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 within 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 an acceptance of your rather racist assertion that all countries must live under ''English law''. Truly you are absurd.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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 personal named account that made the nasty dumb f#cks post ran from 2014 to 2019, mainly commenting on local issues, Green Party, EU posts. So not set up as a malicious account. It had a picture of the same person as the Monkers account on here, ie you.

You can only be 'terf blocked' by the Terfblocker app if you are on Twitter.

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.

30 seconds on the search functions shows the Monkers account posting numerous links to twitter posts on here and talking about having a Facebook page.

Your next pivot will be 'I didn't know Auntie Monkers was so active on social media and that proves I'm not Monkers'. No, it proves you slipped up by confirming your name, found yourself in a hole but keeping digging.

 

[monkers]

The personal named account that made the nasty dumb f#cks post ran from 2014 to 2019, mainly commenting on local issues, Green Party, EU posts. So not set up as a malicious account. It had a picture of the same person as the Monkers account on here, ie you.

You can only be 'terf blocked' by the Terfblocker app if you are on Twitter.



30 seconds on the search functions shows the Monkers account posting numerous links to twitter posts on here and talking about having a Facebook page.

View attachment 13142

Your next pivot will be 'I didn't know Auntie Monkers was so active on social media and that proves I'm not Monkers'. No, it proves you slipped up by confirming your name, found yourself in a hole but keeping digging.

That doesn't contradict what I told you I understand. Monica did have fb page provided by the local party. She also had a personal fb page. The Twitter account was provided by the local party. I haven't seen any of the fb content or the context in which it was written. On the face of it I see no wrongdoing in those fb posts. In the first two it appears that one person, presumably Monica, is showing that gender critical people posting about women's anatomy were ironically labelling their own body parts incorrectly, and their response was disproportionate when this was pointed out. I have no idea what relevance post 3 has to do with anything.

What is on display here is the extent to which you 'transvestigate' people in an organised manner. It's clear that your network had Monica under surveillance for some time.

So it's pretty amusing, at least to me, that you objected to my post showing that Spen has a reputation across a number of forums for being a troll.

What you can't show are any fb or twitter posts made by me. I've never been a user of either.

But thanks for showing how sinister your network is.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What is on display here is the extent to which you 'transvestigate' people in an organised manner. It's clear that your network had Monica under surveillance for some time.

Nope. You made a nasty post on Twitter, deleted it, but screenshots still pop up even now. It gave the game away as to who you are.
You will persist in your ridiculous death faking Strasbourg lawyer persona because at this point there's really no alternative.

 

[spen666]

So a

Oh do stop. The case under discussion is within 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 an acceptance of your rather racist assertion that all countries must live under ''English law''. Truly you are absurd.

Absolutely no rulings or laws then, just your rather vague reference to RoI

Designed to prevent anyone checking your reference is true.

What we can establish from your answer is there is no statute and no court rulings on "sovereign status " at present & the case does not relate to England or the UK.

 

[monkers]

Nope. You made a nasty post on Twitter, deleted it, but screenshots still pop up even now. It gave the game away as to who you are.
You will persist in your ridiculous death faking Strasbourg lawyer persona because at this point there's really no alternative.

To state this in the ordinary vernacular - you are talking out of your arse.

Your difficulty is that because you have failed, despite considerable effort, to discover my identity you conclude that I can not exist. I have protected my identity precisely because I know that people like you exist, and because I know what nuisance people like you can cause to trans people just trying to live a peaceful life.

But so you know, there are no social media or networking accounts opened by me in either my own name or any assumed name.

I have continued posting on this account, not an account opened by me. I have been very honest about that, no dishonesty involved. If the site owner chooses to close the account - so be it.

 

[monkers]

So a

Absolutely no rulings or laws then, just your rather vague reference to RoI

Designed to prevent anyone checking your reference is true.

What we can establish from your answer is there is no statute and no court rulings on "sovereign status " at present & the case does not relate to England or the UK.

It wasn't vague, there was a discussion mostly between Aurora and Classic in relation to the case of a trans woman prisoner in the RofI.

Well of course there is nothing in UK statute, what did you expect? You really wasted your time looking for it? Good grief.

As explained the term is office speak in Strasbourg since the legal status of the person is twofold, the status under domestic legislation and the status as a citizen under international law. It's just informal shorthand that rolls them together. It really isn't a difficult concept.

As usual you started some petty argument on a point of pedantry, and then failed to hold your end up.

Heck you even failed to give the correct legal identity of the country where you live.

I'm bored with you now, I think it time to put you on block.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It wasn't vague, there was a discussion mostly between Aurora and Classic in relation to the case of a trans woman prisoner in the RofI.

Well of course there is nothing in UK statute, what did you expect? You really wasted your time looking for it? Good grief.

As explained the term is office speak in Strasbourg since the legal status of the person is twofold, the status under domestic legislation and the status as a citizen under international law. It's just informal shorthand that rolls them together. It really isn't a difficult concept.

As usual you started some petty argument on a point of pedantry, and then failed to hold your end up.

Heck you even failed to give the correct legal identity of the country where you live.

I'm bored with you now, I think it time to put you on block.

Best not to rise to the bait with Spen. If there's something of substance to debate fine but otherwise no.