GLP are going after Sarah Philmore and are going to lose

[fromorbit]

Get the popcorn folks. GLP is getting ready to lose again.

They are going after barrister Sarah Phillimore for referring to a man as a man. They think they are going to lawfare her into silence.

Her blog:

Here we are now: Entertain us
I have had now 7 years and counting of the various tactics used to 'silence' those who won't comply with prevailing orthodoxy. How are those tactics holding up?
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/here-we-are-now-entertain-us?

The only thing is other TAs have already tried this on Phillimore multiple times. They went to the Bar Council their claims were dismissed. They all failed. More to the point this ‘Kate’ is the same guy complaining again who already failed. Sarah Phillimore knows the law and likes explaining it to TAs and making them lose. So she doesn't even resent the attempt.

As Sarah has stated "They pick on someone who not only enjoys this but has now a vast repository of knowledge about the law in this area."

Sarah Phillimore

Because I don’t tweet as a public body, an employer or provider of goods or services. I am not subject to the Equality Act. I tweet as a private individual and I will say again. You can’t change sex. A man cannot be a woman. I cannot be compelled to call a man a woman.

A trans identifying man such as ‘Kate’ who frequently takes to the public stage to urge violence against women and declare his intent to enter women’s spaces, is a dangerous man and one who will attract public comment.

Follow the fun on X
https://x.com/SVPhillimore

Bloody hell, not him. They really are ridiculous.

Does Sophie Molly get paid for his "journalism"? As far as I know, he is on disability benefits so he can devote himself to harassing women full time.

And how can he be a journalist when he can barely string two coherent sentences together?

I wonder how easy it is for anyone involved with the GLP to say "sorry I don't think you have a case" in a situation like this?

Same here!

I <almost> reposted a post about the EHRC taking action against public bodies not following the SC judgment earlier. But changed my mind!

I don't think it could possibly be Molly....

This is Molly's track record.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5169517-5169517-sparkles-vs-councilor-laurie-burton?page=1

The attempt to intimidate Councillor Burton who commented on public photos of Molly on social media half naked wearing nipple clamps (that Molly had posted himself so clearly absolutely fine with self image if you go posting photos of yourself like this for all to see, ESPECIALLY if you regard yourself as female)

Then there was the cease and desist letter to Fred Sergeant mentioned on the abuse thread.

Somehow after that Molly managed to continue to leave the house in April this year, to protest against JKR, after this...

...using a loud hailer in front of a large crowd dressed in 'Hogwarts uniform' calling to take a shit on JKR and for her to be arrested, which was widely shared on social media.

https://x.com/Sorelle_Arduino/status/1914225795389677850?t=DGgl3vRihwWWOKh_K2nc3Q&s=19

And then this month Molly has been out and about without problems shopping at M&S.

Remember this is what Sarah Phillimore says the claim is:
XX describes an “onslaught” of abuse she has received online, which she says has been led by you. She says that the abuse wears people down, preventing others from getting involved in the discussion about trans rights. Transphobic hate “shattered her confidence, particularly around her appearance, and left her too scared to leave the house for weeks” and led XX to attempt to take her own life.

From March 2024 to August 2025, you wrote more than 50 posts across multiple social media platforms referring to XX, “usually in derogatory terms.”

You repeatedly misgendered, deadnamed and shared photos of XX and used graphic language about her genitals.

And it couldn't be Molly because for someone who hasnt been able to leave the house for weeks and doesn't like others talking about his gentials, having above mentioned photos freely available on social media without privacy settings and then shopping for bras on social media and then protesting with a loud hailer during the same time period isn't really going to hold up well in court (or with the DWP) is it? It doesn't really seem consistent with the claim does it?

The GLP would be nuts to go with a claim that has such high stakes for naming transwomen men with Molly who has gone out of his way to seek public attention.

So I have to dispute the suggestion that it's Molly bringing the claim. It simply doesn't make sense unless Molly is into public humiliation.

Does it?
🤔

It's a win-win for the GLP (in their own minds, at least). If they lose the case they have more propaganda they can spin because even the BSB is biased against them so how can they get justice ever, anywhere?

@RedToothBrush It's supposedly someone that has already reported Sarah to the BSB previously, and had both the complaint and the review rejected.

Plus there's an allusion to 'big shoes to fill' - we all know who has giant shoes.

It simply doesn't make sense unless Molly is into public humiliation.

You saw THAT photo, right?

If it is Weddell, then the GLP are more stupid / desperate / clueless than one could imagine - unless, as @MyAmpleSheep suggests, it's to try and claim that the BSB are biased, and of course it keeps the grift going.

I don’t think that’s the only reason they are going after her. Calling a transwoman a man may upset some transwomen and may be rude but that’s not the reason she is being challenged or should she.

However lets be honest here - her continued comments and bullying ( yet it is) and harassment of certain trans individuals is the reason.

Its one thing to have a different opinion but another to actively target a certain group and individuals which she has.

For a person in her professional position it is unacceptable. I’m sorry to say she deserves everything that comes with being hateful and intolerant.

That spin is a very dangerous spin to take if one is regulated by any of the legal professions.

One could even find oneself being asked to explain why one choose to or allowed ones organisation to bringing the profession into disrepute by making claims which would undermine Jo Public's perception of the legal profession and the BSBs ability to correctly apply disciplinary action to regulate the professional members.

Can you quote or link to support your claims?

Yes, every day's a school day on MN!

But it couldn't possibly be Molly if this is a serious claim...

... And the GLP think it's a serious claim.

Molly thinks that 14 year old girls are responsible for their own actions remember. And that they shouldn't be infantilised. So Molly will be applying this to grown adults including himself too.

