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.

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

TRAs are campaigning for the name 'Terf toilets' which I think is great as it's probably the only sign that would keep them out.

I'll gladly accept The Manky Witch Bitch Saggy Titted Space if there's no bloody men fucking about in it. I'll paint the signs personally.

Edited to add on reflection: obviously though it will be the immediate target for men as that's where the non consenting women are at .

And it's all academic anyway, no one's asking barristers to decree a solution, the SC provided one. Third spaces. Everyone has a sex based and alternative choice.

I see what you did there 😉

It is edifying seeing actual barristers as well as many others, behaving as if a Supreme Court Judgment is a kind of opinion poll or suggestion, on which they get a say.

Baffling. Can we opt out of speed tickets too if we don't like them? How about taxes? I'd definitely like to regard my council tax bill as a starting point for negotiation towards some possible outcome at some point (if I agree with it.)

Peter Daly is a solicitor. He first got involved in Maya Forstater's case and then on from there.

For the SC case, the Lesbian interveners gave written submissions.

The main barristers were Aidan O'Neill for FWS and Ben Cooper, late of this parish, for Sex Matters.

And for those arguing that the trans side weren't represented, they had the Scottish Government (with in effect bottomless taxpayers' money), Amnesty International (that small, little-known organisation) - and the EHRC weren't exactly helpful to FWS.

Enjoy. Excoriating.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/#comment-16980

But McCloud stood down last year. Can they still work as a lawyer?

Apologies - there have been several cases since 2001 where the ECtHR have found against the U.K. although there remains a notable downward trend (particularly since SC was established). Unbelievably the Mclibel decision was 2002!

So, while I respect a right to appeal to the ECtHR, to repeat the great Prof Phoenix ‘good luck with that’

‘But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance. … but the rest of the book suffers from a pervasive tendentiousness, coupled with legal analysis that is either weak or simply absent.’

😂🙄 That’s the problem when you try to wrangle and squash the law into fitting your POV and your desires, instead of simply accepting the law as it is.

Apologies again 2005 not 2002!

I’ll get my coat!

That perfection. 👌🏼

And lives in Ireland anyway, I think.

I took it that McCloud will be the party who is claiming their human rights have been infringed by the UK. I'm not quite sure the grounds, whether it's to do with the application to intervene bring denied or something else.

Many of the supposedly "legal" arguments about why TWAW and can't be stopped from doing whatever they fancy remind me of this from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

So it's actually only Scotgov who can apply then as Mr Mcloud and Mrs whittle were not the ones Ben f taken to the Supreme Court?

*being taken

They have to have been a party to the action to appeal, I think - the fair hearing relates to the actual case, not an application to intervene.

I can guess ....

If this is the case, how can RWM and that retired judge Victoria something be going down this route?

Are they taking back-handers from the fox-killer?

Do they think they’re scaring us?

Is that the barrister who is not actually working as a barrister? So are they still a barrister while not working as a barrister and living in Spain

Reviews not great:

Sonia Sodha

Robin Moira White stands by use of the word “evil” in relation to EHRC chair Kishwer Faulkner on Women’s Hour. Very disappointing & unprofessional from a practicing barrister - completely inappropriate language to use about a public servant doing her job.

All my comments were lost in the thread that got deleted.

I probably should have screenshot them, but I was too busy trying to type and listen whilst stirring my cauldron.

That will teach me to try and multi task.

RMW has a good voice for radio. A voice that tells all the listeners what sex he is and what demands he has regarding accessing women’s spaces.

They do our work for us.

Interested in the repeated assertion that employers have no duty to 'police' toilets (ie prevent men from wilfully breaking women's legal protections, their privacy and dignity and right to a single sex space.)

I'd like to know what the EHRC think about this, and about women's ability to require that their employers do prevent male colleagues from this act of dominance, disrespect and prejudice, and meet women's need for an accessible space. As it should be very clear by now to the EHRC and everyone else that things like 'good will' and 'respect for others' and 'respect for the law' isn't in the dictionary of this political movement, even apparently the ones working in the court system.

Women take their young sons into the ladies cos they can't go for a piss and wash their hands without assistance more than for safety reasons.

They do this because they often take on looking after young children whilst the men work longer hours. Even if male partners are about, the woman will still take on this role because of either sexism or because the child prefers it because their primary carer is their mother.

This really shows up where there's a bunch of males who don't have caring roles and have no bloody idea of the lives of women, what they do and why they do it.

Safety is part of it, but it comes much more secondary. And that's down to strange adults around children, rather than children being alone.

Adults are not children. Even if they are immature.