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?

The thing is, he's saying very clearly on that page how the money will be used. He's just using a headline and some blurb to encourage people to think the money raised is going on a particular case. But then stating it isn't actually, in the small print.

Some GCs have effectively deployed strategic litigation to try and sure up legal protection for single sex provision. They have carefully selected cases, thinking through the potential risks and benefits of all potential outcomes. I have no doubt that they have turned down cases when a loss, even if unlikely, could undermine the wider mission.

The GLP seem to have let their sense of righteousness cloud their judgement and undermine their cause. Posters on Reddit have been saying that they are reluctantly donating to GLP’s crowdfunding in the absence of others bringing legal challenge. They are bemoaning the lack of other organisation like the GLP, with better counsel, but the penny hasn’t dropped that better counsel would know that the cases would lose.

I find it painful to think about the harm and cost of the TRA strategy to bring in self id and replace the sex category with gender categories and how things would / could have been so much better for so many if they had just accepted that sex matters and they needed to find a different way.

Thanks. I didn’t clock that!

I suspect I am not alone in keeping on forgetting that GLP isn’t a charity. I think their branding is to place themselves as like a charity, fighting the good fight!

I see that the GLP are out-and-out lying on their crowdfunder page 🙄

On one side, the judge has said we are right about the law in a central part of our case: it can be entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets – without having to admit cis men. This means that the minister will have to send back the EHRC’s draft guidance to be rewritten. It’s good news.

Yes Jolyon, if you selectively quote a judgement to miss out the important bit that you don't like, and which completely undermines your lie, you can indeed self-identify a loss as a win!

Apparently he is still regulated by them. So you can still complain to them.

Trans Reddit is definitely going to wise up soon. The analysis of the GLP strategy, wording, pulling the wool, etc is too prevalent.

It's one of the reasons why I hate the term "not for profit" being applied to non charities.

This is the thing that seems fraudulent.

(ETA: to me)

Putting something in the small print is not sufficient if advertising and marketing gives a misleading impression.

And again, From what I understand GLP funds are being used to fund a case in a way that personally benefits JM.

The Advertising Standards Authority is one place to complain:

https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/03.html

I thought the child scenario the government lawyer used was so outrageous the only reason was to use it as a test to tick off.

Michael Foran said on his Q&A yesterday said that many of the arguments seemed to be lifted directly from Bluesky

Maugham may no longer be regulated by the BSB but the barristers who worked on this case will be and surely, unless they come out and say publicly 'no, that's not what the judgment says' they could be in trouble?

Thank you. Is there a link to that recording at all?

I did see Jolyon talking about accessible toilets yesterday (he calls them disabled which isn’t correct but the common, older term).

I want Jolyon to spend a day in a wheelchair and learn how to transfer from chair to toilet seat to understand accessible toilets. Maybe Jolyon will understand why they are not in the basement. He obviously hasn’t the foggiest about planning or Health and Safety. He will see he doesn’t get to choose which cubicle has the toilet paper in, or is cleanest or doesn’t have a shit in the bowl. You usually have one choice. The people with the protected characteristic of disability don’t get to choose a toilet for their sex, they have to use mixed sex. Which isn’t great but at least fulfils the sanitation need.

Other people with disabilities can use the ambulant toilets in single sex toilet blocks, as regulated in Part M. They also fulfil a need and free up the private, mixed sex, accessible toilet.

There’s no shame in using accessible toilets. I think we should be proud the country has them. But they should be treated with the most respect and supervision. Maybe able bodied people using them can help maintain them for less able bodied? I always check the pull cord isn’t wrapped up for instance when I go past.

The disgust Jolyon showed talking about accessible toilets was shameful.

What an enormous wanker he is.

Thank you. Is there a link to that recording at all?

I think you have to sign up to the substack (which at this point is good value because even if you only sign up for a month you get all the recordings)

ETA: although he covers the same points that he made in his free post the other day.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-187949283

The scam is starting to fall apart.

Yet Agent Joylon has done good work he has spent 100,000s gifting us easy wins to clarify laws which might have taken GCs years to achieve.

By being so incompetent and losing constantly the genderist trend in the legal profession is in steep decline.

Suppose they find better lawyers, things would be tougher. They still be worse than ours, but they might have slowed things down, wasted money etc.

@Keeptoiletssafe do you have a fact sheet ? A relative is high up in a housing association and is going to go on a building regs course I'd like to send it to him, I've already told him the issue of floor to ceiling doors being unsafe as per your previous posts but a list of FAQs might be handy

Maugham apparently is still regulated by them. I can’t see the other barristers being liable for others lies though unless they are involved in the lying.

Or may be better lawyers tell them they wouldn’t win.

PTD has suggested, very sensibly, that GLP focus on being an advocacy organisation and outsource the litigation to independent solicitors and counsel.

The difficulty with that is that the first thing I would do as counsel in that situation is provide an advice on prospects. Do the GLP want a piece of paper floating around the office that states that prospects are less than 50%? That would involve some explaining to their donors.

Also the good / bad lawyers thing - I am loathed to criticise, because ultimately our job is to polish whatever turd we are given. BCKC / NC etc are very good, but they are also...right. Which helps a lot, and is not always a given as a barrister.

Less than 50% is fine. In any case at least one side has a case at 50% or less.

How does an experienced barrister describe prospects that are remote, moonshot unlikely, or simply fanciful?

Those are the bits of paper they need to see.

Somebody really needs to do a Panorama-style investigation into the GLP.