Encouraging a child with gender dysphoria to wait and see before embarking on life-changing medical treatment is not remotely the same as trying to "convert" those who are same-sex attracted.
/1
That is why many people — including gay, lesbian and bisexual barristers — oppose Stonewall's push to ban "trans conversion therapy".
/2
It's incredible that this still needs to be said after the Nolan Investigates podcast, but Stonewall is a lobby group. It is not neutral and it does not speak for all LGBTQ people.
/3
If, as part of an event for LGBTQ barristers, you've invited Stonewall to speak about banning conversion therapies, that has ceased to be a purely social networking event. If you're not seeing that, it's likely because your views align with Stonewall's.
/4
Which is fine, but please have some regard for gender critical LGB barristers, who, if there has to be a legal discussion/debate, have every right to expect that their legally protected views will be represented.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Orwellian"? Seriously? I can't be alone among employment lawyers in thinking that some of the criticisms made of this process have an air of unreality about them. Let's compare and contrast the procedure Owen Paterson faced with a typical employer's disciplinary procedure.
/1
OP: the Standards Commissioner writes to him setting out the allegations against him and inviting him to respond. Typical employee: called into an investigatory meeting with no advance warning of the allegations.
/2
OP: his solicitor is heavily involved during the Commissioner's enquiry. Typical employee: employee has no right to legal representation and their best hope is a decent union rep.
/3
Howard Beckett and miners' compensation: a short 🧵
The ST reported in 2016 that Howard Beckett was fined £5,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009 for misconduct in connection with miners' compensation. Beckett was, at the time, a partner in the Wirral firm of Beckett, Bemrose and Hagan.
/1 thetimes.co.uk/article/top-un…
Here is Beckett’s version of events as given in an interview to rs21 in May this year: rs21.org.uk/2021/05/08/uni…
/2
The govt was entitled, in the exceptional circs of a pandemic, to award the contract directly i.e. without notice or competition, but the absence of competition made it all the more important for the govt to use a fair process for selecting Public First.
/2
The govt did not properly consider whether other providers could have done the work, and its failure to do so would cause a fair-minded observer to conclude there was a real risk that the award of the contract to Public First was biased.
/3