I don’t know if anyone will ever read this. I’m a new account with very few followers. If anyone sees this and considers it worthy of an RT I’d be grateful: I so much want to be heard, if only this once.
I wrote about why feminists who differentiate between sex and gender aren't to blame for sex denialism (because apparently this isn't glaringly obvious) https://t.co/fzbFAD5lOV
Simple: women are tattooed with bioluminescent dyes in patterns of dots that are visible to trained squids posted in aquatic panopticons at every entrance.
The squids activate an electromagnetic door release, thereby restricting entrance to women only.
That's how we've always done it.
I mean this is fair but I can say why. Every single Justice Secretary in the last couple of decades have had officials tell them that curtailing jury trials is fabulous idea. They’ve all resisted b ur @DavidLammy fell for it. That’s the truth of this. Make no mistake. 1/2
We need to get a grip fast. And stop being marched up hills only to be marched back down again. This jury stuff is a classic example @SteveReedMP it won’t work, it’s unjust and unpopular but unless the PM gets a grip fast we will be U-turning in the new year. I support the PM.1/2
I wrote about why politicians who won't stand up to those shouting anti-feminist abuse at 'dinosaur' older women can hardly expect vulnerable boys to challenge the sexism of their peers https://t.co/agtz9zAhcy
Empty docks, shuttered courtrooms, missing evidence - The real reasons for London’s crippling court delays
My long read for @standardnews
https://t.co/6ndTcYoMce
A few days ago, David Lammy wrote a letter to the Justice Committee answering some questions about his proposals to restrict jury trial.
This is a welcome step.
It’s a telling letter.
But not for the reasons you might think.
🪡 🧵
Reconsidering this, I think that I've given too much benefit of the doubt to the Tribunal. I think the suggestion that the Tribunal always wanted to find against Peggie is not unfair after all. It is simply a description of what actually happened.
And, after years of arguing tax law with HMRC, I even recognise the technique. You create a word salad of plausible sounding reasons that refer to the parts of the law in question, but your points rely on unusual or unconventional interpretations of the statute or judicial dicta. Normally, you would do this not because you expected to win but because you wanted to spin things out and muddy the waters in the hope that you could eventually agree a more advantageous deal.
However, when I do this, I'm doing it because I have an obligation to my clients to get the best solution for them, regardless of whether or not I actually believe in it. The major issue here is that the Tribunal, who should have been neutral, have actually prepared the case that should have been presented by the lawyers for NHS Fife, and then presented it as a judgement. The result is bizarrely one-sided and seeks desperately to confuse matters by trying to complicate, for example, the House of Lords FWS ruling, and seems to simply defy common sense in its interpretation of what actually happened. @WingsScotland has an excellent analysis at https://t.co/4Jmkzlr2La
Don't be tricked.
Let me be crystal clear about any suggestion that Leveson's jury-abolition plan is a "compromise".
Leveson would just be an irreversible step towards total jury abolition.
We should not give an inch on this issue.
Not one person should lose any existing right to elect trial by jury.
Leveson is just a charade, a stalking horse and a testing of the water.
This is not a u-turn but a J-turn to a magistrates court on steroids.
Fight it with everything you have got.
#NoToLeveson
We were in the EU for less than 50 years and we got a referendum on it. We've had jury trial for over 800 years; perhaps the people should get a say in retaining it?
Here’s a list of world leaders (Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Khomeini, Maduro, Assad etc) who abolished jury trials and the dates they. It now includes British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2025.
Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.
The Government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe.
Not wanting a man in the women’s locker room so that women feel safe is NOT transphobic. My defending a woman that was verbally assaulted by a man convicted of domestic violence breaking his ex-wife’s jaw, is NOT transphobic. If it was you or your daughter, you would feel the same. Enough is enough.
Martine Croxall’s eye-roll spoke for a nation. It is time for the BBC to follow its own impartiality rules. My @thetimes column.
https://t.co/Fvq8p6aUkI