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

Bluesky is a graveyard, unless your idea of entertainment is clapped out actors like Mark Hamill and Jamie Lee Curtis and Bette Midler spending 18 hours a day moaning about Trump.

X does have that element of madness that keeps it fun, though the UK government seems very keen on getting Ofcom to ban it. Which I'm sure is entirely about the Grok porn issue and nothing to do with a government with an 11% approval rating being desperate to manage the narrative.

It's a case of, can't they all lose? Musk is an appalling POS. But I made the decision I'd give Twitter a wide berth early doors, long before his involvement, and I don't regret it for a moment.

Whoa, Sionnach! Bette Midler and Jamie Lee Curtis 'clapped out actors?
Bette Midler has had a very long, very successful career, and if she has retired, she has earned it.
Jamie Lee Curtis is still gigging, so her very successful career is still going on and I'm sure she's too busy working to spend 18 hours on Bluesky.
They are both women aged over 60 - does that make them 'clapped out'?😬

You can say what you like about Mark Hamill, I know nothing about him

Jamie Lee Curtis is still gigging, so her very successful career is still going on and I'm sure she's too busy working to spend 18 hours on Bluesky.

I read that as giggling. I lost all respect for her once she started being very vocal about the T. Similar to how I feel about David Tennant really, both can get in the bin.

I've never been on Twitter (or Insta, bluesky etc) as I "waste" enough time on this place 😩

I tend to avoid celebs on social media. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was, if you like Stevie Nicks as a musician, do not follow her on Insta because she is so up herself she'll put you off listening to her music.

I sometimes look at Mark Ruffalo, because I'm sure he means well, but he is hilariously gormless at times 😉

Sarah's latest update. Remember JM's defence relies on Sparkles not being a delusional liar. If this goes to court it will be a major comedy moment.

Gardening still needed:

My response to Maugham's response
Maugham replied to the LBA on 23 December effectively saying that we didn't provide him with enough detail to respond. We have now sent him some further details as set out below.

This letter responds to your letter of 23 December 2025 in which you ask for the alleged factual inaccuracies within any statement complained of, giving sufficient explanation to enable the defendant to appreciate why the statement is inaccurate.
Ordinary meanings / factual inaccuracies and sufficient explanation

Led a campaign”: This is a statement of fact. The natural and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that our client carried out conduct on a sustained basis intending thereby to lead others in similar conduct. Third parties are of course entitled to react in any way they choose to our client’s X posts and our client has no way of “leading” any such activity. Your client’s statement is false. Our client denies that her posts in any way had the intention to lead any third parties to carry out any action or as a matter of fact encouraged anyone else to carry out a ‘campaign of harassment’ and will require you prove that a ‘campaign of harassment’ occurred that was led by our client and/or that she had that intention.
“Of harassment”. This is a statement of fact. We appreciate that in defamation cases, generally, words will mean what they convey to the minds of the “ordinary, reasonable, fair-minded reader” Gatley on Libel and Slander (2018) at 3-017 and (Clarke v Guardian News & Media (2025) EWHC 2193 (KB) at [11]-[21]. However, it is possible for words to convey a meaning that the claimant has committed a particular legally defined wrong or offence Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Services (2017 EWCA Civ 1529, (2018) 4 WLR 13 . In deciding the meaning of your client’s words, our client will contend that given the statement would be read in conjunction with a person “sought to take her own life” and given those statements were made by King’s Counsel and leader and founder of an activist campaigning legal organization speaking with the gravitas and knowledge that title implies, the meaning “of harassment” will be found to be that our client engaged in unlawful conduct. The statement that our client committed unlawful conduct is false. Our client denies any such unlawful conduct. Our client will require you to prove such unlawful conduct.
“Trans woman ……Sought to take her own life / tried to kill herself”: This is a statement of fact. The natural and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that due to our client’s unlawful conduct Mr Weddell attempted suicide. Our client denies this happened and will require you to prove this factual statement that he attempted to take his own life. Our client will also require you to prove a causal connection between the alleged suicide and our client’s publications. We require sufficient evidence of the date and time of Mr Weddell’s alleged suicide and all medical records (if any) related to this alleged event.
“Phillimore could be punished for that conduct”: This is a statement of fact. The natural and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that our client had committed either a regulatory or criminal offence (for the unlawful conduct towards Mr Weddell) for which either she would be subject to criminal conviction and / or could be punished by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). This is factually untrue. Our client will rely on the anticipated “No Further Action” from the BSB, and the lack of any civil or criminal sanction.
“which jeopardized life”. This is a statement of fact. The natural and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that there was a direct causal connection between our client’s posts and life being put in jeopardy. Our client will require yours to prove the direct causal connection. Our client’s position is that nothing she did put anyone’s life in ‘jeopardy’ and it is untrue to assert Mr Weddell attempted suicide because of anything our client published.
The harassment, so serious that it might have contributed to somebody’s death”: Apart from the word “serious” (which is opinion) this is a statement of fact. The natural and ordinary meaning of this phrase is that “it contributed to somebody’s death” and that our client’s alleged conduct was sufficiently serious and causally connected with that death that it “might” have contributed to that alleged death. However, our client denies that there is any reasonable or foreseeable risk that anyone would die as a result of her online publications and it is clear no one has in fact died. We anticipate that you will admit that these are untrue statements of fact.
JK Rowling intervened and offered to pay our client’s legal costs: This is a statement of fact. The natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase is that J K Rowling directly offered to pay our client’s legal costs to pay for any regulatory proceedings. The statement is false as J K Rowling did not offer to pay our client’s legal costs. Our client’s position is that you will not be able to prove this statement as true.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Ouch 😆

