Gender again. Sorry!

[spen666]

"Sovereign status" - there's a new term. AFAIK it is not a term recognised in English Law

 

[monkers]

"Sovereign status" - there's a new term. AFAIK it is not a term recognised in English Law

It's Strasbourg speak because they are talking about / taking account of legal status which can have variance between member states.

 

[spen666]

It's Strasbourg speak because they are talking about / taking account of legal status which can have variance between member states.

so its something not recognised in English Law?
Strasbourg speak is a totally meaningless phrase. So what if Pierre in the cafe tabac in Strasbourg talks about it, it does not make it part of English Law

 

[CXRAndy]

Some are saying it's the drugs they give to these kids or they're indoctrinated. Either way totally crazy behaviour, not normal


View: https://x.com/i/status/2021796046725398786

 

[monkers]

so its something not recognised in English Law?
Strasbourg speak is a totally meaningless phrase. So what if Pierre in the cafe tabac in Strasbourg talks about it, it does not make it part of English Law

There's no such thing as English law in this context. England is not a country recognised at the UN. Our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Read my explanation in the context of the post.

The forum is mostly people from within the UK. The rights in question pertain to the Republic of Ireland. They are a sovereign nation with their own constitution and legal system. We can not therefore apply UK law to the case. We can however apply Strasbourg since it is the court of final remedy to both the UK and the Republic of Ireland under convention rights. Conversationally, 'sovereign status' is the simplest term which can use when speaking of rights across member states.

 

[spen666]

There's no such thing as English law in this context. England is not a country recognised at the UN. Our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Read my explanation in the context of the post.

The forum is mostly people from within the UK. The rights in question pertain to the Republic of Ireland. They are a sovereign nation with their own constitution and legal system. We can not therefore apply UK law to the case. We can however apply Strasbourg since it is the court of final remedy to both the UK and the Republic of Ireland under convention rights. Conversationally, 'sovereign status' is the simplest term which can use when speaking of rights across member states.

You are making things up now

There is English law and has been so for in hundreds of years
English Law is seperate from Scottish Law and both a seperate from Northern Irish Law.
You are spouting nonsense. There is no such thing in English Law as Sovereign Status. I invite you to provide any law report relating to England that confirms Soverign Status applies to individuals

 

[monkers]

You are making things up now

There is English law and has been so for in hundreds of years
English Law is seperate from Scottish Law and both a seperate from Northern Irish Law.
You are spouting nonsense. There is no such thing in English Law as Sovereign Status. I invite you to provide any law report relating to England that confirms Soverign Status applies to individuals

Learn to read, and learn chronology ...

There's no such thing as English law in this context.

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.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Workplace Exemption Controversy
Separately, Phillipson recently clarified that the updated EHRC code of practice on single-sex spaces does not apply to workplaces. She noted that existing workplace guidance, which allows trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to use female toilets, remains in force.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k809vnx0yo

That link isn't about the code of practice.

The code isn't the law. The law is the law. Companies that fail to provide adequate single sex facilities for staff will leave themselves open to claims of indirect discrimination from staff who do not, for example, wish to undress in front of men who pretend to be women.

Employment lawyer Anya Palmer:

Palmer is an actual lawyer, not a fictional one.

 

[monkers]

That link isn't about the code of practice.

The code isn't the law. The law is the law. Companies that fail to provide adequate single sex facilities for staff will leave themselves open to claims of indirect discrimination from staff who do not, for example, wish to undress in front of men who pretend to be women.

Employment lawyer Anya Palmer:

View attachment 13127


Palmer is an actual lawyer, not a fictional one.

Shall we wait to hear the judicial review ? It's out tomorrow.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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.

 

[monkers]

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.

I'm not involved in any action or promotion. I keep clear of it. If you knew my name, you'd not find it in the media, or in social media. You are incorrect in that assertion. I do use women's spaces though and will continue to do so. I'm not in the UK, so frankly it has nothing to do with you.

There are women and men with gender critical views in the UK. Unless you are happy to show otherwise, I'm not sure that you are elected to any position to represent them. From what I can see, gender critical people are not a critical mass, but they are well-funded and well-organised against the rights of trans people.

I did caution that there will inevitably be some yo-yo effect as the courts try to make sense of the Supreme Court judgment and how that can be given legal effect. Yes, the Supreme Court ruling was unexpected and a disappointment, but there is some rowing back leading to Sex Matters stating their disappointment in a number of recent cases.

When the High Court lays out its judgment today, I'll look at it with interest. To be honest I'm not too bothered by your opinions. However I'm known as a stickler for facts, so if or when I see lies or mistakes being made, I may choose to post about them here.

Finally I have no such plan as you claim, that is an invention. Perhaps you think I am Bridget Phillipson. I can assure you I am not.

 

[monkers]

That link isn't about the code of practice.

The code isn't the law. The law is the law. Companies that fail to provide adequate single sex facilities for staff will leave themselves open to claims of indirect discrimination from staff who do not, for example, wish to undress in front of men who pretend to be women.

Employment lawyer Anya Palmer:

View attachment 13127


Palmer is an actual lawyer, not a fictional one.

Well funnily enough I tend to agree with you. You are taking a different approach now to that you have taken previously, and that's a positive.

EHRC guidance is never statutory as it is issued. Statutory can only mean with the will of parliament. The status at the present time is just guidance to be considered by parliament, and not more widely guidance to be used by employers or services.

So yes, the law is unchanged by the guidance. You are correct.

Parliament can be asked to consider the guidance under different parliamentary pathways, but the minimum requirement is for the relevant minister to place a statutory instrument before parliament. Parliament can choose to debate it or not, but unless the guidance is challenged it becomes statutory after 40 parliamentary working days.

In the meantime there is no revised guidance in place, the old guidance prevails.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women who oppose gender ideology aren't well funded. They raise their money through small donations. They don't have the funds of the Scottish government or Stonewall level grant money from big backers.

You confirmed your real name in the discussion about the dumb f#cks tweet. You're all over the internet re your political activities, including posting after you were supposedly dead. You've got yourself in a bind though. Either you're lying about being The Niece or Auntie Monkers has lied about who they were on CC from the outset. You've invested a lot of effort in the Niece Lawyer persona so I predict you'll try to style it out.

 

[monkers]

Women who oppose gender ideology aren't well funded. They raise their money through small donations. They don't have the funds of the Scottish government or Stonewall level grant money from big backers.

You confirmed your real name in the discussion about the dumb f#cks tweet. You're all over the internet re your political activities, including posting after you were supposedly dead. You've got yourself in a bind though. Either you're lying about being The Niece or Auntie Monkers has lied about who they were on CC from the outset. You've invested a lot of effort in the Niece Lawyer persona so I predict you'll try to style it out.

The ''dumb farks'' tweet was not made by my aunt. She never had a Twitter account. Monica fell out with the Challenors. The account was set up by them, they scraped a photograph from the internet. They subjected Monica to a pile on on her fb page beforehand. The issue? Monica did not agree that x markers on passports were a good idea. Ami Challenor had prior for internet hacking / fraud. Her father David Challenor is a particularly nasty sex offender who is now serving a long sentence.

These things unfortunately happen, and you must surely know it. Time to get over it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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.