GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

[Another2Cats]

This is a continuation thread from here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5489699-glp-v-ehrc-judgement-is-coming-tomorrow?

From what I can remember, the HSE did not submit a statement to this case. Is that correct?

Not to my knowledge.

Thank you for the Reddit links; illuminating. PTD's comments about the crowd funding for the school case, especially so.

Also the activists who rushed to inform employers that to follow the guidance would be a really bad idea and legally dodgy, and confused the fuck out of them as much as possible to keep the status quo.

The desperation to avoid permitting women an accessible single sex space is boggling. The endless whine about their own possible exclusion but absolutely fine with the women excluded from spaces they turned mixed sex by using them. The double standards are wild.

All that these women want is a space too. That's it. That's all. Provide a single sex space for those women alongside whatever else you want, and leave it alone. No one gives a fuck beyond that.

So given GLP’s ‘interpretation’ of the ruling, what point do they say needs to be appealed?

The end goal is the unconditional right for men to use women's single sex spaces. To be given absolute entitlement to women's spaces and resources that is 'equal' to actual women.

The impact this has on actual women is obviously entirely irrelevant. That's what's going to end this mission in the ECtHR if they ever get in there.

I know what the are after. I meant with this specific ruling - GLP have lied about the outcome so they can’t be claiming they need to appeal those bits, eg that trans identified men can’t use female toilets because they are claiming the ruling said they can. So what aspects of the judgement are they saying they intend to appeal when they are also telling everyone they have won?

I don't know the points of law, but from the Reddit comments there really does appear to be some plan of general fight and snow on whatever grounds possible, to see what leverage can be gained towards that long term goal of self ID into single sex spaces over time, even with losses involved, I wasn't being dismissive of the question.

As pps have said, there doesn't seem to have been a realisation that the case could end up confirming the law protecting single sex spaces for others in ways that would make their cause worse off. There was a comment to the effect that this has more or less brought in Phillipson's sat-on guidance by the back door.

Their appeal crowd funder has now hit £25,000. [Way slower than previous I think people are starting to see through them now.]

Note the small print:
Funds raised will support our legal cases battling the attacks on trans rights which have followed the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. If there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting to stop hate, and bring hope.

The GLP don't promise an appeal, they promise more trans cases and if that doesn't happen the money will go into their general funds.

They have fundraised before without ever following through on starting cases, or just started cases which were clearly never going to work and which failed at the earliest stages off litigation.

It is about the gesture and raising money to pay themselves.

GLP have been carrying out trans related cases for years they have never won ANY of them.

In fact the 100,000s they have spent on failure have only made the case law supporting biology stronger.

They can’t allow that because it invalidates their ideological belief that TWAW.

The workplace part I think, and the idea that you can ever keep these men out of a women’s space expect in very extreme circumstances. So they’re claiming the judge made concessions he didn’t and that they’ve gained something re the EHRC (which is a complete lie) but it’s not enough and they will bravely continue the fight for “trans rights”.

But yes, on what legal point they believe they can appeal, I’m not sure.

Also presumably the appeal process even if they get knocked back holds up the guidance further.

I don’t understand why KCs and MPs are allowed to misrepresent legal finding and not be run out of town? Why are they allowed to ignore the law? See also FWS and Supreme Court, why is the given by allowed to ignore it and when is the EHRC guidance going to come out, not that it will trump the SC anyway. I’m fed up of this crap

Morning all! Thanks for starting the new thread @Another2Cats .

I'm also interested in this - particularly when they are raising money on the back of their misrepresentation.

JM isn't a member of a professional body and GLP isn't a charity so they aren't bound by those regs, but in my admittedly completely uninformed opinion they seem to be skating quite close to fraud.

(I assume that if he were actually a practicing KC he would have to account for his activities to the Bar Council).

If there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting to stop hate, and bring hope.

Fighting 'hateful' accusations of libel in the 'hope' that no-one associated with the GLP will suffer any financial loss?

I also think that the more they push on the concept of section 8 rights, the more they risk the whole thing falling apart.

I agree, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to any of them before the Darlington case that women have section 8 rights too.

Just tracking the GLP's crowdfunder for their (possible) appeal, mentioned by PPs. It's only on about £25,000 as of today. It's definitely not going at the usual clip:

https://goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/help-us-appeal-the-high-courts-judgment-on-trans-rights/

As has been suggested on trans Reddit, really they ought to have specific crowdfunders for specific court cases/ribunals. But hey, that wouldn't leave Jolyon any wriggle room, would it 🤔

Funds raised will support our legal cases battling the attacks on trans rights which have followed the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland.

JM is very familiar with the laws around restricted and unrestricted funds.

His wording is carefully crafted to ensure that the money coming in is unrestricted.

Well he is/was a tax lawyer! So yes, he's being very careful. He was also careful to set the GLP up as a company, not a charity. For the same reason, I imagine - to escape scrutiny and accountability.

GLP is a limited company, so is there a concept of restricted funds?

Is crowdfunding regulated in anyway beyond the general laws on consumer rights and fraud?

No, restricted and unrestricted is for charities