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

That is a rather intriguing point, Rowantrees.

Can anyone tell me what the point of all this is?

Power

And engendering fear. Shutting women up.

Thanks for posting that gem R0, sadly no mention of when Tara studied law.

I do remember the cancer talk though, I remember the dress and I remember the non committed audience looking thoroughly bored.
I also remember thinking this person is a little over confident in their delivery.

And grifting. Allegedly.

Cilex is distance learning, yes?
Is it possible to study it, say, in prison, pass the exam and then not be able to register as an authorised practitioner?

Because I can see why a person in that situation might be tempted to change their name and start a new period of study...

I can’t see it doing any of those things though? They just look more pathetic and ridiculous with each court appearance.

Like Yaniv they’re just shining a light on how ludicrous everything has become!

The use of 'lawyer' in the UK seems quite recent to me, possibly the result of popular US legal dramas and the language infiltrating?

There definitely seems to be a common inflated sense of self between Hayden and Yaniv.

Neither seems to acknowledge the possibility of failure. It’s quite remarkable whether it’s Hayden self representating in a claim against the Daily Mail or Yaniv trying to qualify for a beauty pageant.

Neither seems to like the word ‘no’.

Actually linkedin says Tara Hewitt did law at the University of Liverpool from 2005 to 2010. They didn't offer any of the vocational qualifications then as far as I know, so my guess is bachelors and perhaps a masters degree in law. Wouldn't need a GDL but equally, doesn't remotely qualify them to offer legal opinions.

Tara Hewitt is featured as a 'Northern Power Woman'
"Tara is an award winning Leadership and Inclusion Professional and has worked across a number of leadership roles

In 2014 Tara led a turnaround program as Chair of the Board of The Mosslands School supporting the senior leadership in taking the school from Requiring Improvement to Good within a two year period.

In 2016 Tara co-founded the UK’s only coalition of trans activists, diversity professionals and human rights lawyers “the Trans Equality Legal Initiative.

In 2018 Tara came together with fellow Leadership and Inclusion Consultant Safina Nadeem to create Purple Infusion ltd. With the aim of harnessing their shared expertise and experience as consultants to support organisations in creating innovative solutions within the leadership and inclusion landscape.

Tara’s current role is as the Inclusion and Engagement Manager at the Northern Care Alliance covering two NHS Trusts and over 17500 staff and came 25th in this year’s Inclusive top 50 UK employers and is the lead organisation for the delivery of the Greater Manchester Public Sector workforce Race Equality transformation plan.

She was recently described as “mischief managed” and her latest interest is utilising “Guerrilla Networking” to help professionals hack the complex hierarchies across health and social care."

www.northernpowerwomen.com/portfolio/tara-hewitt/

In 2014 Tara Hewitt was criticised by PinkNews, Sarah Brown & Benjamin Cohen whilst being defended by Caroline Farrow:
www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/29/trans-tory-candidate-opposes-lesbians-using-sperm-banks/

Pink News claimed that Hewitt self nominated for a diversity award presumably whilst working at UHSM (University of South Manchester, Wythenshawe). UHSM was also involved with the launch/founding of TELI.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3378258--Transwomen-should-be-treated-on-female-wards?pg=3

I'm rather fond of the term Dr Hubris.

I do remember the cancer talk though, I remember the dress and I remember the non committed audience looking thoroughly bored.

I remember watching it for the first time & wishing that I had been in the audience.
There is much wrong with it which has particular implications for women diagnosed with cancer.

Who fancies some Friday evening canapés, then?

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/an-audience-with-professor-stephen-whittle-and-tara-hewitt-tickets-95421128163

Jeeez these women have extensive CV's.

I defended Tara when I believed (naively) that they were a genuine Catholic and before I peak transed.

It was around 2016 that my eyes were opened, before while I didn’t accept sex change was really possible, I thought we ought to be nice to individuals just trying to live their lives as best they can and gave TH the benefit of the doubt.

My eyes were soon opened and my understanding is that TH is a very confused cameleon individual,

All I could think of rowantrees was that if Hayden actually is a lawyer in that they provide legal advice, and calls themself one, saying they're not a lawyer is calling them a liar. Which is potentially defamatory. But the defamation isn't to do with the particular characteristic, just the accusation of dishonesty.

I remember watching it for the first time & wishing that I had been in the audience

The women in the audience were probably senior level. Their quietness startled me then, but I could see that they were just being polite.

There are different levels of CILEx, at the top, you call yourself a fellow of CILEx and can put the letters FCILEx after your name. It's broadly equivalent to being a solicitor or barrister. To be a FCILEx you have to pass a ton of exams, have a proper legal job for few years, have your work supervised by a qualified person, in my case solicitor, then submit many examples of the legal work you have done to CILEx who vet it to ensure it's proper legal work and of a good standard.

If you have a law degree, you can join CILEx but you don't have the same standing as a FCILEx and by those in the know you wouldn't be considered as qualified.

CILEx is regulated and requires members to abide by a code of conduct similar to solicitors and barristers.

Anyone can call themselves a lawyer though. And you can make it sound good by saying you are eg a member of CILEx or have a law degree if that's the case. All of the legal bodies (CILEx, SRA and the Bar Council) have a dim view of individuals holding themselves out as fully qualified when they are not. So as an ordinary CILEx member with say, just a law degree behind you but not admitted as a fellow, you might be in hot water for offering legal services while referring to your CILEx membership, you'd have to be very careful how you positioned yourself.

"The Proud Trust and the Manchester Law School welcome you to an evening of thoughtful, open discussion to discuss trans equality, its recent history, its current challenges, and where we want to go from here.

We are joined by two illustrious polymaths - Stephen Whittle OBE, Press for Change Activist and Professor of Equalities Law at the Manchester Law School, MMU; and Tara Hewitt, the Inclusion and Engagement Manager at Northern Care Alliance NHS Group and co-founder of the Trans Equality Legal Initiative. Bringing expertise from the worlds of law, health and activism, Tara and Stephen will discuss how trans equality has shaped the trans community over recent decades, and will explore the new battle grounds that have emerged. We will explore what new possibilities are emerging and how can we ensure trans lives are celebrated, understood and integrated across society.

This event is trans and non-binary inclusive and feminist. We believe that challenging and dismantling sexism will benefit all genders of people: including trans and non-binary people, cis women and men.

All who come with an open heart and an inquiring mind will be welcomed."

Great. I'm a lawyer then.

And just to say, with CILEx, a prior criminal conviction would make it difficult to be admitted or continue as a fellow. You have to be of good standing.

DuLANGMondeFOREVER
How timely.
It says feminists are welcome but not if you are angry.

I am very angry, this whole charade makes me angry, Stephen Whittle makes me very angry, therefore I am not allowed to go.

We could identify as being non-angry?

If the description 'lawyer' is meaningless why might it be a basis for litigation if one questioned that a person was a lawyer (hypothetically of course)?

Absolutely no clue. It could be contextual, perhaps? I don't know the history of it. But it's not a protected term in the way barrister or solicitor is. In my own university college, everyone studying law was called a lawyer. They were called 'the lawyers' as a group. By their director of studies, who was a QC.