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

🤣

This is a hoot.

What happens if coronavirus pops up and demands the correct recording of sex on the tally chart.

Can a virus be sued?

🦠

I don’t think it’s correct either TheIn, I think that’s the Press for Change, Stonewall law wishful thinking interpretation!

Pretty certain that this is what will be argued tomorrow though, as Christine Burns is apparently en route from the North West .

Mrs B, along with Stephen Whittle, is a founder of Press for Change, who were the main influences on the GRA 2004.

archive.li/y7JAv

Wonder who the defendants have got lined up as witnesses (assuming witnesses for and against will be appearing?)

Its agreed then

I may have been watching too much Judge John Deed.

Looking forward to this!

No idea, but I imagine the Mail will have some shit hot legal eagles on this - trans issues are a hot topic in the news and newspapers won’t want their right to report the truth curtailed, especially in regards to trans criminals.

All the trans lobby groups that target the press will be furious if their behind the scenes work on this unravels. It’s their advice and guidelines that led us to ‘her penis’, in the Karen White story.

Press for Change was the original (formed in 1992)
(And GIRES is it’s offshoot) but there is also

Trans Media Watch (Helen Belcher)

And ‘

All About Trans (formerly known as ‘Trans Media Action’) which is the younger, cooler trans crowd, Fox and Owl Fisher, Paris Lees etc.

Whittle was the odd FTM out at the Beaumont Society back in the day. No doubt the ‘destroy the cross dressers clothes and don’t tell the wife’ was their influence.

I see the witness has an interest in trains. What a surprise.

Mrs B? That Mrs B?

Best not to speculate. Christine Burns (MBE) (b.1954) is the author of ‘Trans Britain: Our Journey from the Shadows’ and has been an active transactivist for 30 years.

Some of the court cases Burns and Whittle advised on are listed on Burns’ Wikipedia

Also, I don't understand Hayden's motivation here.

Supply.

When 250,000 messages is STILL not enough....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Burns

That’s interesting:

The Department of Health set up a Sexual Orientation Advisory Group (SOAG) in 2004. After lobbying from Press for Change, the Department of Health changed the name to the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Advisory Group (SOGIAG) to be more inclusive of trans needs and identities.

So Burns and Whittle have been trying to make ‘Gender Identity’ the official term for at least 25 years.

According to Wikipedia Burns was one of the very first people to receive a GRC, so no doubt Hayden considers Burns to be a prize witness.

Let's face it, if the Mail get done for snarky headlines, slant and unflattering photos the website's going to be rather empty. So would assume they're bringing their legal A Game.

I suspect that the Mail’s lawyers will be on this like a Jack Russell terrier shaking a chamois leather.

If Hayden is representing Haydenself Hayden has no chance.

They might’ve managed to get legal team to volunteer in return for woke cookies, but I doubt it.
Hayden’s not exactly a likeable character, and regardless of the outcome, there will be unflattering press.

As this is high court, that means the judgement will set a legal precedent, doesn’t it?

Does anyone know if Joani (or anyone else) will be tweeting? Her twitter page is showing offline at the moment.

I'm working at home tomorrow so will be looking forward to updates.

Oh my days.
This is rather a lovely end to a somewhat crappy day. What a treat.

I shall have to watch this thread closely tomorrow.

DuLANGMondeFOREVER I'm loving your work. Really.

If Hayden should win surely it will be reported as “DM sued for saying SH sued for being called a man”

Sunshine

No. It is a decision of first instance, so doesn’t set legal precedence. The judge merely applies the law. However, such decisions can be persuasive. For a legal precedent to be set the decision has to go to appeal on a point of law (ie the argument would be that the court of first instance got the law wrong/interpreted the law incorrectly). A court of appeal decion or, ultimately, a Supreme Court decision would set legal precedent.

This one is set to be very interesting

So for numerous typos.

How does the allocation of judges to cases work? Do they have specialist areas or is it ‘cab rank’ style allocation like barristers? Interesting that Knowles is hearing this case.

Don't the DM have rather a lot of money to hire good lawyers with? Did this person assume that the DM would just pay them to make the lawsuit go away? That would be my guess.

Well this could be interesting. 🍿

I’m currently identifying as a placemarker.