Page 21 | Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

Justme56 · 2022-08-04T07:13:39+00:00

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. 😁

Paidinfall · 17/08/2022 19:47

Helleofabore · 17/08/2022 19:39

Maya lost and still totally fucked us.

I read that earlier and laughed at the appropriateness to this thread.

It's funny because they couldn't have been more wrong, Maya won - it was Allison that lost.

😄

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 17/08/2022 19:49

MajorieEks · 17/08/2022 18:44

I thought this tweet was particularly relevant to this thread, re: Ben cooper, is it a win or not etc

mobile.twitter.com/AlixWzl/status/1559849452512362497

In case anyone else needs the context of the QT and related thread.

twitter.com/AlixWzl/status/1559849424628715521?

Helleofabore · 17/08/2022 19:51

And Allison also won…

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 17/08/2022 21:05

Paidinfall · 17/08/2022 19:47

It's funny because they couldn't have been more wrong, Maya won - it was Allison that lost.

😄

Show quote history

P××k News reported that a trans employee won against the NHS. Employee won on one out of sixty-one grounds.

If that's a win, then Allison definitely won, on mathematical grounds. Seeing as she succeeded on more grounds, both in numerical magnitude and by percentage.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 17/08/2022 21:26

extract from tribunal decision^The Claimant’s complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination against
the First Respondent in respect of questioning about underwear at a meeting on
25 June 2021 is well-founded and succeeds.^
5. All of the Claimant’s remaining complaints are not well-founded and are
dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
^1. These were complaints of direct gender reassignment discrimination, direct
disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising
in consequence of disability, harassment related to gender reassignment,
harassment related to disability, harassment related to sex or of a sexual
nature, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability and victimisation^
^brought by the Claimant, V, against her former employer, the Sheffield
Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and six named Respondents.^That's a lot of stuff thrown out.P××k News headlined that as trans NHS worker "wins discrimination case"

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 17/08/2022 21:32

extract from tribunal decision

The Claimant’s complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination against the First Respondent in respect of questioning about underwear at a meeting on 25 June 2021 is well-founded and succeeds.
5. All of the Claimant’s remaining complaints are not well-founded and are
dismissed.

REASONS
Introduction

These were complaints of direct gender reassignment discrimination, direct disability discrimination, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, harassment related to gender reassignment, harassment related to disability, harassment related to sex or of a sexual

nature, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability and victimisation brought by the Claimant, V, against her former employer, the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and six named Respondents.

That's a lot of stuff thrown out.

P××k News headlined that as trans NHS worker "wins discrimination case"

TheBiologyStupid · 18/08/2022 00:01

P××k News headlined that as trans NHS worker "wins discrimination case"

Indeed! And in almost every instance, the Tribunal found the witnesses to be more reliable than the Claimant. If Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust hadn't already accepted that the alleged transphobic events had taken place - and on the basis of very little evidence - the outcome might have been very different. Odd that the Claimant couldn't cope with the stress of part-time work in the hospital kitchen but could find the mental fortitude to represent themselves in court, too.

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 11:07

Helleofabore · 17/08/2022 04:50

See hearache,
others will have read your supposedly clever come back and realise you never addressed the other questions and issues raised in the post.

Are they too inconvenient?

While you are monstering Baroness Nicholson, you like to ignore (and the others who popped on the thread) the spokespeople of
Stonewall and their
well published views. People who are influencing policies of many of the UK organisations.

Just so you remember, I brought three to your attention:

Peter Tatchell

Jane Fae

and Nancy Kelley.

And remember the quotes directly from transitioned males ?

Fully comfortable with them?

Your monstering of Baroness Nicholson has been repeated over different threads. You keep repeating the same old trope from the Pink news. With no actual original source links with any type of critical thinking applied.

So, please answer the question and your lack of answer will be considered as important as your answer.

Are you happy with 100% of what Peter Tatchell, Jane Fae and Nancy Kelley have said in the media?

"Your monstering of Baroness Nicholson has been repeated over different threads. You keep repeating the same old trope from the Pink news."

