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

This thread is so funny.
These people would also be funny if they weren't so misogynistic, vexatious and continually targeting women.

Is KC not protected ????

Seriously???

Anybodys cat can call themselves KC and the BSB are forced to say "naw not our business"?

The US calls it "paper terrorism" (or something like that) where the offender uses regulation and laws to target harrass and force the person into defending themselves for no reason.

It's a feature of coercive control and crops up on various UK guidance for identifying coercive control.

It's one of those titles that when you earn it you can keep it even if you no longer practice as a barrister

Thats effen daft (I can understand where the tradition is tradition)

The BSB should force ex member to make it clear that they are ex-members

[(Edit) or if the ex-member is using the title that they will face BSB action if they break the rules the same way they would if they were still registered ( eg like a medical doc) ]

Anyone recall how Sally Bercow FA and FO that sometimes you can't avoid the court action even if you do say sorry ?

You know that photo (Sophie Molly selfie in the women's loo), captioned "Another day of destroying women's rights," shows very clearly his thinking, and actually most of it follows GC thinking.

• he knows he's not a woman
• he knows women have rights
• he knows those rights don't include him, because there is a clear distinction between him and women
• he knows that his presence in the toilet is unacceptable to women, and for him this is a key reason to be there

The mere existence of something that is women-only is provocative for him, and something to be "destroyed".

Echoes of Arkell v. Pressdram

I'm a retired doctor but my name is still on the medical register & if I were to commit some heinous crime like misgendering & deadnaming Mr Euan Weddell then he can still report me to the GMC. In fact I would welcome it. I am Spartacus. I am Sarah Phillimore.

I think if you look you’ll see a “/s” at the end of the caption to that photo, indicating that sarcasm was intended. So the intended meaning was “no women’s rights have been trashed by my using the women’s toilet”.

Which is of course incorrect.

IANAKC, but since it's a title formally bestowed by the King, there's probably some convoluted special process that allows it to be taken away again, like when people are stripped of their honours. I would think it's outwith the competency of the BSB.

Pretty sure they do face the same rules; however as a non practicing barrister JM can’t have his income affected by BSB action against him. A practice restriction won’t affect him, but he dan still be disbarred, at which point he can no longer title himself as a barrister or KC, as “barrister” is a protected title.

Did Maugham run his tweets past the GLP in-house defamation lawyer first, how would that conversation go?
"Matt I'm thinking of accusing another barrister of driving an unstable exhibitionist to attempt suicide, will that be ok?"
"Sure Jolyon, that'll be fine. Crack on and make sure you do it on two different social media platforms so as many people as possible see it"

It feels as though this quote could be paraphrased as

"defamation lawyer Matthew Gill explained that this kind of speech does not break the law in any way, but it is generally possible to make a complaint about a member of a professional body to their regulator, even though they may ignore it."

I saw the /s but its meaning went right over my head. As it would.

That /s is beginners sarcasm

/s level two is adding a fuckyou to the subtext
Which is what that act is all about.

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of this guidance please @RedToothBrush ? I know of someone who might find it very helpful in their situation. I've had a look but can't track it down.

Sarah Philmore has made her application to the JKR fund to sue for defamation.

https://x.com/SVPhillimore/status/1961721842802028829

I am always utterly transparent in all my dealings. I am willing to compromise any legal action in this way. What matters is that Maugham retracts his false and harmful statement and women are shown he cannot libel us with impunity and our rights to speak are protected.

Her requests are very reasonable. However if Maugham complies they will be utterly humiliated. Lets see what GLP do now.

It seems by being incredibly dumb they may have doomed themselves. Not the first time the TAs have managed this.

I think this is correct.
If SP gets a sucessful defamation judgment against him that would certainly be something the BSB would be interested in.

I still can't quite believe Sophie Molly isn't a parody person / account. He just seems so fake. I keep expecting him to come clean.

What happens if he doesn't back down? Can he engage the legal services of his own ltd company to defend him and fundraise for the costs involved (while keeping 10% of those funds as the GLP always does)?
This seems incestous and ethically questionable

He’s obviously been trying to get JKR to sue him for months. I imagine he thinks he’s a hero and figurehead of trans rights and the fact that the GLP will be minting it in any case is just a convenient byproduct…

JKR seems to have been ignoring the enticement to sue, why give him the attention he so clearly craves?

The thing is, they're spending so little of the money they've raised on litigation and so much on their bloated salary bill, they have to keep in the public eye to keep the donations flowing in. It's pure Ponzi scheme logic. I'm sure Jolyon thinks that if JKR sues him, that will be the biggest crowdfunder of all time.