Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

703 replies

fromorbit · 01/04/2026 05:23

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.

Letter before Action

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

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
65
TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 23/08/2026 17:39

BunnyBunbunbun · 23/08/2026 17:00

That article has an interesting tactic - pretend that there is a field of study that considers the role of race genetics in intelligence (which there isn't, because it has no scientific basis), acknowledge that no such connection has been found, and then claim that the only reason that no such connection has been found is because the right research hasn't been done yet/isn't yet possible, and so propose that in the future a connection between race/genetics and intelligence may be found. And obviously he is the brave scholar searching for the Truth, which is likely to be that race differences have a substantial genetic component, particularly as regards brain structures.

To quote:

"But if work on the genetics and neuroscience of intelligence becomes sufficiently advanced, it may soon become possible to give a convincing causal account of how specific SNPs affect brain structures that underlie intelligence (Haier, Citation2017). If we can give a biological account of how genes with different distributions lead to race differences, this would essentially constitute proof of hereditarianism. As of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component. If this possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically, we must face the ethical question of whether we ought to pursue the truth, whatever it may be."

And:
"There is a danger for the philosophical community in putting our credibility on the line over the claim that race differences are entirely environmental. If work on genetics and neuroscience within the next decade produces convincing evidence that differences in measured intelligence among groups have a significant genetic component, there will be no way to conceal this information. The hereditarian explanation will have to be accepted, and people will know that philosophers were on the wrong side of the issue both scientifically and morally"

He's basically saying that just because no one today can present any evidence to show that "race differences" in "intelligence" are genetic, as opposed to social/"environmental", that doesn't mean that it won't be possible to demonstrate this scientifically in the future and everyone will have to accept it because it will be proven to be the Truth. All of this is predicated on the notion that white people are more intelligent that black people, which is bs.

Show quote history

He's a philosopher not a scientist, he's philosophising, they may be people who don't like his theories but that doesn't make him a racist.
I don't agree with his subject but I don't think he's studying it because he's a racist. I think it's a complete waste of time but then I think all philosophy is a complete waste of time.
He was sacked because he made Arday's plagiarism public, no more no less. Even if he were a racist's, which has yet to be proven, it doesn't change the fact that Arday was a liar and a fraud.

He was sacked because the Alphabetty Maffia got him sacked.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 23/08/2026 17:49

BunnyBunbunbun · 23/08/2026 17:00

That article has an interesting tactic - pretend that there is a field of study that considers the role of race genetics in intelligence (which there isn't, because it has no scientific basis), acknowledge that no such connection has been found, and then claim that the only reason that no such connection has been found is because the right research hasn't been done yet/isn't yet possible, and so propose that in the future a connection between race/genetics and intelligence may be found. And obviously he is the brave scholar searching for the Truth, which is likely to be that race differences have a substantial genetic component, particularly as regards brain structures.

To quote:

"But if work on the genetics and neuroscience of intelligence becomes sufficiently advanced, it may soon become possible to give a convincing causal account of how specific SNPs affect brain structures that underlie intelligence (Haier, Citation2017). If we can give a biological account of how genes with different distributions lead to race differences, this would essentially constitute proof of hereditarianism. As of now, there is nothing that would indicate that it is particularly unlikely that race differences will turn out to have a substantial genetic component. If this possibility cannot be ruled out scientifically, we must face the ethical question of whether we ought to pursue the truth, whatever it may be."

And:
"There is a danger for the philosophical community in putting our credibility on the line over the claim that race differences are entirely environmental. If work on genetics and neuroscience within the next decade produces convincing evidence that differences in measured intelligence among groups have a significant genetic component, there will be no way to conceal this information. The hereditarian explanation will have to be accepted, and people will know that philosophers were on the wrong side of the issue both scientifically and morally"

He's basically saying that just because no one today can present any evidence to show that "race differences" in "intelligence" are genetic, as opposed to social/"environmental", that doesn't mean that it won't be possible to demonstrate this scientifically in the future and everyone will have to accept it because it will be proven to be the Truth. All of this is predicated on the notion that white people are more intelligent that black people, which is bs.

Show quote history

Wow - that's almost exactly the same argument I have seen TRAs make on here that "science" will "in future" probably find a biological cause for transgender identity. (I think it's bullshit when they make it as well).

AimsAndObjectives · 23/08/2026 18:50

FlirtsWithRhinos · 23/08/2026 17:49

Wow - that's almost exactly the same argument I have seen TRAs make on here that "science" will "in future" probably find a biological cause for transgender identity. (I think it's bullshit when they make it as well).

Show quote history

My thoughts exactly, when I read that.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread