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?

It is now:

"Mermaids, supported by LGBT+ Consortium, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation, TransActual, and Good Law Project"

"I would have preferred to use my usual pseudonym, as well.
I've just used my first name for this hearing,"

You need to use your real full name.

"Its 's 1-1 at the moment,"

Is this what it's really about? I don't think looking at all of this as a counting-points game is helpful.

The original archive document showing Stonewall has been unhidden now, I won't post again as the link will be hidden automatically but if you go to my post at 13.07 yesterday you can read it.

"Its 's 1-1 at the moment,"

Is this what it's really about? I don't think looking at all of this as a counting-points game is helpful.

You appear to be quoting a deleted post, Marg? Perhaps they weren't being all that sincere when they spammed the thread multiple times with that post.

You appear to be quoting a deleted post, Marg? Perhaps they weren't being all that sincere when they spammed the thread multiple times with that post.

There was server problems about an hour ago, I've seen a few threads with the same post posted multiple times this morning.

Yes it does sometimes happen. There was obviously an issue with the original post, as it's been deleted. Perhaps the poster will return when their posting problems are resolved.

Being awarded 'aggravated damages' says otherwise.

Judge Griffin?

I would also like to know this.

Barbara Rich (barrister) says it is all being heard regardless.

Someone asked her: I'm American so I'm new to the way this works. If I understand, this first phase will determine whether Mermaids can be allowed to bring legal challenge to LGBA's charity status, is that correct?

And Barbara answered: Yes, that’s right. But all the evidence and legal argument on that question is being heard together with the evidence and legal argument on the appeal itself in a single hearing, with a single judgment on both issues

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1568166515274285056

She has an interesting thread on the issue of standing here:

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1459456190916739076

Thanks for the links yourhairiswinterfire

Presumably because they took such a heavy pasting in the AB case that they couldn't afford another almighty cock-up.

I just learned from that Barbara Rich thread, that the Charity Commission did not want the issue of standing resolved separately, even though they do not believe Mermaids have standing. And even though presumably they are incurring costs from this nonsense too.

That's interesting! I guess they agree with pp upthread that it's best to have this nonsense comprehensively shut down on all fronts. Really shit for LGBA though.

I suppose there is by this point awareness that this is going to keep boomeranging back, certain parties have been whinging and niggling away about this since the LGBA's conception.

And yes. Very useful to get all the dirty linen out and take a good look at it.

And perhaps the 'standing' issue is one the courts want to look at more closely? Given the setting up of 'The Good Law Project'.

That sounds very plausible.

i have it in my head that the GLP have come a cropper on a similar issue before. It’s very clear that just having a general interest in going after an organisation doesn’t confer standing.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/good-law-project-does-not-have-carte-blanche-to-bring-jrs-high-court-says/5111515.article

That’s exactly what I was remembering, thank you signalbox!

Yeah. From my hugely limited understanding I got the impression that the judges were a bit pissed off with TGLP's approach.

'Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift also held that, while the Runnymede Trust has standing to bring the PSED challenge, the Good Law Project did not.

Referring to the group’s articles of association, they said that it ‘cannot be right as a matter of principle that an organisation could in effect confer standing upon itself by drafting its objects clause so widely that just about any conceivable public law error by any public authority falls within its remit’.

The judges said: ‘We are not persuaded that such a general statement of objects as is now set out in the Good Law Project’s articles of association can confer standing on an organisation. That would be tantamount to saying that the Good Law Project has standing to bring judicial review proceedings in any public law case.’

The court added: ‘It cannot be supposed that the Good Law Project now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.’'

"Presumably because they[Stonwall] took such a heavy pasting in the AB case"

Not quite.

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-outcome-allison-bailey-case

"We are pleased that the Employment Tribunal has ruled in a decision published today that Stonewall has NOT been found to have instructed, caused or induced Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Allison Bailey."

The 2 Stonewall witnesses didn't exactly cover themselves (or their employer) in glory, now - did they??

Thanks for the links, and I'm glad this was spelled out too:
The court added: ‘It cannot be supposed that the Good Law Project now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.’'

Also it's bizarre to me that GLP have Barbara Rich blocked on Twitter! She's hardly a troll!

You read my mind . . .

I am surprised that posters on MN still think that Stonewall have not had repercussions from the evidence presented at Allison Bailey’s case. Whether you consider they ‘won’ or not.

The fact that they received no judgement officially against them is also pointless.

They did not emerge from that court case as victorious winners. Yet, supporters cling to the lack of judgement against them.

It will does not matter. The constant feed of negative publicity around them, including their evidence given in this case, adds to the lack of confidence organisations now have about their guidance. Either Stonewall need to adjust their direction or they will need to reinvent themselves in time to come. Particularly in the very future where organisations need to make every £ work harder than ever.

It should be SW who is challenged given their all new definitions of homosexuality.