1/ The Civil Service are to recruit a person with the all but explicit aim of subverting the judgment of the Supreme Court in FWS. No one who thinks the case was correctly decided need apply, no minister wants to hear someone prepared to say "no" to this over indulged ideology

https://twitter.com/bindelj/status/2013278455505256662

2/ This is a soft form of corruption, the appointee will no doubt have a long history of subverting the law in the third sector. This is revolving door fraud, women and gays are screwed over by an unspoken elite consensus that judgments are there to be managed, not obeyed.

1/ The Gender war is a class war. Trans activism was confabulated in universities where they'd run out of things to say, it was embraced by the bourgeois management types in HR and it corrupts the same in everything from unions to blue chips. This didn't come from the streets.

https://twitter.com/newsandpics/status/2013335986646741272

2/ Trans activism is indulged and has no central heroic historical point of defiance, so it steals the gay rights claim to Stonewall because at its heart, it's dreadfully aware of just how powerful and privileged it is. It's still really the only cult that can get you sacked

1/ The Streeting experiment steadfastly ignores evidence from the Tavistock that 80-90% of the teens there were same sex attracted and around 30% autistic. The strength of feeling against this live experiment on vulnerable young people is expressed in sheer weight of numbers here

https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/2010616552878743952

2/ There was a dark joke at the Tavistock "soon there will be no gay people left". It was obvious to staff that what was happening was wrong and obvious to them that around 90% who take PBs go on to cross sex hormones and sterility.

1/ This is what I mean by moral vanity. The very structure of the final sentence, that trans women are women, mitigates against the truth of that statement, being a public provocation and declaration of moral standing undermined by the fact of the two categories.

https://twitter.com/cmwilliams99/status/2005318323886862667

2/ What we see here is a public repudiation of evidence and the scientific method as applied to basic foundational truths necessary for the rational ordering of society. This is a declaration of luxurious bourgeois contempt for reason and a battle cry of the most hollow nature.

1/ The NCHI, much like the malicious comms offence, is an example of a piece of criminal justice architecture created in a pre digital world and exploited by ideologues in a digital one. Its continuance in the digital age is a story of inertia, quangos and lack of leadership.

https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/2003384476660027515

2/ In the pre digital world, police forces were reeling from the McPhearson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The met was found to be institutionally racist and the report recommended police monitor incidents short of criminal behaviour that might escalate.

1/ A finding that there is “no case to answer” is significant. This is a remedy that originates in the criminal division and it is tightly confined to cases where no properly directed jury could convict on the evidence. For a prosecution to fall at this stage is damning.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1999484236705988901

2/ This area is governed by the case of R v Galbraith, and the doctrine splits into two so called “limbs”. The first is where something essential is missing, like for example evidence of serious bodily harm which would be essential in a GBH.

1/ To the doomsayers warning "don't attack the BBC, you will miss it when it is gone", I say this. It has been gone for me for years. It deplatformed my friends, it called me a bigot, it produced a gay male dating show featuring a woman. I will miss nothing of that when it goes. 2/ In LGBTWTFLOL politics we have this term, "forced teaming", it means conflating the political cases of homosexuals with transvestites. I will not be "forced teamed" again and be told I must shut up for the sake of my national broadcaster for some nostalgic love.

1/ I find this very difficult to accept as a justification for demonstrable BBC bias over gender and I think it underplays the role of fear of cancellation in favour of good faith. What I would say is this, in the first place, journalists accepting orthodoxy is terrifying.

https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1987244353782202479

2/ Second, I would say that accepting orthodoxy at a time when the Times newspaper was reporting that staff at the Tavistock had a dark joke that "soon there will be no gay people left" is particularly alarming because accepting orthodoxy here means ignoring or supressing critics

1/ In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled in a criminal case called R v Jogee. The law lords ruled that the law of murder had “taken a wrong turn” and too many had been wrongly convicted on the “joint enterprise” doctrine. Practice in the Crown Court changed the very next day.

https://twitter.com/journalismseen/status/1985508368375492944

2/ There was no guidance on the matter before it was expected to be applied (guidance did follow, but on the basis this had been the law since the time of the judgment) and there was certainly no impact assessment or that sort of thing. The law was the law.

1/ I would remind the Government that For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers is both a judgment about sex based rights and homosexual rights thanks to the work of the Lesbian Intervenors. Delaying action on this judgment is anti-gay rights.

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1984245139750240519

2/ I'm referring specifically to paragraph 206 of the judgment in which the Law Lords find, as a matter of law, that the case of the Scottish Ministers would reduce the homosexuality protected characteristic to a state of meaninglessness. That is homophobic.

