"I've moved a long way in my conceptualisation of what privilege really means, and quite how extraordinarily stupid and thoughtless and arrogant my tribe can be" vice.com/en/article/qjp…
I am really pleased I gave this interview to @RubyJLL. I haven't wanted to do media and have turned down a lot of bids - our media generally is in a terrible place - but there were two things I really wanted to say.
The first - and I feel this point keenly and have the proselytising zeal of the newly converted - is that people of privilege really, really, really need to get better at actually listening to those without it.
I wanted to make that point because I have privilege and so I am heard in places and in ways that those without it are not. And a good use of that privilege is to ask people who might only hear it if I say it, to listen to communities rather than assuming they know better.
The second point - and I will make it in podcasts made by the trans community for trans teenagers - is that although our legal establishment may not want to hear from them I will access for them leading barristers who will be their voice, who the establishment will listen to.
We are in the process of forming this advisory group and may be able to make an announcement - including about next litigation steps - before Christmas.
"The end of the Transition Period provides an historic opportunity to overhaul our outdated public procurement regime," writes Lord Agnew in this long awaited Green Paper assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…. If these words don't strike terror into your heart they should.
Remember, the Government's position is that no one has the ability to bring a public interest challenge to it giving contracts worth hundreds of millions to its mates. Only disaffected bidders, Government says, can bring those challenges.
We don't yet know whether Government's position is right. The position of the Administrative Court so far, is that it is arguable we do have standing. But we have no *financial* interest in pursuing procurement claims in the public interest.
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
If you look at the evidence - including from the UK - it tells you that allowing gender incongruent children and teenagers to 'affirm' in their chosen gender reduces suicide risks. Strip away all the sound and the fury and what last week's judgment means is more cases like this.
Of course, any fair judicial process would have heard from trans children/young adults about the benefits of puberty blockers. But the Divisional Court, in a manner I am still shocked by today, declined to hear from any voice representing their interests.
Puberty blockers are used throughout the world. They are used because transgender teenagers overwhelmingly 'affirm' and unless you arrest their puberty you cruelly force them to live a life where their body - eg an adam's apple, a deep voice - is incongruent with their gender.
A short history of @GoodLawProject's involvement with Brexit.
In late June 2016 we launched the case that eventually established that Parliamentary authorisation was needed to trigger Article 50. ft.com/content/52e562…
In December 2017 we launched the case that a year later established that the United Kingdom could unilaterally revoke Article 50 if it wanted, defeating the UK Government, the EU Council and the EU Commission.
In July 2019, we brought litigation that ultimately led to the Supreme Court ruling Johnson's suspension of Parliament - perhaps the most shameful ever act of the modern British state - unlawful. theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
Hard to avoid the conclusion that Johnson's £100bn Moonshot is a huge white elephant.
"They're putting in place an intervention that hasn't been evaluated, will possibly do more harm and will cost a lot of money."
"Media reports had claimed that as few as 4% of residents in poorer areas were coming forward, but the government said that it was too early to say for sure if that was the case."
Here's a story for your Friday night. I've been wanting to get the documents to back it up but I don't think they're going to come so you'll just have to take from me that it comes from an impeccable source with no reason to lie.
I totally believe it's true - every word of it - and I'm putting it in the public domain because there might be just about enough for an actual, talented journalist to bottom it out. And bottoming it out is profoundly in the public interest.
So back in the very early days of the pandemic - February or March - a company (X) was given a very large PPE contract. X could reasonably claim to be a proper PPE supplier. The contract was signed and X started shipping the PPE to the UK.