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

Work is such a nuisance. Never mind duvet days. I need popcorn days!
The NZ farmers thread is very interesting at present.

Ah! This a test of the privacy that a GRC is supposed to offer (if a person has a GRC, no one in authority is allowed to divulge that).

Do we think the argument will be that the DM violated privacy by including a photo, thus outing Hayden? I really hope they do try that angle, but presumably they aren't quite that stupid?

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.

I wondered that. Did he volunteer or was it decided that he was probably the most up to date in the matter given his recent experience perhaps?

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.

My guess is that this is a person that would do ^anything’ for attention and presumably has no intention of paying in the likely event that the Mail wins. It’s that or Yaniv like levels of delusion. Not easy to be sure either way.

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

I see. I did a law module as part of my accountancy qualification, which taught us:
Magistrates - binds no one
High Court - binds itself and below
CoA - binds itself and below
Supreme - binds only below and not itself.

Obviously this was a very simplistic view, just to teach the basics of the court hierarchy and how to practice within the law, I don’t know anything about the intricacies.
We also learned something about when you could appeal on a point of fact, and when on a point of law, but I can’t quite remember it all now.
I find it all very interesting. Thanks 😊

Best to keep this a speculation free zone.

I’m sure Burns’ testimony will be fascinating. Not many ‘transsexual women’ (quote marks to indicate self description as per the little video I posted) in the UK with so many years of activist experience regarding the press and the law. Possibly just Burns.

Sorry, thanks tinsel I'll ask for my post to be removed

Did the self identified lawyer start a law degree with a criminal record, in the full knowledge that they would never be a lawyer, or get the degree and then get the criminal record, wasting an entire degree in the process?

Not sure which is worse tbh.

After. The criminal record goes back decades. The degree is pretty new.

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

I imagine a knowledge of the use of language is helpful in the many vexatious claims this individual makes.

Well, an understanding of the law is presumably useful to those who live on both the right and wrong side of it? And those who wish to give an impression of being on one side of the law, whilst actually being on the other? And those who wish to balance exactly on the line between the two?

(This is just a general comment, MNHQ, in response to the question above, It begs the question - what use is a law degree to a convicted criminal? Obviously we cannot know an individual’s unspoken motivation)

You’d hope applicants for a law degree would be screened for suitability, really. Although a name change would obviously make a record search harder, and these days students are customers, so maybe bums on seats overrides universities being choosy about candidates? Especially if it’s a Uni/course that usually has places to offer through clearing?

I’m currently identifying as a placemarker.

🍿

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

I suppose not everyone with a law degree goes into law - I believe a fair number of journalist have law degrees, for example.

If I was naughty maybe I’d want a law degree.

I was being disingenuous

It appears you can do all sorts of legal things without a law degree. Hayden settled for nearly thirty grand with Glinner didn't they?

Isn't Law the most studied subject within prisons? It's possible Steph began their studies whilst in prison.

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

2013 Guardian
'Voices from the trans community: 'There will always be prejudice'
It's more than 50 years since the UK's first trans person was outed in the press. So how do members of the community think life has changed for them since?'
(extract)
"Christine Burns is one of a generation who vividly remembers reading about Ashley in the papers when she was a young child. (Ashley appeared in a six-week special in the News of the World: "They were one of the very few who paid me and they behaved impeccably. I was very sad when the News of the World closed," says Ashley.) The existence of someone like her in the public eye was a great comfort for Burns. In the 90s, when she was chair of the Women's Supper Club of the local Conservative party association in Cheshire, she quietly joined Press for Change. Even then, the new activists dared not be openly trans. "The thing that held us back in the 1990s campaigning was that fear of being out," admits Burns. Eventually, she came out in 1995; she jokes that she realised she was more embarrassed to be a member of the Conservative party than openly transsexual.

Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

Most undergraduate law degrees aren’t accredited by the professional bodies, so anyone can do it as an academic subject. The suitability checks no doubt kick in at postgraduate level for the professional degrees that are required for professional registration.

I wonder if Hayden tweeted any comments on Justice Knowles when Harry Miller's verdict came in?

It would be fascinating to see what opinions Hayden holds and has expressed on the esteemed judge Hayden is shortly due to meet in person Haydenself.

Of course I'm not on Twitter at the moment so can't see.
I do wonder how complimentary or otherwise any opinions expressed on the judge might have been.

No Datun, definitely not. Glinner racked up £28k (or so) in legal fees, which he had to write off when they settled, having taken the entirely sensible view that continuing to litigate against Steph was like playing chess with a pigeon.

Grifters gonna grift, of course, but there is nothing to suggest that Steph got any money out of Glinner.

H dropped their case against Linehan but the latter racked up a lot of legal expenses apparently.

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/transgender-lawyer-drops-case-against-father-ted-writer