GLP are going after Sarah Phillimore and are going to lose - Part Two

[fromorbit]

The Story so Far

Part 1

The first thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5400132-glp-are-going-after-sarah-philmore-and-are-going-to-lose?page=1

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."

Part 2

So the Fox Basher decided to tell massive lies about Sarah Phillimore now he faces a defamation action.

GLP's case against Sarah rested on evidence from "Kate" and this turned out to be the infamous man in a dress Sophie Sparkles. A guy who was too obnoxious, chaotic and threatening even for the Scottish Greens to tolerate. Even for someone as incompetent as the Fox Basher this plan seemed particularly bad.

A band of helpful gardeners assembled and planted a lot of seeds and soon Sarah's garden was blooming.

Sarah assembled a huge dossier of evidence about Sparkles showing his instability. She carefully built up her case using her excellent legal skills.

After giving the Fox Basher plenty of time to apologise Sarah took action for defamation in December and her blog outlines the story so far nicely:

Letter before Action
I publish here my letter to Jolyon Maugham. There is no freedom of speech to tell harmful lies about others.

For the background to all of this, please see my response to the complaint of the Good Law Project which they made to the Bar Standards Board on August 26 2025. Shortly after this complaint, Mr Maugham chose to assert to his many followers online that I had ‘led a campaign of harassment’ so wicked that it led a trans identifying man to attempt suicide. I deal with that claim at some length in my response. It is not true.

I asked via email on 30 August 2025 for Maugham to delete, apologise and make a donation of £5K to For Women Scotland. His refusal came a few days later in a series of videos posted to TikTok and Instagram where he was clearly excited about the (false) idea that JK Rowling would be joining me in legal action against him. Being able to tell his followers that he faced attack by the Nasty Billionaire Transphobe would clearly have more cachet and would attract more funds to the Good Law Project than a much less sexy tussle with a junior provincial barrister.

I am sorry to disappoint Mr Maugham. It’s just me. Well me, and the so far 990 very generous people who have helped me raise the money to be able to even contemplate this kind of legal action. My grateful thanks to every one of them. I do not think that anyone has ‘freedom of speech’ to tell harmful lies about another person and certainly not a senior member of a regulated profession, who will rely on his status to give his words power and cause harm.

https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/letter-before-action

Now the Bar Standards Board has decided that Sarah has no case to answer and released a letter explaining how the GLP had failed again. Details here:

Right Here. Right Now.

Another stunning technical victory for the Good Law Project shows that sanity is being restored to the public debate about gender identity, slowly but ever so surely.

On 27 March 2026 I received the welcome and to be honest not entirely expected news that the Bar Standards Board was not going to investigate further the complaint of the Good Law Project against me on behalf of trans identifying man Euan Weddell, aka Sophie Molly/Sparkles.

https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/right-here-right-now

GLP are planning to release a statement which will no doubt spin what has happened as much as possible in its usual style.

Will the Fox Basher's long history of misogynistic hatred for any women who has knowledge about biology and legal incompetence come back to haunt him again?

If he is defeated it will be a warning to all TAs that this type of bigotry and massive lies are not going to be accepted legally in a country where women and men are legally equal.

Whatever happen's Sarah's bravery once again will pay a significant part in restoring a world in which discussing the reality of the existence of male and female human beings is accepted.

Her garden still needs more plants, and harvest so far has been excellent and you can keep watching this thread for more proof of that.

If being pragmatic means giving away women’s language then as least acknowledge it is anything but a ‘fair compromise’

Women have won the right to use correct sex pronouns in court, it isnt a compromise she had to make.

I take your points, anyolddinosaur and Kiminki.
I don't know SP personally, but I get the impression from what I've read of her that she can be pretty kick-ass and uncompromising, so I just guessed that she thought this was a good strategy in this specific case.
That's all, I don't disagree with what you say.

She is uncompromising on many things but has been happy to use female language for men. The fact she is now using no sex-specific pronouns in this case suggests she is shifting her position but still doesn’t understand the huge harms it causes.

When you are risking your house, use what language you like. I had all this nonsense on X. I decide what language I use, no one else. If you don’t like it, don’t support me. But don’t you dare police me.

I'm with you .

Yep - if you’re in the hole you get to decide how to dig it. Good luck!

Sometimes pragmatism wins hands down.

Bon courage @Spero

🎯We each get to chose our own boundaries.

Good luck!