She believes that lesbian marriage "degrades" women, that lesbian are "neither natural nor normal" or that gay men should be jailed for having consensual sex with 20-year-olds. These are not "old tropes", they are simple statements of fact about a legislator's record on issues.

I know you are not an "expert on LGBT issues" but if you want to start learning a good way to start would be asking a few LGBT people of your acquittance (if you have any) why those things are bigoted things to say and believe.

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 11:08

Helleofabore · 17/08/2022 19:51

And Allison also won…

Not against Stonewall 😀

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 11:34

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 11:07

"Your monstering of Baroness Nicholson has been repeated over different threads. You keep repeating the same old trope from the Pink news."

She believes that lesbian marriage "degrades" women, that lesbian are "neither natural nor normal" or that gay men should be jailed for having consensual sex with 20-year-olds. These are not "old tropes", they are simple statements of fact about a legislator's record on issues.

I know you are not an "expert on LGBT issues" but if you want to start learning a good way to start would be asking a few LGBT people of your acquittance (if you have any) why those things are bigoted things to say and believe.

Show quote history

Readers: Please draw your attention to the deflection, misrepresentation and distractive techniques that hearache honestly seems to think is working in their favour.

It is a great demonstration, no?

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 11:45

Helleofabore · 16/08/2022 10:01

The LGB Alliance (who I assume you refer to) are not "an organization that focuses on LGB people and puts their needs first though".

I was referring to any organisation that represents the L or the G or the B separately or together and without centring any other letter and certainly focusing on the sexual orientation of their members....

But it seems to me that you are rather obsessed with LGB Alliance. It really does rankle that you cannot control other people who are part of the LGB community and don't do what you want. You really are a great ambassador for Stonewall, I would say that they lucked out when they found you.

They were launched not to promote LGB rights but to oppose trans rights or "gender extremism" as Allison Bailey calls it:

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1186767223555272719?s=20

Let's have a look at that tweet, shall we?

*This is an historic moment for the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual movement.
LGB Alliance launched in London tonight, and we mean business.
Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match.^
11:12 PM · Oct 22, 2019

Meaning that a group of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people have felt that Stonewall no longer represented them and that they felt the reason for that was the redefining their sexual orientation to be centring 'gender' and not the 'sex' of the people who fit that sexual orientation.

And, you think that this tweet is some kind of 'gotcha'?

They rarely campaign on LGB issues e.g. They didn't even put out a tweet to celebrate lesbians getting free IVF the other day.

They do campaign for LGB issues. They also were founded by lesbians. Females. Who, by nature of being female, also realise that there is that other side of 'getting free IVF' that you don't seem to be able to acknowledge even though it was explained to you pages ago.

You know, that there is another probably more greater concern about fertility equality - that of hyper stimulating the eggs of women and even very young adults to 'harvest' eggs for IVF use, plus the demand to have access to surrogates.

You know, the issues that exploit females and have huge potential to cause females harm. And remember, I also pointed out that the children of donor conception and surrogacy are raising ethical alarms about this too.

But, this is yet another example of an activist who simply cannot acknowledge that there is quite often a harmful side to females to the demands of Stonewall.

And they host people who actively oppose LGB rights because they agree with them on trans rights e.g. Baroness Nicholson who thinks lesbians getting married "degrades women" and thinks two women having kids is "neither normal nor natural". She also wanted gay men who have consensual sex with 20 year-old men to be chucked in jail.

And the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues. You cannot have it both ways hearache.

Plus, again, you don't seem to ever be able to understand how good and robust acts are passed through the Westminster system. If any MP can see a conflict with another group for a bill that is before them and to be voted on, they have to feel certain that protections are in place to protect those people.

In the case of the Baroness, she felt that the protections of women and children were being risked in the wording of that particular bill. And she has been working to protect women and children since the 1980s and has worked with the UN and the EU courts to protect women and children. So, she couldn't support that particular wording of the act.

Let's have another look at the tweet you refer to. The 'degrading one'.

twitter.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1270703409931452416?s=20&t=CSagMWOpQkNQxFn-BjV0OQ

Because I foresaw (with some justification) that it would lead to degrading the status of women and of girls. This as we now see has happened and is continuing, so my sex are as a binary class in difficult now.

