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?

"obviously I can't advocate for that"
Ooh he's so edgy

<laugh react>!

Yeah, that'd be new! 😆

What a dick.

Jolyon interacting with his edgelord followers is almost as funny as Charlie Downes rushing to tweet "hands off the ayatollah" on the "Rupert Lowe" X account before Rupert can locate his phone and tweet "thanks President Trump for standing by Israel".

But I suspect Jolyon will be delighting us for many years to come.

Well and more relevant is that he's no longer a regulated barrister and is therefore legally unable to advocate in court.

He's not quite unregulated. Any barrister can be subject to discipline by the BSB, regardless of the state of their practising certificate, IIRC, even a non-practising barrister can be permanently disbarred, which paves the way for his KC to go up in smoke.
Nothing wrong with a spot of optimism.

Naomi Cunningham posted about this on linkedin.

https://goodlawproject.org/product/vulgadrawings-babes-against-bigots-t-shirt-black-text/

Her post is brilliant (sorry, I dont know how to share it) But, it finishes with "no thank you: I am with the witches".

Me too.

What the actual? Then again, why am I surprised. Of course IWD is about a man in a kimono with the baseball bat.

It is such a sexist masoginistic message. Noticibly there is no equivalant t-shirt for men.

I know! 'Babes'! Ffs! I think these t-shirts were designed for men though. The stunning and brave ones, and the male tras who see women as eye candy, otherwise we're essentially invisible.

This is her post:

Is this a parody?

Let's unpack "Babes against bigots" shall we? "Babes" we can take to bear its usual meaning of attractive young women; a patronising, (literally) infantilising faux-compliment.

So who are these "bigots" the Good Law Project is encouraging pretty, compliant young women to oppose? The clue is in the next item: "Trans inclusive feminist." I think we can safely conclude that the "bigots" in question are the kind of women who know that sex is real, that men can't be women; the kind who think that things for women should be for actual women, not women plus men who say they are women.

"Bigot" here means TERF, doesn't it? Contrasted with "babe" it's clear what else it means: hag, nag, scold, witch, harridan. The bullying misogyny of the message could not be clearer: kind, accommodating, pretty young women are willing to give up their rights in order not to hurt the feelings of the special men. Any woman who opposes those demands is not a "babe": she's opinionated and unkind, and may be presumed old, ugly and bitter.

The manipulative misogyny of this message could not be clearer. No thank you: I'm with the witches.

Thank you Naomi!

Looking at those T shirts - they are, of course, the "unisex" design - ie cut to fit a man and not an actual woman with boobs.

https://knowingius.org/p/good-law-project-appeals-failed-review?publication_id=2711221&post_id=190223214&isFreemail=true&r=4p2qy&triedRedirect=true

Thank you for the share token!

Agree. There's a guy on X who keeps a log of GLPs failures. Can't find him now, but the handle is something like PolicyWonk.

It's wonkypolicywonk and his blog is called Labour Pains.

The latest blog about GLP's record is entitled Chertsengrafs and is here.
https://labourpainsblog.com/2026/02/18/chartsengrafs/

JM having a rant about something Justin Webb said on R4 this morning even though Justin Webb is not on R4 this morning.
He's wound himself up (about the NHS drugs ban and poor ticket sales for his gig on Wednesday) so much that his ears are malfunctioning.

Glad to see those back up after the Unfortunate Incident.

"I endorse this advice.'
Nothing to see here, just two blokes advising parents on how to avoid safeguarding and obtain loans by deception to purchase banned drugs for children.

I miss Naomi😢
Remember the good old days when we gathered round our devices every morning, bright-eyed with excitement, relishing every brilliant insight, every bon mot and every devastating put down.
We thought it would never end.. <sigh>
[nauticant certainly thought it would never end😀]

So it's great to have a little reprise of the Naomi we know and love.

Added for clarity: I know the cases were very serious and difficult for the women involved, I'm being facetious

Following this advice will fully decouple parents from the protection of the state - any permanent harm to the child will be the down to them and those that have advised them.

I wonder if JM will open his wallet to the future claims of children damaged by his advice?

Not holding my breath though, I am guessing this is a large, steaming dollop of 'Stonewall guidance'