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 agree. It was doomed to fail from the beginning and filing it so long out of time was bad too.
I have criticised the legal advice but to be fair to the legal team, it might be that JJ pushed for the case to be issued even though she was advised that the prospects of success were low. We just don’t know.

Hopefully, in the future, there will be more scrutiny of calls to donate money. It’s a shame that 30k was wasted when actions like Keira Bell’s case desperately needs funds for what is likely to be a long appeal process. She’s now up against aggressive people with deep pockets (Joly and his mob) and needs all the help she can get.

JJ should have spent a few thousand getting initial advice from a top QC specialising in discrimination law (not an immigration barrister, however well-meaning). Then, if she was advised that the prospects of success were good, she could have raised more. If the advice was not favourable, she should have abandoned the action and returned any remaining funds.

As a person, she seems all over the place, fawning over rampant misogynist and rape-apologist George Galloway and routinely blocking or swearing at women who asked about the case. I also think property development is quite an interesting career choice for someone who claims to be a die-hard socialist and addresses people as comrade.

Is betsymoo known to post untruths on here all the time or something? I don't understand the hostility to her report of the hearing that she says she listened to, and which we know jj missed most of. As I read it, betsymoo's account was that the Jr has been refused (as jj said) but for other reasons, not because parties are never subject to Jr. That in itself wasn't a barrier. That doesn't contradict JJ's tweet.
I hope there will be a published judgement that we can read.

The other criticisms of the case are spot on from what I can tell. Disorganised & odd behaviour.
As non specialists and without knowing the individuals we can't know which cases have a good chance. We can give small amounts to get cases off the ground and then continue to support cases which seem to be progressing, or are at least sensible and professional in reporting back etc.

Thank you Manderleyagain. For what it's worth I think it's probably just as well the JR failed at this point, Jennifer unfortunately had little goodwill left on which to launch any further crowdfunding.

At least the door is still open for legal action for if/when it comes up again. And apart from being spot on with time limits, I think the big lesson to be learned from this is that a group action will generally fare better when challenging a policy decision.

This case was a bit of a clusterfuck from the start for all the numerous reasons outlined by others.

I hold no animosity though because it was the case that kicked it all off and it made many of us realise we could self resource and raise funds to represent our interests. That alone was worth the price of admittance.

Whatever one thinks of JJ and her handling of this case her decision to make a stand has influenced many more successful cases and funding efforts that have followed.

Really good point, Ovahere.

Strange that one Jolyon Maugham QC supported it at the outset... so obviously not that risible a cause back then.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Strange that one Jolyon Maugham QC supported it at the outset... so obviously not that risible a cause back then.

Jolyon Maugham’s knowledge of public law is pretty scant though. I found an old thread from 2019 where I did point out my concerns, including the fact that the Labour Party is not a public body. I don’t want to link to it because it has my old username but concerns were raised a long time ago.

OvaHere - I think that's a really good point. If some women, whether as individuals or small groups hadn't started to take a stand the situation good be much worse.

It's easy to jeer from the sidelines, and what would be more useful it to build up a shared knowledge.

And in this case the intentions of the indiviudal were really good.

And women who donated money in good faith were brilliant for doing so.

What seems to have gone wrong is the legal advice. If it was as some have suggested a no hoper from the start who were these professionals not making that clear?

Or were they hoping to set a precedent?

What has been happening more and more is that campaigning doesn't seem to get women's issues very far, so some are choosing the court route to try and set precedents to benefit us all.

And this case also raises the issue about political parties. Are they subject to any external scrutiny, or are they exempt because they are effectively a "club"?