Molly doesn't think that women should be given the options to consent to sharing facilities with males and Molly thinks that transwomen who fail to disclose their sex before performing sexual acts are hard done by. So trying to have a claim that in any way refers to consent would be interesting given Molly's own beliefs.

Also it was JKR who retweeted the 14 year old girl tweet so if Molly was really upset, surely Molly would be issuing legal papers to her first given that JKR has much greater reach and influence.

There's no way it can be Molly. Nope. Definitely not.

One of the key arguments about the whole issue is the safety, privacy and dignity of women from males, particularly males who may have a sexual motivation to be around women without their consent.

We can't ignore the elephant in the room in a public debate.

If you market yourself as a normal, woman with normal non sexualised behaviour then publicly contradict that concept ESPECIALLY when you also market yourself as in the public eye as a journalist who may seek to influence you automatically become accountable for your own actions in UK law.

The premise of the three pillars of democracy where free speech and the media interact with public accountability isn't going to suddenly change because some trans activists decide it should.

That's just how it works. The threshold of privacy changes in terms of what you should expect.

If a politician said, "I believe in wholesome traditional family values" and posed with his wife and kids, he can expect to be commented on repeatedly my multiple individuals if he's caught shagging someone he shouldn't, particularly if it's in a public or non vanilla way.

Because it's about the difference between what someone says and what they demonstrate.

Seem to have managed to say it to Victoria M 😁

Off topic, but I'm finding it amusing that the "Good Law Project" doesn't actually seem to be good (in any sense).

It's almost as if calling yourself something doesn't actually mean that you are that thing.

I wonder if Maugham hoping that JKR becomes involved in this because of the disgusting things Ms XX has said & written about her? His last post on X is him literally begging JKR to sue him, imagine the £££ he could grift crowdfund off the back of that.

He's totally transparent, isn't he. Just wants to keep the money coming in.

The attempt to intimidate Councillor Burton who commented on public photos of Molly on social media half naked wearing nipple clamps (that Molly had posted himself so clearly absolutely fine with self image if you go posting photos of yourself like this for all to see, ESPECIALLY if you regard yourself as female).

Was that the photo of Sophie with plastic clothes pegs identifying as nipple clamps?

If so, I recall saying at the time that someone identifying as Green should surely use vegan, biodegradable bamboo clothes pegs from reputable suppliers such as Wild + Stone.

Chersfrozenface
🤳
🙈
.
.
🤳 👀
.
.
👁👁
.
.
.
😬
.
.
🫢
🤣🤣🤣

We are going to need more popcorn and I think it is time to crack open a bottle. We are going to need a few before this is over.

Sarah Phillimore
https://x.com/SVPhillimore/status/1961101198683189584

The Good Law Project have finally coughed up its complaint and initial reading is interesting. I am not sure by what metric I am ‘rich and powerful’.

Nor do I know a single woman who would refer to herself as a ‘regular girl’.

This threat of suicide is disgraceful. In no other context would it be permitted.

The Good Law Project have written an 82 paragraph letter to the BSB, the authors of which is not revealed. They seem curiously invested in this. Apparently to refer to Mr XX’s inverted penis as a ‘wound’ is sufficiently morally culpable to mean I have no article 10 protection.

I repeat: inverting your penis to line a surgically created cavity is not a ‘vagina’. It is a wound that will require persistent dilation so it does not close up. This is a fact. It is not harassment nor morally culpable to acknowledge this fact.

I will now forward this complaint to Free SpeechUnion and await the BSB decision. Anything other than a dismissal will be challenged by me.

I will now start collating the many, many public examples of this man referring to women in vile and threatening terms and inciting violence against them.

Is this the stupidest stunt GLP have ever pulled? Sarah has been looking at their accounts too:

Sarah Phillimore
x.com/SVPhillimore/status/1961097333631766930
The Good Law Project has some interesting accounts. They clearly recoup very little in legal costs awarded! And with wages at £594k it’s difficult to understand the claim that only 10% of donations is clawed back for admin.

But hey! I am no accountant. But if I was spending £692k on legal advice and litigation costs I would like to see a little more than £0 awarded as legal costs.

But looks like a nice little earner for some.

This is what Sarah says.
.
Sarah Phillimore

Thanks Dennis. But again, we see the comical lack of strategy laid bare. ‘Kate’ has already complained about me. Had that complaint rejected and the review of that complaint rejected. Making the same complaint again even with the backing of the Good Law Project will be rejected again. It’s little wonder I ‘show no fear’. Because I have yet to face a complaint of any substance. Each time they are rejected, my position is fortified and hopefully the fear of those watching is also reduced. This stupidity has to end. It’s a massive and unnecessary distraction from myriad other issues of much greater importance. But while the rule of law, woman’s rights and children’s safety are continually attacked I feel I have no choice but to keep going. I hope the time is very soon upon us when I don’t have to give trans identifying men any more thought or energy.

Some on this thread think they have identified Kate as a person previously known as Sparkles. However it clearly cannot be Sparkles because as we all know that would be funniest thing ever and the world is not designed like a slapstick comedy. A very serious and clever man like Maugham would not do something so daft I think we all can agree :)

There you go. Confirmed (SP says) it is Euan "Sophie Mollie" Weddell.

As far as a understand the main problem with the claim is that SP was tweeting in a private capacity and the complaint has already been rejected, but the claimant seems to be blaming SP for other people's negative reactions towards them - if the claimant is who we think it is, isn't that a bit of a stretch, given what they themselves have shared on line?

Also

"The police would come round and say that nothing was wrong, I felt like I was being gaslit".

Is the argument that SP controls the police?

Where does the GLP think they can go with this? I understand that they need to spend their money on something, but isn't this rather embarrassing for them as members of the legal profession?

So he's complained to the BSB, didn't get anywhere, twice - and the GLP think there is still a case to answer?

And have they looked at this guy's social media at all?