Ouch indeed. How did he become a KC?

Tax matters. He doesn't mention that so much now that he is a martyr for the cause 😄

I know he was a tax specialist, but to be a successful tax barrister surely you need to present a watertight case backed up by evidence, just as you do in all other areas of the law. I'm not getting the impression from the GLP that they're doing very well in that area.

Being financially intelligent is clearly very different from being emotionally intelligent!

I'll never understand why he hitched his wagon to Sparkles. Absolute folly.

It is basically the Helen Joyce Trans parent trap. He can't question any of it.

Sad, but to our advantage here. JM has derailed a lot of dangerous trans activism into his ego driven cul de sac. All the cases he has got involved in have failed.

Huge sums squandered. Plus he has damaged his own cause constantly through poor choices in other ways.

Sparkles has gone on video saying he is ok being Dead named. JM's situation looking worse by the day.

Sarah Phillimore
https://nitter.net/SVPhillimore/status/2010959149815718252#m

1h
Yes it is very interesting. Hopefully I will get to explore further with Mr Weddell precisely when he became so sensibly sanguine about being ‘deadnamed’ as in August 2025 he was claiming it drove him to attempt suicide.

No doubt the medical evidence I have asked Jolyon Maugham to share will shed some light on this.

Yes it may be the parent trap, but I cant forget he sat through hours and hours of that film about eunuch kink.

And slid into Sean Faye‘s something or other.

Wow! 👏

To use an unsuitable phrase, it's men against boys, isn't it? 😀

fromorbit · 11/01/2026 00:36

Sarah's latest update. Remember JM's defence relies on Sparkles not being a delusional liar. If this goes to court it will be a major comedy moment.

That's the legalistic equivalent of Jolly Old loading his peashooter to take on a battleship.

Because we were wondering what GLP was spending their money on, at least some appears to be sponsoring FB posts on 'how to talk to people about trans rights'.
I just had this pop up on my feed. Only shows the top comment but none are supportive.

Basically, anyone who is still banging on about 'trans rights' is surely either a fool or a knave, no?

I'd suggest proselytising is their aim!

Or trying desperately to be in with what they assume to be the in crowd.
Or fearing being cancelled.
So yeah I guess you're right - fools/knaves😒

has anyone downloaded the “free guide for talking about trans rights”?

It only occurred to me after I screenshot the image! I'm curious now though

Is it an incel manual?