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

So it is.

Office above the Donmar Warehouse suits him perfectly because he's such a frigging drama queen

The GLP provided assistance to Dan Niedle over some recent libel threats. It's an unfortunate association & a perplexing one, DN can afford to use a normal law firm/ Chambers but he went with Maugham's peculiar outfit.

Maugham's Peculiar Outfit is a great name for a band.

On leases, if they're not specifying purpose, worth remembering that it's tax-efficient to lease one's high-end vehicles.

They’re described as ‘non cancellable operating leases’ so I guess that could cover a multitude of things then.

It sounds like a missing Kinks album.

Sarah's latest post is fire. More details on how bad the case against her is:

First I was afraid, I was petrified...
And now I am livid. Gender identity ideology corrupts everything it touches.

I am happily now numbed to fear given the repetitive and ridiculous nature of the complaints against me. But I am somewhat relieved to learn I can still feel; what I feel now is rising anger and contempt.

I set out below my publications which the Good Law Project deemed so serious and inflammatory that I have brought my profession into disrepute. I assume the complaint invites serious consequences such as suspension or disbarment.

My view is that it is grotesque and risible to suggest that any of those publications can reasonably be seen as anything other than legitimate, proportionate and protected political speech. I do not ‘tag’ Mr Weddell. I do not threaten him with violence. I do not use profane or disgusting language. I do not encourage anyone else to do any of that. He chooses to read whatever I post.

Of the 54 impugned publications, six are deemed ‘harassment’ i.e. 11%. No definition is given of what ‘harassment’ means here. I reject any suggestion that these 6 publications can be deemed ‘harassment’ on any definition. For example, to suggest that Euan Weddell resembles Eddie Izzard is not ‘harassment’ unless I stood outside his home screaming it at 4am. The other examples are as bafflingly trivial. If I wasn’t so angry I am sure I would find this darkly amusing. This is after all the same Good Law Project busily dishonestly misrepresenting a High Court judgment to milk its gullible followers for yet more money in yet another doomed appeal.

https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/first-i-was-afraid-i-was-petrified?

The photo of Sparkles with the gun backdrop has not aged well, given the recent mass murders/shootings.

Yes. What's not shown on the image above (unless you click on the link) is the threatening caption that "this one's for glinner and Helen Joyce"

Looks like a direct threat to me and hopefully has been reported to the police.

This is a group of four men, all sexually involved. Why can't these creepy men just entertain each other? Why the need to threaten, abuse, and terrorise women?

Creepy is the right word.

The answer to my question is probably in the question, tbh.

Yep, creeps gotta be creepy towards someone, otherwise they wouldn't be creepy in the first place.

https://x.com/svphillimore/status/2037522867626062198?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

BSB - no case to answer.

Excellent news

That's wonderful news. So pleased for Sarah.

The tide continues to turn, bit by bit.

Brilliant news. Well done Sarah

Just reading this. It feels like some important thinking has been written down.

Reference to SW's gender by use of pronouns, and/or or by saying SW is a man We have considered the posts identified in the report, and the wider context in which they were made. There are a number of events referenced above, but in particular:

03 July 2024 SW publishes the BSB's decision on her report,
10 January 2025 SW posts her definition of a 'TERF',
17 April 2025 SW posts that no one will ever stop her using female spaces, 19 April 2025 the Dundee rally where SW shouts comments about 'TERFs', JK Rowling, and use of single sex spaces,
2 May 2025 BSB decision on review, and on the same day SW posts about the right to use female toilets,
31 May 2025 a radio discussion on the Supreme Court Women for Scotland case.

We do not consider SP's posts to cross the threshold for investigation. SP has the right to manifest her gender critical beliefs. In the context of the legal and political landscape, of the tension between SW's trans status and SP's beliefs, of SW's own actions over the relevant period and before, we do not consider SP's references to SW's gender, by use of pronouns or by saying SW is a man, is either seriously offensive or otherwise a potential breach of CD5 by being harassing, bullying, victimising or discriminating. Whilst we note the volume of times that this occurred over this period, this was a particularly turbulent time for trans people and for people holding gender critical beliefs, and both SW and SP frequently use the public arena to express their views.

I mean, the BSB did do its research on this and applied its policies and have explained why. It is interesting to see what they use to support their decision

Deadnaming SW As with the misgendering issue, we have considered the posts identified in the report, and the wider context in which they were made. SW's online profiles say that she is transgender. SW has been a musician for some time, and was previously known as Euan Weddell (EW), posting music videos and being interviewed in that name. A simple search online reveals this media content; any curious person could discover SW's previous identity, and deadnaming by SP does not have a significant impact in the public's knowledge of SW's history. An example is a piece published online by Wings over Scotland on 30 May 2024, which references SW's previous name.

The deadnaming incidents reported all show a context in which there is discussion about SW's rights as a trans woman. The January 2025 thread is a discussion about SW's published report to the BSB and SP's use of speech marks in reference to pronouns, the April 2025 discussion is about SW's expression of her right to use female only spaces. Another reference in April 2025 refers to the anniversary of SW's complaint to the BSB.

These references by SP are made in discussions relevant to her beliefs. Deadnaming may be unpleasant for SW, and there may be circumstances where it is used in a way which would cross the threshold for investigation because, taking account of the context, it would diminish trust and confidence in SP or in the profession. However, we do not consider the threshold to have been crossed here.

The BSB letter is a thing if beauty.

Isn't it just, a pleasure to read.

Congratulations Sarah! 🍾

I agree, Helleofabore that the decision deals with some key issues of what is and isn't transphobic/offensive in very clear, straightforward words.
I'm saving the two extracts you posted for future ref!

I am about to also add it to the Break it Down 2 thread because I think those parts are good discussion points and we might end up using them quite a bit.