Mermaids versus LGB alliance in court today??

[GrabbyGabby]

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/09/trans-charity-mermaids-appeal-lgb-alliance-status

Not sure if it is today or next week. Do we know if this is open like the tribunals?

twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1374778555054370830

'When I praised a young, trans constituent of mine who bravely spoke of her life last year, the sinister LGB Alliance offered rewards of retweets to anyone who donated money to it in my name. I was, as a result, deluged by abuse..'

John Nicolson has a long history of hatred for the LGB Alliance. He will be less able to pull the "I'm not an expert" thing.

For some background, here's a long piece Dave Hewitt did for Glinner's Substack about his antics:

The pathetic truth behind John Nicolson's obsession with LGB Alliance

I have to close down the page and reload to get a fresh active with it in.

Here’s another tweet commentary on the case from the pro trans angle:

twitter.com/truesolicitor/status/1569267743723061250

Strikes me that on balance the abuse is going in the other direction!

It looks like this is going to be an important part of Nicholson's evidence:

twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1339332454046461958

The first tweet shown by LGBA was very unwise.

Yes. Not such a good look for LGBA.

Are Mermaid et al's hands absolutely clean at all times, and they have always been absolutely respectful and kind about homosexual people? 🤔

Being rude to each other isn't really relevant, they're not required to get on. The question is the one stated today in court - whether Mermaids et al have the right to demand that no charity be permitted to exist that is run by those with GC views. Even if they are meeting a population Mermaids et al don't provide for, and don't want to provide for, and who have no other representation?

If the answer is yes, but the LGBA isn't appropriate on other defensible grounds that are clearly proven, then fine, we'll set up a different GC based charity for homosexual people who wish to be represented and defined on the basis of sex and to lobby on behalf of those people and of the reality of conflict of interests with TQ+ politics. Not a problem.

If the answer's no, then it gets interesting.

I think Akua Reindorf has set up that argument quite well - under cross-examination, she's got them to say quite clearly that they have a fundamental problem with the views of LGB Alliance and their supporters.

For them to attempt to claim "oh, well, this isn't anti-GC or anti-lesbian discrimination, it's just that Bev and Kate in particular are horrible, so LGB Alliance specifically is the problem" is not going to pass a basic sniff test.

The 'so called' reminds me of Mrs Bennett when she's complaining about Mr Darcy.

She says 'Mr Darcy! As he calls himself!'

I mean...it's not a clever insult, is it??

At least Jane Austen wrote it to be funny. These twats are just twats.

Assuming that I'm looking at the right one, I don't think the tweet is going to cause any problems because it doesn't undermine the LGBA position which is that same-sex & both-sex attraction are real and entirely different from synthetic sex identities, the meaning of same-sex/both-sex attraction needs to be defended, as do people with those characteristics, and no-one else is doing that job, or at least not primarily focusing on that.

Having read some of Tribunaltweets I’m really wished I had a clear calendar this week as following this case looks like the most entertaining show around

Why is that problematic though? The case isn't about whether it's legit to post robust/ sarcastic tweets. If it was I reckon most charities and organisations would be having their knuckles rapped!

Thanks for the list. It seemed to me that P Roberts only spoke today about transwomen (and occasionally transmen), not LGB people impacted by LGBA?

Apparently I'm blocked by Nicholson, despite never having any communication with him.
Roberts has been an absolute joy today. I haven't laughed so much in ages

Unless the judge is hopelessly captured, LGBA is going to have a slam dunk with this.

The sunlight, obviously, is brilliant.

But the win will only be that the LGBA can continue. To me, it's not enough.

This LGBT consortium, mermaids, Stonewall, they all need to be stripped of their charitable status. They can't use LGB when you completely change the meaning.

Replying to save this. Thanks so much for this a a non-twitterer.

Oops forgot to quote. Sorry.
Replying to save this. Thanks so much for this a a non-twitterer.

The first tweet shown by LGBA was very unwise.

I don't really understand this position. They were a bit rude on Twitter to someone, therefore, shouldn't exist?

What legal grounds would that involve?

Again, in the land of unintended consequences it would be open season on TRA organisations who have made many unwise comments and tweets.

the explanation on glinner's website is very interesting

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

JN does love using the word sinister to describe the so called LGB Alliance doesn't he? I think I'll add that to my DRINK! trigger words for tomorrow

I don't really understand this position. They were a bit rude on Twitter to someone, therefore, shouldn't exist?

Who said that?

Of course calling an MP a rape-enabler when there's no evidence to support the allegation is unwise. For example they'll want access to Parliament and be able to lobby MPs and Lords and allegations like that won't help.

NB Nauticant, if the first tweet you're referring to is the one about dressing up as a woman etc, LGBA never actually tweeted that. it's a screen shot from their crown funder and they asked for that comment to be deleted

I'll give you the rape enabling one though, and yes, that was very unwise

Throwing unsubstantiated and serious allegations at an MP is unwise, and they should probably tighten up their SM policy.

However, it is even less wise for an MP to do this.

But two wrongs do not make a right.

And I learned in spades from Mayas tribunal, we have to watch every word we say. It is all too easy to end up accidentally giving grist to their mill and undermining our own arguments.

Still comes nowhere close to them being stripped of charitable status.

Like cookers. The old skool kind with knobs and the new fangled kind with a flat front and complicated instructions for care and use.