Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
@tribunaltweets
Nov 24, 2021 • 8 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Here is the full determination.
End.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets

Tribunal Tweets Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Dec 17
Bird vs the Liberal Democrats will continue this morning, scheduled for a 10:30 am start. Reading over yesterday's coverage, it provides an accurate account of proceedings. Additional background may be a useful aid to understanding. Image
Ms Bird claimed that the Liberal Democrats (both of the United Kingdom and of England) had discriminated against for her gender critical beliefs, including removing her as a Parliamentary candidate.
The Liberal Democrats admitted Ms Bird’s claims just before the trial was due to begin in July 2024. The explanation from LDs was that this was to save time and costs. A subsequent hearing for damages and costs was scheduled for 16 & 17 December 2024.
Read 93 tweets
Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Dec 16
We are expecting to resume in Bird vs the Liberal Democrats at 2:30 pm. Our morning coverage is here:
Abbreviations
NB/C - Natalie Bird, claimant
LD/R - Lib Dems, respondent
EW - Emma Walker, barrister for claimant
EH - Elliot Hammer, solicitor for claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, Matrix Chambers for the respondent
NR - Point 1, C has not provided evidence with regard to parliamentary career and feelings. 2. The case is prone to exaggeration. 3. The evidence misfires in that it is not relevant or hasn't addressed the detriments. The award should be no more than £10k.
Read 91 tweets
Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Dec 16
We are back for Part 2 of the morning session in Bird vs the LD.
Morning session here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1868596…
EW - now explaining the number of elected members of the LD federal board, there were 15. But it's unclear that there were 3 elected positions in 2024.
J - there are 3 elected positions of the fed board, many members are ex officio, she is claiming for hurt feelings for not
being allowed to stand for election for the federal board in 2021.
EW - there were 15 elected positions in 2021, not 3.
J - but you're not calling your witness to clarify.
NR - I'm surprised that MLF is making submissions on this. Why are they claiming for £90k not £20
Read 60 tweets
Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Dec 16
We are hoping to report today from the County Court London (at the Royal Courts of Justice) on the costs hearing for Natalie Bird vs the Liberal Democrat Party and others. Image
The Liberal Democrats admitted to discriminating against Bird, shortly before court proceedings were scheduled to begin in July 2024. Our coverage on the case is here: open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…
A two day hearing in front of Her Honour Judge Evans-Gordon is scheduled to consider a cost award for the claimant.
Costs hearings can be heavy on legal argument and may be difficult to follow. We will do our best.
Read 47 tweets
Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Dec 12
This is part 2 of the afternoon session at the Court of Appeal "Re Q", an application by a parent to prevent a minor child accessing a non-NHS 'gender' clinic before the age of 18. Part 1 is here:
RB: few other points to flag up - [citation - "revisit of Gillick"] - important to bear in mind Q has right to medical confidentiality, and Q was v clear wd have strong objections to appellant seeing results of assessments etc
RB: so court would have to decide things like what information court should share with A - Q would have strong objections.
Read 53 tweets
Tribunal Tweets Profile picture
Dec 12
Good afternoon, welcome back to the Court of Appeal. We will start again at 2pm.

Mrs A seeks to prevent her child from obtaining cross sex hormones via a private prescription.

A - Mrs A
AB - Mrs A's Barrister
R - respondent
RB - respondents Barrister
F - Father
Q - the child
AB - notes references on medical capacity act and what sections of rules are being used. Identifying before you Mundy lines argument.
*speaker issues in court*
AB - if there remains concerns about capacity the way forward is the same as when someone lacks capacity.
AB where finely balanced, base it on assessment, the parents concerned and the provider (conflict here as private provider). Then a referral would be to the court of protection. And the person would have legal representation. Even when all parties agree on way forward.
Read 48 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(