1/ It is irrational for the Secretary of State to impose upon the EHRC what she knows is a laborious and time consuming burden to put off the politically inevitable. The Supreme Court has ruled men are men and women are women, whether Labour backbenchers like that or not.

https://twitter.com/akuareindorf/status/1984024920603652592

2/ What we have here is this. The Supreme Court has reached a clear judgment. The Secretary of State knows it is sensible but fears her backbenchers. The Government would rather not have this row so has decided kicking this into the long grass is politically expedient.

1/ As the bitter tide of gender recedes, @stonewalluk have some introspection and apologising to do. They called lesbians "sexual racists", they cancelled and pilloried gay men, they engineered modern gay conversion by preaching children had the wrong bodies....wrong for what? 2/ The answer to that was "the wrong bodies to be heterosexuals", because the 2012 Tavistock patient survey told us the 80% of boys and 90% of girls were same sex attracted.

They had the "wrong bodies" to be straight.

Stonewall pushed this. They aided and abetted this.

1/ What a bitter harvest it is to win the gender wars. What a many better thing it would have been to have been wrong. There’s no great joy to being a veteran and saying “yes, you did chemically castrate gay and autistic youth, we were correct”. How empty this victory is. 2/ To win and see the crushing defeat of political transvestitism, the desire to displace sex in law with a feeling based on clothing. To see your society challenged by a force that sought nothing less than to crumble the 4 walls of reality on the weak. Because that’s what it was

1/ It takes a rather implacable and sustained commitment to delusion to imagine that the socially necessary instances of separation of the sexes - a constant in one form or another in all human societies in history - is something we can just toss aside being better enlightened. 2/ It is said that when you look into the abyss it peers back into you, and so it is fighting litigious transvestites and their cadre of modern day clerics, only we are looking into a deeply stupid philosophy and it makes us stupid peering back into us. Blokes ain’t ladies.

1/ The redoubtable and unsinkable @SVPhillimore can look after herself, but she won’t begrudge me I’m sure adding a few words in the wake of the sinking ship good laugh project and their joke “journalist” trying to silence a woman in public life yet again.

https://twitter.com/svphillimore/status/1960814839431094494

2/ Let’s be clear on that point, while they’ve recruited some compliant they/them “journalist” who quotes her own employer in her copy (LOL), the good laugh project often go for women whether it’s the lesbians of the LGB alliance or sneering at Allison Bailey.

1/ Would be Intervenors in the Supreme Court must obtain permission by demonstrating they are raising significant points of law of public importance. Here permission was rightly denied because the SC does not entertain anecdotes or repetition.

theguardian.com/society/2025/a… 2/ In this misleading Guardian piece McCould singularly fails to say that both the Scottish Government and Amnesty were raising precisely the same arguments he wanted to make. Both were extremely well funded and his anecdotes would add nothing in law.

1/ Where does one start with this? Russel has nothing to say when the Scottish Government argued in the Supreme Court that the protected characteristic of same sex attraction should be rendered “meaningless”. That threat to rights didn’t bother him

theguardian.com/media/2025/aug… 2/ Of course had he said something, he would have incurred the wrath of his new overlords, so he unthinkingly rails against people who object to children being taught that somehow they have the wrong bodies and need chemical and surgical interventions.

1/ This point is really bothering me and it's one Sall brought up in her interview last night. There's something really very sinister in terms of access to justice about going after someone for laughing at a pretty laughable question while being cross examined.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1946893710408729081

2/ In the original Giggle v Tickle trial, Counsel for the Tickle asked a fairly odd question about someone selling merchandise arising from the case, it was a candle and the scent was said to be that of "sweaty balls". It was a strange line of questioning.....

1/ I’m with Sall on all counts here and I share her optimism. Submission advocacy on a dry point of statutory construction is not the same as jury advocacy, and her impressive team capitalised on their opponent’s overreach to cast them as the ideological partisans they are.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1953247088747393372

2/ Sall’s team refrained from rewriting the statute, they accepted they couldn’t change the fact the Gillard government put gender identity into law and so they pivoted to the “section 7D” argument pointing out the act allows for ‘measures” to ensure equality between the sexes.

1/ This is very elegant point about implicit / explicit repeal which is likely to play well with small C conservative judges.

It works like this : The Gillard Government removed the definition of sex from the federal discrimination act and inserted gender identity.

https://twitter.com/katkarena/status/1952515388388045247

2/ Now this is the central goal of trans activism, for gender identity to replace sex and for all sex based protections to fall away. This creates a sort of biological anarchy where women are defined as clothing and haircuts and lesbians can’t meet without males.

1/ At the heart of Giggle v Tickle is a somewhat absurd question, “what are the consequences of removing sex from the federal sex discrimination act 1984 and replacing it with gender identity?”. So far the answer is basically “nothing good”.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1879449789991133680

2/ As matters stand in Australian law, sex is not immutable and can be changed in law without resort to even a gender recognition certificate equivalent because of the wide and circular definition of gender identity. Appearances have more rights than bodies.