MCloud was appointed "as the youngest and only second female ‘Master’" to be appointed to the Queen’s Bench division of the High Court in 2010.
McCloud was also on the Committee that writes the Equal Treatment Bench Book
In 2020 Mccloud spoke at this event in aid of Stonewall.
"Ensuring that all voices of minority/oppressed groups are heard" sounds nice, but it often means shutting down dissent as harassment.
In any case judges might have all kinds of characteristics but presenting themselves as being part of a community with responsibilities to that community undermines confidence in impartiality.
I complained about this but it was rejected as out of time.
Barrister @SVPhillimore complained about McCloud sending her private messages on Twitter. This was dismissed because JCIO said this was within McCloud's private life.
Mccloud also tried to start a private conversation with me. I found this inappropriate and I did not reply.
I understand Sarah and I are not the only ones to receive such approaches.
Mccloud had also been commenting publicly on Linked In on sex and gender. Including responding to someone accusing LGBA and Sex Matters of "bigotry" suggesting we might be engaged in criminal harassment
Criminal harassment is conduct directed at an individual.
If a person feels "alarm and distress" at another person's lawful general statements of belief this is not harassment but irrationality.
MCloud posted the idea that a "belief is something you can keep to yourself" in relation to the Forstater ruling.
This is both wrong and inappropriate for a judge to be opining on on social media
The last thing I wanted to do was to get into private conversation with a judge who had declared an intention to find any expression of my belief "harassment" and might report me to the police.
The view that gender critical speech is likely to be harassment is also reflected in the sloppy wording of the Equal Treatment Bench Book 2022 update. forstater.com/manifestation-…
Perhaps McCloud was drawing on the now withdrawn assertion about belief and manifesation from RMW's book? forstater.com/manifestation-…
McCloud has now quit the judicary, blaming everything but their own behaviour
The letter complains that the expression of gender critical beliefs offends their dignity.
McCloud was allocated to hear this gender critical case.
Imagine having to ask for a recusal of a judge here (or not asking because the Linked In posts were deleted so you have no proof or don't know about the judge's political engagement)
McCloud evokes Rosa Parks and says that it is political wherever McCloud chooses to pee.
Of course a judge should follow rules.
It is up to a service provider to make the rules and to communicate them.
Everyone should be able to follow rules: particularly judges.
As the @EHRC now makes clear in its guidance.
I don't think it is compatible to view breaking rules as "political", and to sit as an "impartial" judge of those who are asking for rules to be set and enforced and are facing accusations of harassment for using clear language.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The nomination of Mary-Ann Stephenson as new chair of the EHRC brought the witch hunters out.
Stephenson has a PhD in equality law. She is Director of the Women’s Budget Group, and has been director of the Fawcett Society, chair of the Early Education and Childcare Coalition and a board member of Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre.
A bunch of charity CEOs (some of whom are part of "Equally Ours" with her) wrote a letter saying darkly she "previously supported views seen at odds with inclusivity for all"
There was a petition accusing her of making "anti-trans statements" and "association with groups advocating for the curtailment of trans people's human rights"
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)
Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said.
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act.
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act.
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed