Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

[Justme56]

Sorry I can't share the article, but liked this:

What is the funniest thing that has happened in your job?

As a result of my work in this area, apparently becoming an object of admiration on Mumsnet [the Internet parents' forum] - improbable in many ways.

😁

This isn’t about ‘you’ hearache at all. What ‘you’ think is irrelevant.

That ‘you’ cannot understand that people who are the decision makers for their organisations are the ones who are watching this and taking note, simply is irrelevant. In fact , that ‘you’ and many others crowing about how poor her reputation is on the internet continue to fail to grasp, is that she is delivering the message that another government department is saying Stonewall is wrong and is complicit in misinterpreting the law.

From other threads you have show you fail to understand how law making in countries with the Westminster government work. This is another example.

Do you really think Suella Braverman is not supported by the government? hearache, she has been warning about this speech now for days! Do you honestly think if their wasn’t the majority support for her in her department for the interpretation of the laws she discussed yesterday that someone wouldn’t have taken her aside and influenced the final speech?

You really have a siloed approach. Ministers don’t act by themselves. They don’t last long as Ministers or with any senior role if they did. And you can decry the Tories and scream into the void.

The topic of my post was and is that those responsible for decision making , those stakeholders with accountability (not their wonderfully idealistic social media co-ordinators) will certainly be now thinking that Stonewall’s guidance is problematic. That there is misinterpretation there and that there is now explicit examples, unopposed by the EHRC who surely would have also been consulted about this speech.

We have seen testimony from executives in Maya’s case and in Allison’s case that have proven that they simply don’t quite grasp the complexities (hence their liability!) .

Do you think senior execs are still sitting around ignoring this when there is now so many other legal minds saying Stonewall’s guidance is flawed… but hey Stonewall don’t care because in their eyes they ‘won’ over Allison Bailey?

Here, You are so deep in ideological thinking you attack the Minister whereas, she is just a figure here. Yes, she influences project and direction. She cannot stand there and say this is the government’s interpretation of the law without her legal team and consultation with the EHRC being in support.

As usual, it is just more ad hominem attack without engaging with the substance.

And you can continue to give Wright a halo. Until the law is tested that they keep misrepresenting, it will be open to debate.

But at this stage… who is going to trust Stonewall over the Government legal advIsors?

Just reposting this here at the top of this thread.

The article has been pulled.

Tavistock gender clinic ‘to be sued by 1,000 families’

Eleanor Hayward, Health Correspondent
Thursday August 11 2022, 12.01am,

If you plug the URL into wayback you will find it. I am sure it will reappear across Mainstream Media over the next few hours though.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=485af9527de58533cf4579b7d4c53d7b&s=09

The Tavistock gender clinic is facing mass legal action from youngsters who claim they were rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers.

Lawyers expect about 1,000 families to join a medical negligence lawsuit alleging vulnerable children have been misdiagnosed and placed on a damaging medical pathway.

They are accusing the gender identity development service [GIDS] at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust of multiple failures in its duty of care.

This includes allegations it recklessly prescribed puberty blockers with harmful side effects and adopted an “unquestioning, affirmative approach” to children identifying as transgender.

Just to be clear.

THE TAVISTOCK IS BEING SUED IN A GROUP ACTION and it is expected to be around 1000 families!

Now, how successful they will be is another matter.

However, the wider impact strategically for the lobby groups who fostered a culture of no-debate and personal attacks on those who questioned or dissented that meant families had little support outside those lobby groups (also doubling as ‘support groups’) is getting clearer every single day now.

That there is misinterpretation there and that there is now explicit examples, unopposed by the EHRC who surely would have also been consulted about this speech.

sorry. I hate posting on my phone.

Explicit examples of practical application of the law, where female’s single sex spaces can be set up to exclude males. All post pubescent males regardless of feelings or how that male identifies to be clear.

😁

Better start praying then.

If a pair of guides on a difficult mountain path were as consistently flummoxed as the authors of this book, their clients would be saying their prayers.

