Just imagine an ongoing national debate about the 'reasonable limits of black existence' conducted exclusively by white people. That's what trans people face - and it is *abysmal*.
Spoken about, over, through but never to and never heard.
Curious interview with BBC World At One. A judge has just found Govt's conduct unlawful and characterised by the appearance of favouritism to friends: a striking thing. But the interviewer gave me little space to explain the implications and argued Govt's case against me.
It's progress of a sort, I suppose. They never even had me on when I was winning all the Brexit cases. But I continue to think the BBC reveals itself in these interviews: as a defender of power rather than as interested in the accountability of power.
We'll clip the interview and add it to this thread so you can listen for yourself. But the BBC's attack-minded positioning felt to me as though, by exposing the Government as a law breaker, it was me who had done something wrong.
BREAKIING: The High Court has ruled Michael Gove broke the law in awarding a contract to his associates at Public First. The Court ruled a reasonable observer would think there was a real risk Public First won the contract because of favouritism.
The decision vindicates what @GoodLawProject has been saying now for a year: that the Government's pandemic procurement favoured friends of the Conservative Party. Full blog here: glplive.org/judgment
We have now two concluded judicial reviews of pandemic procurement. Each established that a Cabinet Minister - respectively, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove - acted unlawfully. We have a slate of approximately a dozen further judicial reviews to come.
Yes, I argued cases for would be tax avoiders - and I have written about that here: waitingfortax.com/2015/05/01/tax…. But the hypocrisy is all the Mail's.
Yes, I killed a fox to save my chickens. But, again, the hypocrisy is all the Mail's (magzter.com/stories/Fashio…).
In practice, the way Government is briefing makes this look like a very specific legislative attack on @GoodLawProject and the work we do.
We at @GoodLawProject have *repeatedly* been commended in judgments by High Court judges for the ethical and responsible way in which we have conducted ourselves. We also have an extraordinary record of success in exposing a Government that is contemptuous of the law.
"Lord Peter Cruddas donated £500,000 to the Conservative Party's central office on 5 February 2021, only three days after he was introduced into the House of Lords where he now sits as a Conservative peer." businessinsider.com/disgraced-tory…
I mean, Cruddas' peerage couldn't possibly have been sold, could it, because that would be a criminal offence by both sides.
For the avoidance of any doubt I'm not saying Cruddas or the Prime Minister committed a criminal offence. But it's one helluva ugly fact pattern.
Having tried to destroy the leading charitable voice in the country arguing black lives are worth the same as white lives The Times is now trying to destroy the leading charitable voice in the country arguing that queer lives are worth the same as straight ones.
No one who calls themselves progressive should pay for Murdoch's attempts to roll back gains won for minority communities over time. Please, if you care about your BAME neighbours, your gay friends, your trans colleagues, cancel your subscription to The Times.
No anology is perfect, of course, but it is hard not to be struck by how The Times attacked Labour under Corbyn for only listening to marginal voices in Judaism whilst it only listens to (even more) marginal voices in the LGBT+ community now.