) for the bill was to avoid legalising same sex marriage. This featured VERY heavily in the discussions.

It was, in the Govt's eyes, FAR preferable to convert a same sex couple into a heterosexual couple via 'sex change' than it was to make same sex marriage legal:

#GRA2004

Note how it was supposed to be only a 'small number'

And the justification of "if we allow sex to change we can sidestep same sex marriage" appeared over and over again...

One of the obvious flaws in the entire process was the deliberate confuscation of sex and gender. The govt admitted that the two concepts were NOT THE SAME

Note the NO.
And then note the utter balderdash that follows. In this order:

1. Gender is not sex.
2. Govt will legally recognise gender
3. Gender should be legal sex
4. Acquired gender = legal sex
5. Something unexplained about man, woman and male and female
6. Sex = Gender

To recap, sex and gender are not the same, govt acknowledges, but we'd like to create a law that pretends they are, whilst still knowing they are not. Cool. This paved the way for what we've now seen evidence for: that 'female' people with penises can commit rape. As we now know, this happens" (continues)

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049289194370002945.html

Had my arrest not been tweeted about whilst I was still in a cell, this thread would probably not exist in my opinion, but what do I know, the police didn't fancy listening to my concerns

Oh BustedWench there is so much I want to ask you, but there is so much you're not able to say.

Hopefully soon you'll be able to speak freely.

indeed

someone in my neighbourhood who openly says they have a GRC does, continue to act as a sperm donor and earn money from drug trials and medical research between gigs.

I wonder if that is an intriguing end-run around HMRC or something that is not as yet common enough for HMRC to feel it is worth the resources to address?

If somebody is legally female it would seem unusual to be able to tax them for income derived from being another sex. (Sex not gender is wholly appropriate here. There are more clinical trial opportunities available to 'healthy control comparator group' males than there are females. In this case I should think that there can't be substantial hormonal modifications nor cosmetic ones as the HCPs who conduct the screening would notice.)

Looks like we are all wrong about Hayden's law qualifications / ability to practice law...

I am a lawyer. As recognised in open court today by Mr Justice Julian Knowles ;)

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1234868790351073286?s=19

Your understanding is incorrect and irrelevant. I have professional legal qualifications. You might not like that but tough . And as I was in court I think I know exactly what was said. Go and buy a transcript. Meanwhile foxtrot oscar.

How would one go about aquiring a

Court transcript?

Which court was this?

Lawyer isn't a protected term, anyone can call themselves 'Lawyer'.

I am a lawyer. As recognised in open court today by Mr Justice Julian Knowles

I didn't think anyone disputed that. Anyone can be a lawyer