By the way… I remember the overturning of the Keira Bell case on appeal as being celebrated as a HUGE WIN!!!

But look at what that case has now brought about!

I am glad Dr Cass got her announcement out that new clinics were opening and a more holistic approach was being taken. Obviously she knew this was happening and about to hit the media. Or that announcement was what the firm announcing the class action needed before making their own announcement.

I know. Let the Tavistock use hearaches esteemed lawyer. I mean, they specialize in discrimination law so there is a part for them in this coming group action. No?

But yes. The overturning of Keira’s case was well celebrated as a ‘win’ too!

The article has been pulled.

not pulled. But that link doesn’t seem to be working.

Try this one

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=16b75b4dd733efd816e759bd29405737

That one works.

But look at what that case has now brought about!

It's just occurred to me that we've been kind of doing the Socratic method through the medium of court cases.

The Socratic method (also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate) is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions.

The Socratic method searches for general commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, explore definitions, and characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances.

Each case poses new questions, and regardless of the legal outcome, the answers we get then lead to the next case and its set of questions.

I agree necessry

But again, just so everyone can hear….

I believe the over turning of Keira’s case on appeal was celebrated as a WIN.

Does anyone think Stonewall and Mermaids are celebrating at the moment?

Are Stonewall supporters still confident that Stonewall ‘won’!!!

I mean the JR Ann Sinnot brought was also celebrated as a ‘WIN’. But all the judgement said was say that a more focused example was needed to be successful. And so the ball rolls on. It wasn’t a ‘WIN’ in the judgement, it was one step clearer.

It forced the EHRC to work on this . And while hearache cannot see the impact of the Agent General now stating even clearer examples because hearache prefers to only ever get their legal advice from Stonewall, the confidence in stonewall from businesses and organizations is being shaken.

They are celebrating a win, dancing, while Rome burns behind them !

twitter.com/btp/status/1557323520862035968?s=21&t=jBYqCEnP5HD1_Qa6-iPTCg

Oh ! Here is another sign of the celebrated win for Stonewall!

British Transport Police being forced to reverse ferret on their fucked up tweet from the other day. This one saying :

The tweet was is no way intended to imply that BTP would discriminate against people who hold gender-critical beliefs, which we recognise are capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Yep! Winner!

Wouldn’t have seen that a few months ago. Stonewall rules winning all the way!

It baffles me, well completely FLOORS me, that those purporting to be supportive of 'trans' people are happy for their sex marker to be changed so that a female in distress who is showing signs of whatever that are only found in females, wants them to be treated as males and put at further risk.

For example the female who was going into early labour and whose baby died, because their sex marker had been changed and they were treated as a male when they came in with obvious signs that if they had been treated as a female, may have saved the baby.

These people are so wedded to the ideology that they cannot think straight.

The tweet was is no way intended to imply that BTP would discriminate against people who hold gender-critical beliefs, which we recognise are capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Which rather begs the question wtf it was intended to imply.

More "winning" evident here:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4e7fc538-18dc-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=16b75b4dd733efd816e759bd29405737

Whatever antagonistic posters say, Stonewall's ideology has caused real, lasting, horrific damage to so many young people. Allison's case was a brave and principled action for the greater good. To crow about pounds and pence while young women's spines crumble with osteoporosis due to negligent medical treatment- that's a special type of callousness.

Thank goodness for the brave women who have not been silenced and continue to speak out.

A friend of mine is an ER doc. Was treating someone listed as male on their records with a nasty fracture to both bones in the forearm.
Person appeared to be mid 20s, but NHS number was one that could only have been issued in the last few years. She suspected it was a ftm trans person.

However, person did not identify themselves as trans, and did not disclose they were taking any hormonal treatment. Did not let the radiologists know they were female.

My friend was worried that the severity of the damage to the bones would not ordinarily have been caused by the accident described. She was worried about osteoporosis, with testosterone injections being a massive risk factor. She asked about any and all medications, the patient said nothing.

Her hands were tied. If she asked the question directly she was risking being called a transphobe (not a good thing at this particular trust).

