How will recent developments inform the charities commission case against the LGBA?

[rabbitwoman]

I just posted this at the bottom of a long thread but I have been thinking about this since the Forstater judgment and thought it would merit a thread of its own?

Surely, surely following the Forstater case this action now has no legs at all.

The LGBA are GC. GC views are not only WORIADS, but they have never expressed such opinions in a way deemed inappropriate.

With Stephanie Davies Arai being awarded the British Empire Medal for her campaigning work that is based on the same belief, hasn't the very highest establishment legitimised those beliefs also?

So, what grounds are they going to try to argue in court that haven't already been tested?

In fact, surely condemning them as a hate group etc is discrimination against their protected GC beliefs and it is the ones bringing this action who are unlawful? Every time I see Bev and Kate and other key figures from the LGBA being attacked and vilified I think about how brave they are being in the face of such awful treatment. Shouldn't the perpetrators of this unrelenting onslaught be held to account somehow?

I quite simply have no idea what they think their case is.

Me either but they need to fuck off and get shown up for the homophobic weirdo fanatics they are

Exactly. Perhaps when they bought the action they thought they had the weight of public opinion behind them and that would be enough but surely now they can see, they would absolutely fail.

And not just because we think they should, but because of recent rulings that have given GC views legal protection.

Or is Jolyon Maughan one of those commentators who keep insisting that Maya DID NOT WIN because she only won 2 out of the 5 points, or something? I mean, IANAL but I understand how that is nonsense, he IS supposed to be a lawyer, doesn't he understand?

The canid-resenting legal eagle is ‘preparing a significant intervention’ in Forstater. He’s a gold-plated fool, that man.

Roly poly joly is busy having a meltdown on Twitter at the moment about the tories selecting a “brown man”, as he do charmingly phrases it.
i am not sure much rational consideration of the implications of forstater is going on there atm.

He got rinsed by James Cleverley.

It’s important to remember Maugham was a tax lawyer. Asking him for a view on charities law or discrimination is like asking a psychiatrist to fix your gammy hip.

He got rinsed by James Cleverley.

You have to be pretty stupid to get rinsed by James Cleverley.

Somewhere there's a fascinating twitter thread demonstrating how often wealthy Jolyon and his pet fund raising organisation actually loses cases - I believe it's the majority?

It’s worth following Barbara rich on Twitter - she’s very funny about Roly’s losing streak, as well as well
informed and balanced on a range of legal issues.
the antithesis of the Twitter QCs

@BlackForestCake

Quite.

IIRC, it was something like ''LGBA getting money from public bodies means less for us so they should never have been registered as a charity''.

I don’t think it’s even been decided whether or not Mermaids have standing yet has it? I just can’t understand why it’s even Mermaids business.

Even if you search for

Appeal “LGB Alliance’s” charity status

and read it, you're left none the wiser as to the actual grounds of the case being brought by Mermaids et al. It's not helped, of course, by the parties' known tendencies to be economical with the actualités as it used to be known. I still savour JM announcing that tremendous win earlier this year only to downgrade it a loss on deeply technical issues.

I am aghast, however, at JM affecting to deplore the tactic of rising costs closing down access to the courts given the whiff of this in re: GLP's support for Mermaids v LGB Alliance.

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1495150298201006081

Does anyone have these Tweets Nicholson is talking about? They really don't sound like LGBA to me.

Shouldn’t the charitable status of Mermaids be coming under scrutiny at this point? There’s plenty of evidence they harm their beneficiaries.

I think their case is "Shit! The game is up. Let's make ourselves victims one last time and if we lose it's because EVERYTHING is transphobic.Especially lesbians, gay men and bisexual people ".
Cha-ching!

No the question of standing hasn’t been decided, and they seem to have an uphill struggle in that regard.
what they can do, though, is put the LGBAlluance to an enormous amount of trouble and expense, and inhibit their growth and development. I hope that they lose and the costs order made against them is such as to discourage them from behaving like this in future.

Wouldn’t standing be decided in a separate hearing so they can’t pursue an entire frivolous/vindictive court case? Or did LGBA lose the request for a separate hearing?

They did. Both issues will be heard together. I agree it seems odd.

This hero on Twitter keeps a spreadsheet
mobile.twitter.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1544618119611793411

@Rightsraptor I was wondering the very same thing. Then, this appeared on Glinners substack:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-pathetic-truth-behind-john-nicolsons

It seems to sum up the whole situation. I would love to hear John Nicolsons' version of events. Obviously, after he'd been made to read through the above. Perhaps he could offer a rebuttal?