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.

You think using female language for Dr Upton would have made it clear to the judge what the issue was? Don’t be naive, using female language for a man in the female changing room would have obscured that and the judge would just have thought ‘he is now a woman so what is the issue?’

As I said, if you are too afraid of the consequences of challenging a 6 foot man in the woman’s changing room, or using male language to refer to men in court, then I understand. But what it most definitely is not is a fair compromise! There is nothing fair about ignoring sex to placate men.

Oh do give over. That's a ridiculous argument.

Spero can do exactly as she sees fit.

Of course she can and I can state she is wrong on this. You don’t have to agree with everything just because you agree with someone on some points. She didn’t say ‘I feel I have to avoid sex-based pronouns in order to pursue my case effectively in courts’ she said it was a ‘fair compromise’.

Why do you think it is fair for women to ignore sex when faced with men who invade our spaces and destroy our rights? I am not talking about pragmatism in the face of threat. Sarah stated it was FAIR to ignore this is a man. In what why is it fair?

You're twisting things. That's not what she said. She also uses male pronouns on here and presumably in her personal life so she's hardly ignoring he's a man.

You seem not to be able to understand the way most people behave in court or at work is different to how they behave in their personal lives.

I think if kiminki could list her efforts in court then we would have a better understanding of her reaction? Because atm, it just seems you are keyboard berating someone who is an actual shero.

This.

No one is above criticism. Odd that you think that.

Wishing Spero the best of luck!

I know Weddell is a man. If I can win this then I will be able to shine a light on Jolyon Maugham for exactly what he is; I will be able to give freedom to many other women to speak as they wish - particularly those of us in regulated professions.

if you disagree, fine. Do so. It’s my case and my decisions. I am very clear and transparent and provide regular updates so those who donate should know exactly what they are supporting.

of course no one is above criticism. But when criticisms are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am doing and hope to achieve, I am entitled to reject them or not take them seriously.

Yet I am told here we are all free to have our own boundaries. That is not the reality as you point out - ”we do what we need to at times to keep our jobs and maintain our safety.”.

That is not choice. That is not compromise, fair or otherwise. That is coercion.

That is not choice. That is not compromise, fair or otherwise. That is coercion.
@Kiminki isn’t that why Sarah is going to court? Again.

I don't get your point. Sarah isn't using female pronouns at all.

You are just being argumentative for no real reason on this thread.

I didn't realist SP was 'in the room' when I posted that I assumed this was a pragmatic decision - nice to be able to wish you success, Sarah, in person

I get it that Kiminki attaches great importance to always using male pronouns for male people, and never using female pronouns, fair enough.

But SP did not say that she was going to use female pronouns, it was about avoidance of sexed pronouns. That's not the same thing at all, Kiminki.
It's not about referring to a man as she and her, but using a strategically-useful neutral style instead.

It's not the wholesale betrayal of women's rights that you are suggesting, Kiminki.

Iirc it was agreed in Sandie Peggie's case that they could use biologically accurate pronouns for Dr Upton but the judge put in a ridiculous caveat. Something along the lines of not overdoing it? Judge Kemp, or the AI he used colleague he consulted then criticised Sandie's team for calling Upton 'he'. Kemp obviously thought they'd overstepped his arbitrarily drawn line. I'm willing to speculate that was his intention all along.

It sticks in my craw too so I've sympathy for @Kiminki but I think pragmatism must rule here. We can have our hee, hee, he's by winning 😊

I've no sympathy for someone who adds to the negative pressure on a woman who is going to court and taking on risk on behalf of women everywhere. The place for this discussion would be after the court case, not before.

Please ignore the goading , someone might be looking for screen shots

How on earth is someone who is taking a man to court over this issue ignoring his sex?

Focussing binocular vision on this decision while ignoring the larger picture risks a loss of perspective and can end up being counter productive.

Pragmatism is necessary - this situation is very much a threat to the woman involved, who is exposed to considerable personal risk, as well as the general stress of the process and the usual attacks.

There is physical threat of a man threatening violence; there is also the threat of losing one's livelihood, house, social standing, etc.

In addition one could make the argument that nobody needs to point out Weddell's sex. It's glaringly obvious.

Kiminki
I can state she is wrong on this

I think it might be better to use "opine" instead of "state" here. "State" suggests it is a fact; "opine" would let us know immediately that it is what you think, your opinion.

Because opinion and fact are not the same thing, you see.

Funnily that I was accused of policing speech!

Well, if the objective was making the thread all about you, you've certainly succeeded.

Not my objective but certainly a lot of people seem upset at me stating that pragmatism or acting through fear is not the same as a fair compromise.

Not upset at all. Just think you are making an ass of yourself.

I doubt she's acting out of fear considering what she is actually doing.

This is about the best way, the most effective way, on how to achieve the result you are aiming for within a legal setting. If using he/him is going to sidetrack the main aim then it would be stupid of Sarah to use it.

And Sarah is not stupid.

People are disagreeing. This doesn't mean anyone is upset.