She ended up discharging the patient, and wrote to the GP noting the extent of the bone damage and recommending further tests. Patient has been back in with another fracture, still no admission of having a huge risk factor for osteoporosis.

It is madness to have identity ideology over ride crucial medical information.

I keep saying there is usually a huge disconnect between an idealistic (I am being very kind here) social media person and the decision makers and stakeholders for the businesses those idealistic people work for.

This is just one of those organisations and it is quite clear that the social media person was crowing about 'don't bother to apply'. The absolute arrogance and immaturity is what we have witnessed on this thread.

Whereas senior executives of those organisations are horrified because this back tracks on years of work to build real diversity. Not just the new 'diversity' as pushed by a single interest lobby group, such as Stonewall and those involved in PRIDE.

The pattern has been set for years now and allowed to fester because of 'no debate' and the constant abuse of those who have different beliefs. That pattern was started by Stonewall (this later edition).

I mean, I feel like it has to be repeated because I don't think some posters still understand.

The ONLY organisations where this ideological thinking is embraced at senior level is the lobby groups like Stonewall. I mean, you had a senior Stonewall manager making their eye opening statements in Allison's case.

That was quite the 'win' there. Way to foster confidence that Stonewall are genuinely a well balanced group of people making balanced policy and guidelines. Some of things said by Stonewall's management or in the groups they formed were the total opposite of what would be expected in a professional environment.

Winning!

And then you had the senior executives of Chambers and think tanks who were clearly trying to do the right thing but not really confident even then. So they outsourced it and didn't try to get their heads around it which they clearly now understand they needed to for their organisations liability.

And the reputation that goes with that liability.

A message that has twice now been sent very clearly by Maya and Allison's cases. And even Sonia Appleby's case. And even in Raquel Rosario-Sanchez's case which also shone a light on the fact that she was actually mistreated but still lost... and the Universities are now wary. There are at least two more education sector cases coming through in 2022.

Yes, Stonewall is winning on ALL fronts at the moment.

Law Society Gazette

edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=Law%20Society%20Gazette&edid=76c3ef3f-69af-4bd7-a8be-962a05059207&pnum=14

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equalities-and-rights-conflict-and-the-need-for-clarity

This is the transcript for Suella Braverman's speech.

I wonder if activists can disown all of her speech, or applaud one section while dismissing the other.

And another space to watch! Wait for the announcement.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4609237-government-legal-department-leaving-stonewall

WINNING!

Yeah?

Suella Braverman has NO influence, don't worry about her. Trust Stonewall!

Yeah?

Does anyone see even in the short life of this thread how absolutely foolish that celebration has been? You would have to be so far down that hole of indoctrination that you would think so.

I can't see where our friend Hearach has commented about NHS policy leading to female transitioners being excluded from automatic invitations for screening.

"Your reference to transmen as ‘men’ in any healthcare is that dangerous misinformation I am pointing out."

Trans men are men and their medical needs thanks to gender affirming healthcare can vary greatly from cisgender women.

I know you have difficulty with the conception of trans acceptance but this doesn't change the reality that they exist and do have different needs to cisgender women.

"Do you really think Suella Braverman is not supported by the government?"

I have no doubt that she is but I also know (and I'm sure you do too) that this Government has little regard for the law. It breaks laws and rules quite regularly and that's one reason why is had become so unpopular recently.

"For example the female who was going into early labour and whose baby died, because their sex marker had been changed and they were treated as a male".

This is why trans inclusive language in healthcare is so important. No matter how manly/masculine someone can appear they can still have a uterus.

And around we go.

Happy to keep repeating that when it comes to health care, the very first bit of information needed is female. Every single time.

then gender treatment.

Yours is the only argument here putting females at risk. Your doubling down doesn’t make any difference.

I don’t have an issue with ‘trans acceptance’. I understand very well the health risks females face with transitioning. Do you? Do you really? You seem to have a very clear issue with acceptance of the needs of females. Whatever their gender identity.

I think by now you have made sure everyone has seen it.