Tuesday 9th March - could be a big day

[Xanthangum]

1. Helen Staniland and Glinner giving evidence to the Commons

1. Fair Play For Women VS UK Statistics Authority at Royal Courts of Justice at 10am

1. The Court of Appeal and Harry/ We Are Fair Cop - The Court of Appeal will examine the validity of the College of Police Hate Crimes Guidance

I wanted to start a thread where any major decisions or outcomes and links to anyone live tweeting or online footage. See you back here tomorrow!

Thanks for the live updates all!

We need the judgespeak dictionary entry for "hopeless" (if it's not a bannable offense to post on MN).

I just snuck a peak at Eadie's closing remarks:

Oh, go on, leave the guidance as it is, your honour, please! It’s a lovely day. Pretty clouds, trees, birds, etc. I rest my case.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

think closing that particular loophole would be the best outcome

For all documents, not just passport

Agree.

All these court cases show is what an absolute dogs dinner the GRA and parts of the Equality Act are.

Bellinger and the GRA2004 defines sex. GRA2004 IS a "sex act" /54

Yes, exactly, how the hell could the Barrister for the ONS argue otherwise?

@CardinalLolzy
Defendants contention that statutory interpretation of sex = sex written on any document is 'hopeless' /53
The judge said that?? shock
Genuinely mindblowing to see anyone say that out loud!

This was part of FPFW's barrister's response to the ONS' barrister, not the judge, sorry.

@NecessaryScene1

We need the judgespeak dictionary entry for "hopeless" (if it's not a bannable offense to post on MN).

That was the claimant's counsel who said that - not the judge.

Just in case people are getting their hopes up!

how the hell could the Barrister for the ONS argue otherwise?

Now, now, RedDogsBeg, it's all very well to criticise, but I'm sure he was doing his best.

Would you care to present your better arguments for the ONS?

I imagine many of the barristers who've been having to present some of these cases might be up for some sort of award for valour in the face of hopeless odds. Or at the very least, I bet they get some sympathy drinks...

[quote GAHgamel]@CardinalLolzy
Defendants contention that statutory interpretation of sex = sex written on any document is 'hopeless' /53
The judge said that?? shock
Genuinely mindblowing to see anyone say that out loud!

This was part of FPFW's barrister's response to the ONS' barrister, not the judge, sorry.[/quote]
It is hopeless. Or rather useless. Utterly useless. Except as a personal, split-second, one-to-one validation of the person holding the pen.

Yes! Massive thanks to all for the live updates. It must take a lot of concentration and effort to read it all and post here. I've just realised you have no idea how many of us are following and appreciating it.

I'm self employed and getting absolutely zero work done today

I'm self employed and getting absolutely zero work done today

join the fecking club. Also allegedly homeschooling.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Bellinger and the GRA2004 defines sex. GRA2004 IS a "sex act" /54

You can see why they didn’t call it the sex act though 🤣 sounds like something that would happen in a tabloid romp.

As far as I understand, the numbers with a GRA are officially quantifiable so you can work back, but the numbers changing passport unofficially is to difficult to count ..........or something.

And ManFriday managed to change their driving license by just asking.

Also at two o'clock this afternoon the police get to defend the indefensible

Sorry not to derail, but could someone possibly link me to a thread/article about what Hellen/Glinner are giving evidence on (or a brief description of it, or even point me up thread if it’s been covered!)

Necessary, um I don't think there any arguments for the ONS never mind better ones, the best the Barrister could have done was to have advised the ONS to apologise for the confusion and revert back to the original guidance.

@ArabellaScott

I'm self employed and getting absolutely zero work done today

join the fecking club. Also allegedly homeschooling.

I'm on a (permitted) break from one meeting and will shortly be part of 2 overlapping ones.

On this day of all days - and tomorrow's no better. But talk about a siren call - this thread is invaluable.

I am hoping that the Judge has sussed that there has been a bit of jiggery pokery (legal term) with regards to publishing before they needed to, and the backtracking. Even if the case is lost, I am assuming the Judge will rap some fingers

@ChancesWhatChances

Committee discusses censorship and copyright as part of freedom of expression online inquiry

The Communications and Digital Committee discusses social media content regulation and digital etiquette with Graham Linehan and Helen Staniland, followed by a discussion of copyright's impact on freedom of expression online with Jim Killock and Julia Reda.

committees.parliament.uk/event/3970/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

I'll link to the stream nearer 3pm

These interim applications are always hard to win as it is quite a big decision to take - to order something immediately so you have to balance the pros and cons and hard done against good done by acting quickly. I have done a few of them.

Interesting case. Let us see what the judge decides at 2pm.

Presumably it is dead easy on line to change the guidance later today which most people will not have read yet and not cost much and even if those who have already filled it in on the basis of incorrect guidance feel a bit miffed less damage is done by that than not changing it. Also people answering M or F would not go to the guidance anyway - they would just tick the box as they have done since the 1841 English census.

Which Court is Harry's case in? Is it 71, 73 or 76?

What an UTTERLY BRILLIANT thread - huge huge thanks for all who've posted and loving the humour - judge speak is great!

On edge of my seat until 2 pm

@Sophoclesthefox

Hey hamster, nice to see you again

Loving the Judgeish-to-English translations, thank you Chaz’s

If I was a transactivist, I wouldn’t want to bury the numbers of trans people in among the normies. Imagine the interesting data that you could collect on the number of people whose sex was different from their gender identity, and how that could be translated into requirements for services, or be looked at over time to say if changing social attitudes made it more or less common...it would be fascinating.

The only reasons must be either that it’s about validation, even though no one will ever know but you and maybe your family, or that they don’t have an interest in establishing an accurate figure for how many people are trans.

So when maternity provision is cut to the bone in Brighton in 2035 because hundreds of natal females disappeared behind non binary or trans male identities, and the forward planning stats reflected that, then...golf clap for those of them who went on to have babies, I suppose. You got what you wanted, didn’t you?

This.

What are the TA's trying to gain by doing this? There is zero benefit and 100% harm to them and others by not allowing the correct collection of data.

@BoreOfWhabylon 71 I think

Thanks !