So, you have put a little bit of your own twist there, as usual.

She was discussing the protections of women and girls in conjunction with the wording of a particular bill that was being voted on.

And as far as the 'neither normal nor natural', to be clear, two people of the same sex cannot biologically have children. Or are you saying that they can? And are you saying that a family where the children have an active relationship with BOTH biological parents who care for the wellbeing of those children is not better than a family where the children do not know one of their biological parents, even if they are loved and cared for by the people, one of which may be a biological parent, they live with?

Can you please provide proof of this? Because that is not what we are hearing from those children who are now adults of families where they did not and may still not know, one or both of their biological parents.

I look forward to seeing that proof. Otherwise, you have repeated your slurs against Baroness Nicholson from Pink New. It is getting repetitive, but hey, I am sure someone reading along here will have not come across this attempt of yours before.

So, are you really happy with everything previously said and advocated for by actual spokespeople of Stonewall:

Peter Tatchell .... are you really comfortable about his writings on paedophilia? Really? Shall we post them for all the readers to see.

Why are you comfortable with Peter Tatchell being a spokesperson for Stonewall?

Shall I continue? We have plenty of examples collected here on MN.

Or shall I simply repost the quotes from actual transitioned males. You saw them on another thread. I am very happy to do this if it is helpful to make you actually start thinking about just where your constant attempt to discredit people via ad hominem attacks.

And attempts to discredit organisations via totalitarian tactics and misrepresentation.

Now, this. Yet again.

As someone who is "not an expert" on LGBT issues I do not expect you to know this but the above are all examples of homophobia.

Yes, attempting to monster LGB Alliance the way you are probably does speak of homophobia on your part. Posters have been through this with you on thread after thread by now. Lesbians and bisexual people have explained that they want no part in supporting a group that redefines their sexual orientation.

So... good pick up on that. You may well have been very homophobic in your efforts there.

Thank you for explaining.

Readers: I am sure that you realise that hearache's selective and repetitive use of one word 'degrading' is actually a misrepresentation of the actual tweet.

So far though, you will notice that Hearache has avoided any engagement with this post apart from some on the 16/8/22 posting:

"the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues"

If you believe that then you'll believe me when I tell you that Margaret Thatcher was a great champion of the trade union movement.

Showing that, in fact, supposedly they read that entire post and only had that to offer.

Hearache and other posters have also avoided answering the direct and repeated question of whether they hold Stonewall's own spokespeople to the very same rigour as they are holding the Baroness?

Almost like some people want to not draw attention to what those Stonewall spokespeople have actually said. Particularly Peter Tatchell.

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 11:53

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 11:45

Readers: I am sure that you realise that hearache's selective and repetitive use of one word 'degrading' is actually a misrepresentation of the actual tweet.

So far though, you will notice that Hearache has avoided any engagement with this post apart from some on the 16/8/22 posting:

"the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues"

If you believe that then you'll believe me when I tell you that Margaret Thatcher was a great champion of the trade union movement.

Showing that, in fact, supposedly they read that entire post and only had that to offer.

Hearache and other posters have also avoided answering the direct and repeated question of whether they hold Stonewall's own spokespeople to the very same rigour as they are holding the Baroness?

Almost like some people want to not draw attention to what those Stonewall spokespeople have actually said. Particularly Peter Tatchell.

Show quote history

"the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues"

Could you point me towards this long history of LGB rights activism?

I suspect you are mistaking wanting to throw gay men in jail for having consensual sex with 20-year-olds and not wanting lesbians to get married for LGB activism.

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 12:08

Actually, I think that the onus by now is on you to actually start answering questions asked pages ago.

Allynafish · 18/08/2022 12:12

This reply has been deleted

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

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 12:16

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 12:08

Actually, I think that the onus by now is on you to actually start answering questions asked pages ago.

You think the Baroness was right when she voted to send gay men to prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds?

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 12:23

Could you point me towards this long history of LGB rights activism?

And just pointing out again the twisting that you continue to do hearache.

