Good Law Practice launch a EHCR/Supreme Court challenge over toilets

[fromorbit]

After raising over 418K it turns out the GLP's amazing legal case is all about toilets. Details:

https://archive.is/TWRTl

No doubt it will fail like most of their previous legal cases.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5336208-good-law-project-suing-the-ehrc-and-bridget-phillipson-letter-before-action?page=1

Jolyon is trying to get the Charity Commission to tell a think tank what it's allowed to think about?

It's not as if his own organisation has "an unhealthy interest in trans issues".

Policy exchange have 8 recent publications on their website of which one is about cancel culture, which I guess includes comment on trans. Some of the others may do so as I dont see how you'd talk about children mental health or universities without mentioning it, but they all go beyond the trans obsession. This sound like "everything is about meeeeee" and I hope the investigation is short and the Good Laugh Project are told that the role of think tanks is to think about problems.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1989003063181361222

'We put in evidence about why single sex services are provided and why they are provided for in law: including women's dignity, privacy and security. The Good Law Project put forward evidence by Sally Hines in response!'

<pours large glass of wine>

Two fish in a tank, one says to the other: Do you know how to drive this thing?

I’m excited for the summaries!

A nation waits with bated breath!

When will we hear the result? Next month? If GLP lose 🤞🏻, is this likely to give Bridget Phillipson the impetus to get on and lay the code of practice before parliament?

I think it's about what a charity is allowed to spend money on. If a charity pays people money do do thinking, then I suppose the subject of that thinking is open to examination by the CC.

I just read through today's submissions. The judge seems on the ball and happy to point out where the claimants' case is incoherent. A lovely juicy bit where he pointed out that the case cited actually disproved the point he was making and quite a few "well that doesnt help your argument" type points. Looking forward to tomorrow. Its so much easier to read arguments that actually make logical sense!

I can see that argument being made, but it seems a bit of a sneaky way to direct PE away from commentary on things that he would rather they didn't comment on.

Where did you find today's submissions?

I don't know if anybody has posted already but Maya has tweeted a link to a full transcript of yesterday's submissions. It looks like it was done by a professional stenographer as it is very detailed.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1988929135104913745?s=20

https://nitter.net/MForstater/status/1988929135104913745#m

'We had a good hearing - and the judge listened carefully to our points. '

https://bsky.app/profile/goodlawproject.bsky.social/post/3m5jnbywzes2b

'The hearing in our judicial review challenge to the EHRC's (now withdrawn) Interim Guidance has finished. Judgment will follow later. No indication given as to when but he's usually pretty efficient and I would be surprised if we didn't get a judgment before Christmas.'

https://bsky.app/profile/goodlawproject.org/post/3m5jmozazvc2z

WTF is the point of a JR for guidance that's been withdrawn?

WTF is the point of a JR for guidance that's been withdrawn?

🤷‍♀️

Nothing yet from TT

Presumably they want to say if it was wrong in the interim, they won’t be able to use it in the final version?

I just don’t understand their point though?
The SC judgment was clear that ‘inclusive’ spaces are no longer SS, but MS.

I don’t see how any guidance can go against the SC judgement?

Watch out EHRC he's wearing fatigues, playing the piano and expecting a lovely Christmas present.
I can't listen to his strangulated Kermit voice so subtitles it is...

I can't remember the exact court case but it was held that it was a breach of something to insist that transexuals had to have had surgery and/or hormones to achieve the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So if it is about degrees of transitioning then the TRAs will complain about genital inspections.

On the point they made that the SC deliberately didn't refer to those "who have undergone" transition, if the SC had intended those who have undergone transition could be included as women, don't you think they would have gone on to say that explicitly? The have undergone transition was probably left out because they forgot, could not be arsed to write it out or they thought it was covered.

The SC probably realised that no-one does actually transition. A man who has had any amount of surgery and/or hormone treatments is still a man. You can not change your chromosomes, you can not escape your biology.