Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Oxford professor of law. I'll read the full thing later. No doubt there'll be spin from both sides.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, men like you will continue to push for access to women's spaces. Women will continue to oppose you.

Given that employers are not allowed to ask if an employee has a GRC, your plan that men with GRCs can use their works women's toilets and changing rooms, but men without one can't, seems unworkable.

If you have a GRC then you have a birth certificate showing you as female.

Or am I missing something.

 

[monkers]

Well that's a lie. You know that when an account is deleted it doesn't delete all the replies made to that account? A twitter account runs for around 5 years, both before and after the dumb f#cks tweet, taking part in sensible discussions about Green Party policies and the EU, but you'd have us believe it was set up in malice by a political rival who ran it sensibly for 5 years...

Knowing that the account was your real name (thanks for confirming that again btw) it leads to many other internet appearances that prove 'Monkers' has lied on here for years.

I don't care that you've lied about your status on here because the arguments stand on their own merits. I do care that the fake Niece Lawyer persona is an attempt to claim an authority you do not have.

As I say, you're in a bind now. Either you're lying or Monkers has lied on here for years.

I didn't say Challenor was a political rival. I told you the nature of the dispute between them.

I don't have a Twitter account, have no experience of using it, and no interest in it. I am aware there was a local Green Party Twitter account at that time among other media accounts. Whether Monica ever posted there I can't say, but I think that unlikely as she held objections about it. Whether the local party have continued with that account, or did so for another five years I have no idea.

Challenor also fell out with Caroline Lucas. She called both Monica and Caroline ''Terfs'' on one occasion. I don't know how these things work, but the Challenors also operated something called ''Terfblocker'', whether that was to do with Twitter or something else I don't know, but I do remember Monica being amused that both she and Caroline were Terfblocked - if that's the right term.

The local party did have an appointed media bod, that much I know. Monica had a political fb page made in her name by that person who maintained it, and I do know that the local party team posted to that.

She was never much of a social media user per se, that is until she joined the cyclechat main site, and she seemed happy to post there for some time. Then she seemed to switch to this site.

As far as your opinions of me are concerned, you are entitled to them, and I have no interest in them.

 

[spen666]

Learn to read, and learn chronology ...



The context is the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why would you expect Old English Law to be applicable to another sovereign state with its own constitution and legal system?

Anyway time to stop feeding a pathetic troll. Try to make more of your sad life little man.

View attachment 13121

So not able to produce anything to back up your claim about "sovereign status" you resort to insults.

its strange how when asked what the evidence is for anything you immediately resort to abuse and insults and do not simply provide the evidence to back up your claim, if there is evidence to support your claim

 

[monkers]

Oxford professor of law. I'll read the full thing later. No doubt there'll be spin from both sides.

View attachment 13137

I haven't read the judgment yet, but I will guess that aspect will have been dismissed on the grounds that the interim guidance and the later guidance were both withdrawn by the EHRC. There GLP were in effect chasing a moving target.

However I do agree with your earlier point as I said. Only parliament decides what statute is. So our next wait is to see what the new code of practice will say.

 

[monkers]

So not able to produce anything to back up your claim about "sovereign status" you resort to insults.

its strange how when asked what the evidence is for anything you immediately resort to abuse and insults and do not simply provide the evidence to back up your claim, if there is evidence to support your claim

Insults? The evidence is in - you are a troll across multiple platforms. I explained ''sovereign status'' to you. If you haven't worked at Strasbourg then you are not well-placed to say that is the office speak or otherwise.

As I pointed out before, you seem to enjoy creating little spats on the internet and then trying to win them. Only you are not very good at it at all, and get called out.

 

[spen666]

Insults? The evidence is in - you are a troll across multiple platforms. I explained ''sovereign status'' to you. If you haven't worked at Strasbourg then you are not well-placed to say that is the office speak or otherwise.

As I pointed out before, you seem to enjoy creating little spats on the internet and then trying to win them. Only you are not very good at it at all, and get called out.

You've typed lots of words regarding "Sovereign Status" - but they are just that - your words. If this is a term that is recognised by law, then it would be easy to direct me to the relevant statues or court judgements where such exists
Its not an unreasonable request to ask what the evidence is to support your use of this term.
I have tried searching across the whole of Lexis Nexis and Thomsons Reuters legal database including European law sections and no results are there for the term "sovereign Status" relating to individuals

 

[monkers]

You've typed lots of words regarding "Sovereign Status" - but they are just that - your words. If this is a term that is recognised by law, then it would be easy to direct me to the relevant statues or court judgements where such exists
Its not an unreasonable request to ask what the evidence is to support your use of this term.
I have tried searching across the whole of Lexis Nexis and Thomsons Reuters legal database including European law sections and no results are there for the term "sovereign Status" relating to individuals

Oh do stop. The case under discussion is the Republic of Ireland. There are hugely sensitive issues around the former colonisation by the British. If you think for a moment that the people of RofI are persuaded by a troll on a cycling forum suggesting that the Magna Carta holds preponderance over the the Irish constitution, or for that matter its own domestic arrangement then you are very mistaken.

A sovereign status of an individual is concerned with the legal status of that individual with respect to their sovereign state. This is a matter of respecting the sovereign arrangements of each member state, and certainly not a acceptance of your rather racist assertion that all countries must live under ''English law''. Truly you are absurd.