You quoted it correctly: "the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues".

But then you are attempting to twist it to me saying she has a long history of LGB rights activism.

Which is a dishonest representation of what I said.

She is 'supporting' issues around LGB people's needs, she is not a LGB activist. She is an activist for women and children. And that is very well documented. She is supporting LGB issues through supporting and working with lesbians and bisexual females and also sometimes the wider LGB community.

Your bad faith takes are really very obvious. And this was an example of overexaggeration of what was said to make it some kind of 'gotcha'. It is an example of polarised thinking. A cognitive distortion. It works to create this 'us and them' style of attack.

This polarised thinking allows no freedom. As I said upthread, it is totalitarian in style.

The demonising of the Baroness is also another cognitive distortion. By vilifying her, people don't have to engage with the substance of what she actually says and does.

It is all part of the purity spiral and funnily enough, purity spirals never work well for any person or group. No person or group is ever going to be 'pure' enough.

How about you drop the demonising and deal with the issues the Baroness raises individually and deal with the substance of the matter. And I mean, provide evidence of what she has said and done with full context, not cherry picked words and phrases. Actual original source material, not regurgitated misrepresentation.

Because you are really just spiralling in now.

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 12:24

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 12:16

You think the Baroness was right when she voted to send gay men to prison for having consensual sex with 20 year olds?

Show quote history

How about you provide the original source material for your claim hearache?

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 12:28

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 12:23

Could you point me towards this long history of LGB rights activism?

And just pointing out again the twisting that you continue to do hearache.

You quoted it correctly: "the Baroness has also supported many other LGB rights issues".

But then you are attempting to twist it to me saying she has a long history of LGB rights activism.

Which is a dishonest representation of what I said.

She is 'supporting' issues around LGB people's needs, she is not a LGB activist. She is an activist for women and children. And that is very well documented. She is supporting LGB issues through supporting and working with lesbians and bisexual females and also sometimes the wider LGB community.

Your bad faith takes are really very obvious. And this was an example of overexaggeration of what was said to make it some kind of 'gotcha'. It is an example of polarised thinking. A cognitive distortion. It works to create this 'us and them' style of attack.

This polarised thinking allows no freedom. As I said upthread, it is totalitarian in style.

The demonising of the Baroness is also another cognitive distortion. By vilifying her, people don't have to engage with the substance of what she actually says and does.

It is all part of the purity spiral and funnily enough, purity spirals never work well for any person or group. No person or group is ever going to be 'pure' enough.

How about you drop the demonising and deal with the issues the Baroness raises individually and deal with the substance of the matter. And I mean, provide evidence of what she has said and done with full context, not cherry picked words and phrases. Actual original source material, not regurgitated misrepresentation.

Because you are really just spiralling in now.

"She is supporting LGB issues through supporting and working with lesbians and bisexual females and also sometimes the wider LGB community."

No she's not, she doesn't thinks their marriages and "degrading" and their families not "natural" or "normal".

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 12:29

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 12:24

How about you provide the original source material for your claim hearache?

Show quote history

"She did vote against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 16".

Are you saying she lied to the Telegraph during this interview to make her record look even more homophobic than it is?

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/lose-freedom-speech-end/

Newtowns · 18/08/2022 12:36

This reply has been deleted

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

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 12:37

This reply has been deleted

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

She hasn't changed. She's still a homophobe.

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 13:28

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 12:29

"She did vote against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 16".

Are you saying she lied to the Telegraph during this interview to make her record look even more homophobic than it is?

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/lose-freedom-speech-end/

Show quote history

Another failed gotcha.

Did you read this at all?

Are you saying she lied to the Telegraph during this interview to make her record look even more homophobic than it is?

Please point out exactly where SHE commented that she voted against the lowering of the age of consent.

Plus the article also says this:

While she did vote against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 16 in 1994, she was in good company, with MPs Kenneth Clarke, Virginia Bottomley, Sebastian Coe, David Blunkett, Michael Portillo and Nigel Evans, the gay former deputy leader of the House, among those who also sided against equality.

