Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scottow conviction overturned on appeal.

252 replies

marvellousnightforamooncup · 10/12/2020 12:48

Whoop!

Just seen her tweet.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
SunsetBeetch · 17/12/2020 16:44

Absolutely disgusting.

SunsetBeetch · 17/12/2020 16:47

I do suspect they are trying to goad Louise into responding in such a way that will 'help' SH's case.

SunsetBeetch · 17/12/2020 16:56

Haddock and Hayden used to do it all the time with Caroline Farrow.

'Nice' to see that Hayden has found a new sidekick who's even more batshit and unlikeable than the good doctor.

DrLouiseJMoody · 17/12/2020 17:00

Hi All.

I have no idea why Hayden finds this in any way appropriate. I haven't actually looked as, if I do, I am liable to say something that will give my lawyer a migraine (that, I suppose, is precisely the point).

Let's suppose that what they are saying IS true (it's not). Does that make me a monster? No. It makes me a normal person with normal flaws. Our lives are not perfect, but at least I have a marriage to speak of, and was someone's person for over a decade.

My wife loathed Hayden and thought they were doing a huge disservice to the trans community. Their inability to regulate themselves and lie about deeply personal things simply because things are not going well for them illustrates precisely why.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 17/12/2020 17:34

I’m sorry Louise Flowers
You’re doing well not to look; eventually the tantrum will end when starved of attention

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 17/12/2020 18:14

Flowers Louise. The only positive here is that that vindictive series of tweets has barely received an acknowledgement.

SunsetBeetch · 17/12/2020 18:24

Yes Louise, SH is being a goady twat. Because SH knows time is nearly up on frivolous lawsuits.

Tick tock...

Flowers
PlantMam · 17/12/2020 19:02

Don’t look.
We’ll keep the records for you.

PronounssheRa · 17/12/2020 19:07

@SunsetBeetch

I do suspect they are trying to goad Louise into responding in such a way that will 'help' SH's case.
This.

Hayden is being goady to try and get a reaction. Its tragic and pathetic, best to ignore.

DrLouiseJMoody · 17/12/2020 19:13

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Al1langdownthecleghole · 17/12/2020 21:03

Amended biog I note. So when I swear at the news does that make me a current affairs commentator?

Trump tweeted he won the election. It didn't mean he did.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 17/12/2020 21:14

I missed the new biog! Oh my sides Xmas Grin

DrLouiseJMoody · 17/12/2020 21:40

Oh look. I can't say I'm being harassed by someone who posts fiction about my late wife. What else would you call that behaviour, Mumsnet?

Wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 17/12/2020 21:49

Oh FFS. We see SH's behaviour Dr M.

WomanWithAnX · 17/12/2020 22:03

Ignore Stephanie. They aren't worth our time.

donquixotedelamancha · 17/12/2020 22:17

@Tarquinthecat

Where has this person ever lectured in law, please?

Rather my point. The reason I remember the post (though not the exact words) from some time ago is because it was oddly vague and hypothetical for a direct reply to a question.

I presume that SH has been employed as an academic in the same places she's employed as a lawyer and a cultural commentator.

All those jobs presumably fund her jet setting lifestyle where she 'sometimes' works in South Africa.

donquixotedelamancha · 17/12/2020 22:24

I can't say I'm being harassed by someone who posts fiction about my late wife.

Like you said- the contrast between the lives lead by the women fighting this (family, friends, professional achievements etc) and the lives of the erm.... [deletes several different words].... people attacking women's rights is stark.

When all this is memories these people will still be being punished for their behaviour by being themselves.

DrLouiseJMoody · 17/12/2020 22:31

Ms Hayden describes themselves as a "legal academic" on their publicly available FB page. This is very odd. The only people I would describe as such as those employed by an institution to teach and research law.

There is some merit in describing themselves as a commentator owing to their occasional appearances on trans-Siberian television.

To the poster(s) asking about court fees. The box on my form simply says "TBD." Since I am being sued for 100,000 pounds, the fee should be five thousand pounds (five percent). I confess to finding it rather odd that a prolific litigant who does not, for whatever reason, pay court fees is also a prolific foreign traveller (approx. 14 holidays within two years, and I think there have been three trips to Eastern Europe since September). That is the most I'll publicly say (you can probably infer what I think).

SunsetBeetch · 18/12/2020 06:37

Since I am being sued for 100,000 pounds

Jesus Christ, Doc!

LurkingLotus · 18/12/2020 06:52

It is now LEGAL to call someone a 'pig in a wig'. Or ugly. Or a bastard. Or an insufferable cunt...... I only say this as an example of things we can say, I am not actually referring to any one specific individual. Even though I could use names, legally. Is it time MNHQ changed the rules on FWR now??
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9066069/Woke-folk-beware-Freedom-speech-includes-right-offend-say-judges-landmark-ruling.html

PaleBlueMoonlight · 18/12/2020 07:06

@nauticant

By coincidence I was reading today about the SJW recasting of racism to mean racial prejudice but only when it is conducted against an oppressed person by a person with relative privilege. This means that mere racial prejudice isn't racism, there needs to be the power aspect. It is a strange way of looking at the world.
This is what I was taught in school.
DrLouiseJMoody · 18/12/2020 07:52

100,000 is just the minimum figure for the case to be heard in the high court.

Hayden's costs (if you can call them that) are, owing to being a litigant in person, 19 pounds an hour, and aside from their particulars of claim, very little has occurred except for them sending fairly regular toothless and demented letters to my solicitor (you know, an actual, professionally recognized, one), most of which I choose to ignore. The only real cost to Hayden is one of time (although I'm not entirely convinced of that given the speed at which they manage to send further demented replies upoon the occasions where I'm forced to acknowledge their existence). The cost to me, however, is in terms of money. They know, and exploit, this. No-one should be forced to spend thousands to defend themselves against someone unable to deal with the slight to their not inconsiderable ego caused by people telling the truth online.

I am largely silent, or at least trying to avoid saying things that will make my solicitor frowny, for now. This is going to change once my case is over since I believe some things are in the public interest.

nauticant · 18/12/2020 08:09

For some reason the Scottow decision is now being reported on Radio 4 in the news headlines. Although they don't seem to providing any more information than a headline. Odd.

PurpleHoodie · 18/12/2020 08:11

DrLouise Flowers

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/12/2020 08:22

For some reason the Scottow decision is now being reported on Radio 4 in the news headlines. Although they don't seem to providing any more information than a headline. Odd.

I wonder if they are picking it up from the Mail story today.

Swipe left for the next trending thread