Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action

[OhBuggerandArse]

Sorry if this has already been shared - here are the links to their letter and statement. Looking forward to the Mumsnet analysis :-)

https://goodlawproject.org/were-bringing-a-legal-challenge-to-the-ehrcs-interim-update

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Letter-to-the-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Commission-16-May-2025_Redacted.pdf

Boldly advancing to the rear again.

But, but, but .... that nice Mr Farage and Kemi Badenoch keep telling us that the UK is forced to follow foreign law. (I think. I have to admit I don't pay as much attention as I should.)

@SerendipityJane well we did when we were members of the EU.

The ERCHR, is not an EU Court it is a separate Court that has jurisdiction in Euroupe over the treaty of human rights conventions.

Although they have no power to enforce any rulings.

Parliament is supreme. There really is no higher power.

If Parliament chooses to be bound by a treaty it previously signed. then it it isn't. Of course if abrogating that treaty incurs consequences from other signatories then - as a sovereign power - the UK would be required to accept them.

I am sick and tired of people who clearly hate Britain doing our parliament down, and pretending it's some sort of second rate debating society that has to ask the headmasters permission to leave the room. Parliament is and has always been (since 1688) sovereign and supreme. And no tatty piece of paper it signs with anyone else can ever change that.

The UK has always been free to leave the ECHR. The UN. The Tufty club. The problem has been finding enough grown ups who would willingly do that and accept the consequences. Which clearly was the theme as the new millennium dawned. "How to have your cake and eat it".

So here, Maugham is setting out a scenario of a "predatory cis man" pretending to be a * checks *... "Post op trans man" (unlike, say, a pre op trans woman) to explain why the Supreme Court ruling is wrong and doesn't protect women

https://x.com/faintlyfalling/status/1913504272152437245/photo/1

Um..?

If a man pretends to be a trans man (ie a woman who is trans) in a female space he can be challenged in the same way a man pretending to be a woman (a trans identifying man) can.

Still no men allowed, and what a dumb argument.

The transman, post op., would have scars where her breasts were sliced off. Might be missing one or both nipples. Will have a massive scar on her arm, leg, buttock or stomach where the skin was removed to roll up into something that vaguely resembled a penis. This 'penis' would not be erect unless the tm wanted it to be. She'd have to manually inflate it.

I'm astonished. He's either flat out lying for an easily disprovable gotcha. I hope it's this. Or he's genuinely ignorant. He has a daughter who claims to be a boy. This could be her future. He should know this.

Edit- confused by what you meant.

The EA permits a transman to be excluded from female single sex facilities if their appearance could cause alarm so the service provider in Maughams example could exclude that person without needing to determine if they were a man or a transman

So here, Maugham is setting out a scenario of a "predatory cis man" pretending to be a checks ... "Post op trans man" (unlike, say, a pre op trans woman) to explain why the Supreme Court ruling is wrong and doesn't protect women

He should learn some law. Even if the Supreme Court is "wrong", then you need an act of parliament to address the issue. They are barking up the wrong tree.

I am vaguely reminded of the moron on my SAC who insisted the law was wrong and that despite his accepting his guilt, he wasn't really as clearly the law needed changing. Like most men with enormous bollocks and tiny brains he collapsed when confronted by a grown up.

Of course those upset by the ruling aren't going to go anywhere near parliament and risk even more coverage in the press.

Is there any barrel left to scrape anymore? I have a feeling that JM might have scraped it into oblivion with that one.

Is this a sexual fantasy of his?
It sounds like some kind of dodgy role play.

Exactly this.

Does he really think his daughters would be indistinguishable from a man when they grow up? Or that women would play these abusive and deceitful games on other women without conscience?

TRAs are actually calling on transmen who 'pass' to go into female spaces to intimidate women. Up until the SC ruling, transmen weren't even on the TRAs radar. They never even mentioned them. Now, they are insisting that transmen do their dirty work for them. Just when you think they've scraped the barrel, they overreach once more.

Calling for a program of law breaking intended to intimidate people in pursuit of an ideology ?

Could one of our esteemed legal commentators explain to this little brained bear how this isn't terrorism ?

Nurse, the blinking mad man is out of bed and on his phone again!

twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1925081753279991952

Be fox seasons soon.

Any fans of TRIH ? Who had a slight smile on hearing of fox tossing Augustus the Strong ?

I would love James Dreyfus to do a piss take of that video!

I mean if I were the EHRC or Bridget Phillipson I would simply have referred Jolyon to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram.

Latest tweet from JM top tweet was from him as well, he's replying to himself but it got cut off in my image.

“Thousands”.

Whereas there are millions in this country who would benefit from the extra safety of the correct single sex toilet design.

One of the most bonkers things I've heard from a trans ally* recently is the idea that Alice Sullivan is going to be leading the toilet militia to eject TW from the ladies.

And I'm like, dude, you've met Alice Sullivan. She's five foot nothing. If you think she's going around putting deathly fear into big burly transwomen, you really are orbiting another planet.

*Not Jolyon, but someone in a similar space. This is the kind of discourse that's going around.

It's so weird how all the TRAs seem to know women who get challenged about their sex.

Was this always a problem or just something that started the day the SC said something they didn't want to hear?

And if it was always a problem, why are they only mentioning it now?

Ill have Things That Didn’t Happen for £100 please