Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

This quote from me is about your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. It wasn't about Hampstead Ponds. I don't think I ever commented on the strength of the Sex Matters request for a judicial review on the ponds policy.

You have in fact repeatedly tried to sow confusion about the Supreme Court decision.

The Hampstead ponds thing is a completely different case. The suggestion was that the county court and an individual claimant was the appropriate avenue for such a case. If that cheers you up, well enjoy it while you can I suppose. It doesn't change the SC decision.

 

[monkers]

This quote from me is about your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. It wasn't about Hampstead Ponds.

View attachment 12882
You have in fact repeatedly tried to sow confusion about the Supreme Court decision.

The Hampstead ponds thing is a completely different case. The suggestion was that the county court and an individual claimant was the appropriate avenue for such a case. If that cheers you up, well enjoy it while you can I suppose. It doesn't change the SC decision.

Actually you didn't quote what you were replying to when you made the comment. I took it to be another scattergun shot at me, something you've done before.

That aside, you think that in quoting Lord Hodge's own words of caution, that I am sowing doubt?

You can't keep claiming that the 5 judges that heard the case in the SC are unassailable, and then take a position after the lead judge has made remarks about caution as if he is now somehow irrelevant.

The government do not agree seem to agree with you, neither does the new lead of the EHRC.

We'll have to wait for the GLP v EHRC ruling, and how the EHRC and government respond to that.

It is interesting that the government only now are saying that Falkner was somebody they had difficulty working with.

You could concede, my comment about the ponds was on point.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You could concede, my comment about the ponds was on point.

I made no comment about the legal merit of the Sex Matters Hampstead Ponds case so there's nothing to concede. You could concede you were entirely wrong about the Supreme Court decision and the more recent tribunals. You won't though because you need to continue to delude readers into thinking that men like you are still guaranteed access to women's single sex spaces and services.

You can spread your misinformation as much as you like, Monica. Women aren't giving up their rights and it's tiresome listening to the pretence.

 

[monkers]

I made no comment about the legal merit of the Sex Matters Hampstead Ponds case so there's nothing to concede. You could concede you were entirely wrong about the Supreme Court decision and the more recent tribunals. You won't though because you need to continue to delude readers into thinking that men like you are still guaranteed access to women's single sex spaces and services.

You can spread your misinformation as much as you like, Monica. Women aren't giving up their rights and it's tiresome listening to the pretence.

I have already conceded enough times that the SC's decision taken as a whole came as a surprise to me and many others.

However the point I am continuing to make, is that I can tell you with great confidence that the SC is not the final court at which a UK citizen can seek effective remedy. As you will already know, there is a case made out by an actual person with an actual grievance of detriment lodged at the ECtHR. The person lodging that complaint is exactly the right person to enjoy potential success. While the Council of Europe has made no comment on the specific application - its wider dissatisfaction with the UK (as a member state) in relation to the rights of members of, and entire minority groups is well known. Therefore, as I always tend to say, we will have to wait and see.