That All Women Shortlist case?

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Whatever happened with that?

The reason I ask is that in Scotland a transwoman is taking part in internal elections to be able to stand on an AWS. (Mridul Wadhwa)

I recognise that name, aren't they the transgender person who got a job as head of a women's refuge/support centre without letting on that they are male?

Yep. That's them.

@testing987654321

I recognise that name, aren't they the transgender person who got a job as head of a women's refuge/support centre without letting on that they are male?

I would take that claim with a pinch of salt. Although many women may not, I read that person as male (but I'm hypervigilant, so maybe not a good measure) as do may other women I know. In any case, the role now is not the one that claim refers to (even though most people think it is). At the time the sex of the applicant was still quite obvious, making that claim in my view highly unlikely. Especially since friends told me back then even aquaintances were asked for reassurances about passing. Now everyone knows anyway. If you had any doubts though, just attending one event featuring this speaker will make the truth painfully clear because of the acute and very obvious lack of understanding of what it actually means to be female in a male-dominated world.

Still in the pipeline I'm afraid. Can't come too soon.

Can I ask about this? I tried to look her up on Twitter but I seem to be blocked. Completely not sure why but I donated a good chunk of money to this case. @msjenniferjames on here? If so, can anyone point me at any information on this case. Thanks.

If you log out of twitter you will be able to see her tweets.

She has been on here a couple of times and was thoroughly unpleasant to many posters- we're too white/racist/right wing/middle class.

Thanks. I tried that and her account is mostly retweets and not much else. Just rather surprised by the lack of update and my (very obviously gc account) being blocked).

Also, after the information around this there is now an 'all women' SNP shortlist with a transwoman with no GRC. This case might have sorted that had it not taken so long.,

I haven't got the link to hand, but there was a recent news story about delays to court cases. Not just because of Covid, but because of cuts to support services, and number of days courts sit (? is that the right expression).

So if the case has been lodged then I suppose it is down to officials as to how high a priority it will get.

Apparently some cases are being listed as being heard in 2023.

This news story says 2022 www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/court-cases-delayed-until-2022-victims-lose-faith-justice-a4570251.html

There's another thread on this and someone has posted:

COURT CASE LATEST:
Jennifer James vs. @uklabour

A few months ago the case against self-id was transferred to the North West (I live in Liverpool). However a judge today sent it back to London as: 'the subject matter is of national interest not just to the North West region'.

Well I suppose at least that means they've read and take it seriously?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3186454-Crowdfunder-Women-to-Labour-Party-on-All-Women-Shortlists-Official-Statement?pg=3

Cismyfatarse The last update on the crowd funding page was in March 2020 but I think it's against the rules to link the fundraisers here. The case had been lodged and assigned to the high Court in Manchester. But nothing since.

There were definitely threads on this board. You can search for thread titles on advanced search.

The Forwomen Scotland judicial review is relevant here, I believe? Due to start early January.

• taking the Scotgov to court over their redefinition of 'woman' to include men. I think this is related dir3ctly to all women shortlists, though i daresay it may reverberate beyond that.

There is a crowdfunder.

Thanks. Have donated to that one as am very keen to see it succeed.

Yes. I think the legal challenges are what really has the most impact. Even if they don't win, they force the issue into the sunlight and that always helps.

There was a new update on the challenge to the Labour party to keep all women shortlists female only.

They have been refused permission for judicial review. The reason given seems to be (from what I can tell from the update) that the Labour party has said they are not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body.
Plus an administrative cockup in that the court received this response from the labour party some months ago, but the claimant did not received the response.
But in the update JJ says she won't give up.

Thanks for the update.

If I believed in conspiracies I might begin to wonder whether cases concerning women's rights are somehow being derailed by an administrative cockup.

I've just seen Jennifer's update. I don't understand why the solicitor/barrister would not have advised her at the start that it would be a no-goer, if political parties really can't be subject to JR - I'd have thought (perhaps wrongly) that this would be a basic fact to those in the legal know, if indeed it is true. And the admin cock-up is just bizarre.

Really disappointed by this.

If they can’t be held accountable by judicial review then how can this law be reinforced? Do you sue for sex discrimination? I agree it is disappointing that the barrister didn’t not know this. Why did it take two years to lodge this case in the first place?

I've just seen Jennifer's update. I don't understand why the solicitor/barrister would not have advised her at the start that it would be a no-goer

And why it didn't just get thrown out at the start and why the Labour Party didn't say anything at the start about this.

It may be that because something like this has never happened before that in fact this case has now set a precedent if it can not be challenged.

And for all we know the new Labour Leaders with his background had a quick think and thought how can we get out of it.

It would be interesting to know what the women with legal knowledge at Centre for Women's Justice would say in response.

The case could turn out to be significant for a reason other than its original purpose.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I've just seen Jennifer's update. I don't understand why the solicitor/barrister would not have advised her at the start that it would be a no-goer

And why it didn't just get thrown out at the start and why the Labour Party didn't say anything at the start about this.

There's no obligation on the part of the Labour to say anything until a writ was served. If they spotted this fundamental error early on why would they point out it out? If someone threatens to sue you and you know from the outset that they have picked the wrong jurisdiction or the wrong forum you're not going to point it out until they have wasted time and money serving an incompetent process. It doesn't take long to write " this application is incompetent/ this court does not have jurisdiction"

2 minutes on Google tells you what "Judicial Review " is.

I see from the Order that James had conjoined her own personal beef with the Labour Party in the application.

Reading the Order I do wonder why no-one drafting the application didn't stop to think why they were asking about 2 unconnected matters in the one application, even if the judicial review point escaped them.

hmmmmmmmm .... I might have to take that kind suggestion back!

"Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body."
www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

"Members of Parliament and political parties are not public bodies for the purposes of the Act "
www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/foi/foimemberscorrespondence.pdf

I have a friend whose one experience of barristers was that:

• they ask how much money you have and if it seeems quite a lot say they will review your case and give you a written response and it will cost you £xxxxxx - and this says you have a 70-30 chance
• then a few months later they say how much money to you still have because they realise they should have asked you for x or y information, which you then supply and you pay another £xxxxxx - and now they say your chances are 50-50
• then another few months later they ask how much money you still have and when you say not much, they say well as 50-50 may be a bit optimistic it wouldn't be sensible to proceed because if you lose you will not have enough money (to pay me!)

Not saying this is true in this case as for all I know the Barrister(s) is working pro bono

It does not sound like the case was well conceived if they were applying for JR but political parties are not covered by JR. I wonder what a better legal avenue would have been.

Anyway, maya Forstater has just tweeted that the crowd funding site has removed this crowd funder because of hate. She thinks that Reuters Thompson Group lent on them, but I couldn't see anything about that specifically in the pink news link so she must have some other info.

mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1338814878849654784

She thinks that Reuters Thompson Group lent on them, but I couldn't see anything about that specifically in the pink news link so she must have some other info.

They said they did (and a pretty dodgy thing to do IMO)

GoFundMe removed the page after the Thomson Reuters Foundation asked if and how it had been assessed against the company's terms and conditions.

in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idINL8N2HK93O?__twitter_impression=true

Sorry - can someone spell this out for me?

Its been up for months - a year? And now it has been removed because ... what?

Its political or ... ?