It is not up to you to decide what I think. I know what position you take and it is one that is harmful to women. Sure if we see a six foot bloke in the ladies pragmatism may mean we don’t challenge him but doing something out of fear is not a ‘fair compromise’.

I presume given your post, lots of people agree with me on X. I am guessing you blocked them in there..,

This isn’t the game to play @Kiminki

You might have missed it but not being able to choose our own boundaries is the whole point!

What game is that? Saying no to men?

How much have you donated to her fundraising?

@Kiminki

Are you new here or just name changed?

Because your stance is maybe missing the history of what has gone on and been discussed here.

The follow up to that tweet since it is causing drama:

LittlelouandMissyMoo - AHNebulous Dogwhistle@littlelouandMM
Jun 2
Given the exact nature of your claim, I think this is a very sensible compromise. Jolyon would have a bloody field day if you had chosen to he/him Mr Weddell. I can just see him objecting every 2 mins if you had (I'm having flashbacks to Jane Russell in SP's case here! 😬😵)
Sarah Phillimore
@SVPhillimore
Jun 2
Replying to @littlelouandMM
Hopefully I won't have to refer to him much.

This is not about Sparkles not being a man. It is about Sarah using the BEST tactics in court to get the win.

If she gets the win it not just humiliates the foxbasher and Sparkles it will potentially set important legal precedents for women to call men in dresses men whenever they want.

It will put on record JM and Sparkles incredible misogyny.

The heart of Sarah's case is Sparkles is an abusive man being supported by other abusive men and she has a right to say this without being abused for it. She thinks she can prove that legally. To do it successfully it means limiting language in the court room setting so you get more freedom outside. It means putting aside a bit of short term satisfaction, for huge long term gains.

She is a clever women risking a lot to pull this off. Like many others doing the same in this movement she is a hero - win or lose.

This is purely about how to plead the case in Court papers so as to ensure the best result in the case. Not about her everyday language.

The fact you're missing that nuance suggests you don't really understand the reasoning. Which is fine, but you don't need to keep going on about it, especially when it's been explained to you.

Exactly - we all choose what pronouns to use in what circumstances. I think most of us on these boards understand the harms of using courtesy pronouns, but we do what we need to at times to keep our jobs and maintain our safety.

Good luck @Speroand Thank You 🙏

She’s not ‘giving away women’s language’ - you are free to use whatever words you choose.

It is not compromise to make a judgement on the best strategy to use in court and Sarah owes you no such acknowledgement.

It’s very easy to carp from the sidelines and you seem to be deliberately agitating. I’m guessing you’ve never risked your house on an issue like this.

@anyolddinosaur - are you also a barrister experienced in these sort of cases? If Sarah and her team judge that language to be the most effective approach then you can be sure it is. As PP points out, Jolyon would be continually interrupting things and using male pronouns as ammunition. It is just down to the judge as to whether that works. That’s far too high a risk to take.

Yes. Everyone. Because it was odd how it wasn’t about their right to use the language they wished but their right to abuse me, call me stupid and ugly for not using the language they demanded. This all has a familiar ring doesn’t it? You use the language you want. I will use the language I want. That’s the whole point of this. I react very badly to being told what to do and being insulted if I refuse.

If you disagree with what I do and why I do it then no one is expecting you to agree or to donate to my crowdfunder etc. But expecting compliance from me about anything is completely counterproductive, it makes me determined to disobey simply on principle. I at least know and embrace my own personality type.

It's completely unfair that women can't speak plainly even in court but we are where we are. A win against GLP will strengthen women's position and eventually make it easier to use plain language everywhere.

Sarah Phillimore is on my gardening list and I'm hoping for some nice blossoms later in the year!

You have my full support @Spero

Thank you for taking on Sparkles and JM.

I agree.

It would stick in my craw to use female pronouns for that person, but I would also assume repeated interruptions from the opposing side if I used male pronouns which would (I assume) ultimately piss off the judge which "could" harm my case.

The middle ground is either a name instead of pronouns or they/them and is the logical way to go. If Kiminki hasn't grasped that then I assume they haven't followed any of the court cases on here. Was it the Sandie Peggie case that got particularly annoying by Russell and pronouns?

That is a facile response. Sarah has choice over the pronoun use, in this situation, and she is exercising that choice. Her boundary has not been breached and she is not asking anyone else to breach their boundaries. You would be perfectly free to choose differently.

If men are allowed to enter women's spaces, then that has been imposed externally, against our will, and therefore breaches our boundaries.

I am disgusted that you are making the process part of the punishment for her. Not in my name.