Women's Hour - TRA barrister on

[Apollo441]

Anyone care to discuss the content of today's women's hour. They had RMW on who's interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement seems questionable. Please stick to discussing content as we have already had a thread deleted.

IANAL but I saw someone talking about this (may have been Maya or Helen from Sex Matters, might be someone else entirely, though!)

They said that the only party who could take this SC clarification/decision to the ECHR would be ScotGov and they have already said they're not going to do that.

So to get to ECHR a new case would have to be started from scratch. Which wouldn't go anywhere, because of the SC decision...

Meant to quote this on my post above

I wish someone would ask Robin that if Robin is recommending three spaces, what would they be called?

Because, as I said on the other thread, I think they will be called men's, women's, and terfy bitches.

I want the specific question put to Robin that if it's mixed sex, it can't be called women's, so is Robin okay with it being called gender neutral, or other name, that isn't 'women only'.

Because, and I have said, until I'm hoarse, it's got fuck all to do with the space. The only reason they want in is because it's for women.

Robin has literally just offered the solution that the Supreme Court recommends.

But I bet there's one little detail...

IANAL, but complaints about not being allowed to intervene are without merit. The SC allows organisations making relevant legal arguments to intervene in a case.

I also said, and in case it's was delete worthy, it's not directed towards Robin, that there are certain men who pride themselves on their academic ability and rationality who will be annoyed at being questioned under these circumstances. It's hard being held to account, when you've got fuck all.

They can no longer rely on esoteric bollocks like being born in the wrong body or mysterious arguments about chromosomes and fish that the Supreme Court have now firmly confined to fairyland.

All they've got is entitlement.

And having painted themselves into this corner, they're left holding the brush, and wondering how to walk back across the room to Credibility Land without getting covered in Dulux.

@WandaSiri but S6(1) allows anyone who believes they haven’t had a fair hearing in their home country to apply to ECtHR - having the right to appeal to Strasbourg and actually getting a full hearing is another matter - a huge number of cases do not reach a full hearing (which I think is likely).

But surely the trans side was represented fully by ScotGov? I just had a glance at Article 6 and it relates to a public and fair trial. Who is it that RMW indicates was not given a fair and public trial I wonder?

My apologies if I am all over the place, but honestly, is he an actual lawyer or what?

I'm comforted in some way anyhow that he and his ilk will have to start the process all over again. Hopefully it will take more than ten years by which time sanity, science, biology and common sense will have been restored

Here…

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5333372-aibu-to-think-that-if-someone-appears-on-mainstream-media-mn-should-not-delete-the-discussion?reply=144227475&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

I’m not arguing that the TRAs have realistic grounds to appeal - only that they are allowed to try!

Since 2001 the ECtHR has only found the U.K. to be in breach of ECHR (and I think this is the shockingly misunderstood case of Goodwin). I’m not surprised at Rob the barrister mentioning Goodwin - but I personally think it unlikely the ECtHR will find the SC breached the ECHR.

Re the S6 appeal Prof Jo Phoenix put it best when she said ‘good luck with that’!

As I said on the deleted thread, with Robin and Jolyon at the helm, with their track records, it will go brilliantly.

I heard RMW's suggestion of a third space for religious women, and it seemed as if he looked down on them, as lesser breeds without the law.
I am now envisaging a testing process at the entrance, and women having to prove they have a religious right to go to the loo excluding men, and if they can't prove it they will be marshalled into the other space for delectation of men.
How dare he assume that only adherence to some ancient belief can justify women wanting privacy.

I'll be self-identifying as religious. That seems to work 🤔

This may have been linked on the deleted thread but this is a fascinating conversation with Peter Daly - an authentic barrister at the top of his game who understands all the issues and who represented the lesbian interveners at the Supreme Court. It's a genuinely wide ranging & interesting listen. It's an antidote to the self interested whining being heard elsewhere :

https://gcls.substack.com/p/the-island-where-feminists-can-sue

Thank you to the original person who linked this.

You need to listen to the long-form interview with Peter Daly on the US podcast by Gender Critical Law Society: "The Island where Feminists Can Sue Their Bosses for Discrimination."

https://gcls.substack.com/p/the-island-where-feminists-can-sue

Mr Daly was the solicitor who led the For Women Scotland Supreme Court appeal. The question of "no trans voices" was raised, and he gives a pretty thorough demolition of that complaint. And he - of all people - should KNOW.

And actually, the Scottish government was representing for the (minority) trans population. Not the 51% of the population ie women.

oops @MrsOvertonsWindow great minds think alike 😎

Man appears on Womans Hour.
Pontificates on Law pertaining to Women.
Misrepresents Law.
Immediately rushes to check what the Evil Ones said on FWR.
As that seems to be important to him.

His version of the Law is wrong. Huff and puff away, it won't make it right.

Can someone repost Naomi Cunningham's review of that inaccurate law book please? I'd like to frame it.

They weren't 'denied a fair hearing', for the simple reason that they weren't on trial.

There is no guaranteed human right to stick your oar in to whatever case you fancy.

Quite.

@NoBinturongsHereMate I agree and am sure the ECtHR will too but that is what the TRAs have said they intend to do! See their true and righteous friend known sometimes as the fox botherer!

Another leading light in hopeless and losing legal cases!

The 🦊 killer not Rumpole! Or Peter Daly!

I wonder if WH will notice a massive ratings bump on Wednesday?

It's disturbing that women having open and honest conversations is something this man doesn't seem to tolerate well. No way I'd want to share a space with him if this is what he does about a chat forum.

It'll just make them the new objective for invasion. Why bother with the areas containing women that aren't too bothered when they could direct their energies towards getting into the area that they know absolutely nobody wants them in there?