Law firms in a muddle. (Roll on Friday)

[Imnobody4]

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firms-get-sex-muddle-over-supreme-court-verdict
Lewis Silkin was accused of being "grossly misleading" when it produced an analysis of the verdict which advised that men who identified as women were still entitled to use the single sex facilities of their choice in the workplace, and that employers who stopped transwomen from doing so could be sued for discrimination.“If employers do provide single sex spaces then (based on previous cases) it is likely to be gender reassignment discrimination to bar trans people from using the facilities of their choice. As this does not relate to GRCs [Gender Recognition Certificates], it is unaltered by the Court’s judgment", stated the analysis........After ROF asked the Law Society if the template policy, promoted by the SRA, potentially placed firms which adopted it in legal jeopardy following the ruling, it added a note at the top of the document warning, “We are currently reviewing this guidance in light of the recent Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers. Firms should continue to seek their own advice on these issues as applicable to their own circumstances”. The document, drafted by the Law Society's LGBT+ Committee and transwoman barrister Robin Moira White, also states that a “refusal to accept a trans person's gender identity” constitutes transphobia, which would now appear to catch the justices of the Supreme Court.Former tax barrister Jolyon Maugham, who runs the Good Law Project, might approve. Having predicted that "FWS will lose. The law really is pretty clear", following the verdict he posted on Bluesky that "There is a very real basis to believe - and I am a KC with an unblemished record - to believe that something very bad, delegitimising, happened in the Supreme Court", and claimed that the judges were "hubristic, reckless or bigoted".

But there is a difference between taking on a case that may have limited chance of succeeding and making up statute.

(Although, again, I don’t know whether the really bad advice from activist organisations was checked by lawyers).

I am not sure about the McConnell case itself but not long after that case, the ECtHR heard a pair of cases from Germany that essentially raised the same points. In both cases the court unanimously found for the state i.e. registering the transman who gave birth as 'mother' wasn't a rights violation. The case isn't available in English but here's the summary https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-14047%22]} (and it links to the judgment in several other languages).

The German legislation that was challenged was very similar to ours and it's difficult to imagine that McConnell could win given these very clear judgments.

Sorry meant to quote the post I was replying to - answer above.

This is so clever, potpourree👌
Brava!

This indicates that the ECHR accepts that there are situations when only biological sex is relevant.

Have JM and RW explained their case in more detail?

Stonewall homepage:

“STONEWALL IS PROUD TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE ON LGBTQ+ INCLUSION, WORKING TOWARDS A WORLD WHERE WE'RE ALL FREE TO BE. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL COUNSEL ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER.”

Not sure how long this has been there.

Yes, sorry, should have said I was speaking more generally.

A barrister encouraging people to break the law - wouldn’t that go against their professional standards?

I feel like he's near or at Peak Fuck Aroundery. His train will arrive crash into Finding Outington Station in due course.

I'll be relaxing on a deckchair in sunny Ohdear Whatapity (Nevermind)

He’s gone completely mad.

For some reason this squalid scenario brings to mind that excruciating scene in Withnail and I* where a drunken Withnail provides the police with a fake urine sample. It involves a Fairy Liquid bottle and a tube sellotaped to his old chap. It does not end well.

*Best Film Ever

Sorry, I meant to put that on the other dedicated JM thread.

GETINTHEBACKOFTHEVAN

Drifting into the arena of the unwell...

The police Miss Blennerhasset. Tell them there's a couple of drunk barristers in the penrith twitroom

https://goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/supreme-court-human-rights-for-trans-people/

This is their crowdfunding page

It does seem to misrepresent the law - even from the first comment about who was allowed to present a case. This seems to be central to their argument. And then it goes on to talk about the Nazis.

It’s very odd.

Yes but it only matters when it's junior lawyers or paralegals breaking the law. Then the whole force of the SRA/SDT comes down on them to ban them from practising.

More senior lawyers get away with terrible behaviour, over and over again.

Dear me! We use both. 😣

Our legal team is lovely and woke.

I work in the public sector.

Agree. There are some seriously shady legal characters out there

Jolyon Maugham
Aamer Anwar
Tasnime Akunjee

They seem to get away with professionally overstepping time and time again

Why aren’t they removed as a KC?

Bundlejuice, Bundlejuice Bundlejuice!

It is all very well for m'learned councel to be willing to be instructed but they will need instructing solicitors. Who are these? Sue, Grabbit and Runne?

JM is doing seriously well out of his latest grift. 180K so far. Seems there are a lot of people out there who are heavily invested in undermining women's rights.

Can we see how many contributions have been made and what the sums are?

There are 5447 donations and the average donation is around £32 but I can't find a list of individuals who have made a donation so unable to see if there have been any large contributions.