Just to make it clear. Nigel Evans, the gay former deputy leader of the House, among those who also sided against equality.

Maybe you could pull up the records and show us that there was not a 'whip' dictating the voting on this one. Remember, I have posted on numerous threads now how political parties and MP vote through Acts of parliament.

But you never seem to acknowledge that you seem to not know how good, robust laws are created in Parliament. Or even how some votes are dictated by the party and MPs don't have the freedom to vote with their conscious sometimes.

And again... 1994!

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 13:35

And here in that article you posted it says this:

'Explaining her thinking behind that seminal 2013 vote for equal marital rights, she explains: “Marriage enshrines the mother as somebody of huge importance and value. “I’ve worked in many nations where motherhood is devalued, girls are degraded and where women’s rights, in that sense, are fairly negative. My concern, at the time, was that [equal marriage] might devalue motherhood and child protection. “Basically, I’m a backbencher Anglican. I was married myself and I always followed that creed. I’ve nothing against any same-sex marriages at all. I voted the other way. It’s not an issue – I forgot about it immediately after it was done.” '

Just for those in the back!

"I’ve worked in many nations where motherhood is devalued, girls are degraded and where women’s rights, in that sense, are fairly negative. My concern, at the time, was that [equal marriage] might devalue motherhood and child protection."

and

Not least when she, among the cross-party signatories to an amendment backed by Stonewall, the LGBT lobby group, allowed same-sex partnerships to be of equal value to same-sex marriage, but not identical.

She came at it from a position of protection women and children from the legal use of the word 'marriage'. Not from homophobia. Previously, she actively supported same-sex partnerships being strengthened. And that was a choice that she was free to make, by the way. She didn't have to do that.

Oh... look.... supporting LGB people.... even back then.

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 13:36

But... hey.... thanks for posting that article.

Hearach15 · 18/08/2022 14:01

Helleofabore · 18/08/2022 13:28

Another failed gotcha.

Did you read this at all?

Are you saying she lied to the Telegraph during this interview to make her record look even more homophobic than it is?

Please point out exactly where SHE commented that she voted against the lowering of the age of consent.

Plus the article also says this:

While she did vote against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 16 in 1994, she was in good company, with MPs Kenneth Clarke, Virginia Bottomley, Sebastian Coe, David Blunkett, Michael Portillo and Nigel Evans, the gay former deputy leader of the House, among those who also sided against equality.

Just to make it clear. Nigel Evans, the gay former deputy leader of the House, among those who also sided against equality.

Maybe you could pull up the records and show us that there was not a 'whip' dictating the voting on this one. Remember, I have posted on numerous threads now how political parties and MP vote through Acts of parliament.

But you never seem to acknowledge that you seem to not know how good, robust laws are created in Parliament. Or even how some votes are dictated by the party and MPs don't have the freedom to vote with their conscious sometimes.

And again... 1994!

Show quote history

Unless you have proof that the Telegraph has reported her vote inaccurately you're merely engaged in wishful thinking. It is a matter of public record printed in a national newspaper than she voted for gay men who have consensual sex with 20 year olds to be sent to jail.

"But you never seem to acknowledge that you seem to not know how good, robust laws are created in Parliament. Or even how some votes are dictated by the party and MPs don't have the freedom to vote with their conscious sometimes."

It wasn't a whipped vote:

"Prime Minister John Major and most of his Cabinet voted against reducing the age to 16 and in favor of the compromise plan. Mr. Major had left members of the governing Conservative Party free to vote as they wished on the issue, which was the subject of an emotional debate."

www.nytimes.com/1994/02/23/world/british-gay-rights-groups-vow-to-fight-consent-age.html#:~:text=Prime%20Minister%20John%20Major%20and,favor%20of%20the%20compromise%20plan.

Those of us who are actual experts on Westminster and LGBT matters know that a). They are usually matters of conscious in Parliament and therefore MPs are not whipped B). Even if they are whipped then there is nothing to stop an MP rebelling against their party if they chose to put principle before their career.

P.S. If Nigel Evans voted that way and hasn't changed his mind and said sorry, then yes he's as bigoted as the Baroness.