Peter Daly

Highlighted section of article: “Research shows that lesbians are at higher risk of rape, sexual assault and sexual victimisation than other groups, including heterosexual women and gay men. These risks decrease when lesbians have good social support.”

The research Akua refers to - which was put before the Supreme Court - was conducted by @matildagosling.bsky.social on behalf of the Lesbian Project and is linked below (this is just one of several papers in the series)

www.thelesbianproject.co.uk/resources/le...

@akuareindorfkc.bsky.social on the pending For Women Scotland judgment, and its essential importance for lesbians.

Karon Monaghan KC and Beth Grossman instructed in the case on behalf of Scottish Lesbians, LGB Alliance and the Lesbian Project

(Share Token)

t.co/RQ4wp9TZLk

There should be no consolation whatsoever found in the fact that, besides Scotland, these issues have manifested elsewhere. We live only once. The lives of many have been damaged, indelibly, because organisations entrusted by the public to uphold their rights and keep them safe abandoned their mandates. Should it come as a surprise, if support drains from the political ‘mainstream’ against this backdrop? The wider institutional and cultural pathologies that have found their most recent expression in the Peggie case and responses to it must be urgently addressed – or belief in the value of democratic institutions may be the last casualty.

Remarkable article by a Commissioner of the Scottish Human Rights Commission (albeit written in a personal capacity):

www.holyrood.com/comment/view...

Baroness Cass: 'I don't have time for keyboard warriors in their basements' The Cass Review into NHS gender services for children opened up the national conversation on this controversial subject, and divided opinion. Its a...

She gave another interview, published today, which also makes reference to the “Yale” blog: www.politicshome.com/thehouse/art...

Please help grow the BlueSky community of UK based criminal lawyers by Reposting this.

If you would like to be added to the list, please ask.

go.bsky.app/AFdD66T

It is... not good... that sharing an article published in The Economist is flagged by moderation as "intolerance".

Guardian and Observer journalists have asked people not to share Guardian stories for 48 hours from midnight tonight (Tues), to respect their strike and the virtual picket line

The CA has given permission to appeal in Barton Turns v Treadwell, the HHJ Martyn Barklem judgment which ignored Wicked Vision & followed the orthodox position on Osipov. It's been consolidated with Wicked Vision for hearing next October to allow the CA to bring back clarity (1 way or another)

I lost this ring in the toilets in Bounce in Farringdon tonight. It’s hardly worth anything, but it’s a ring my dad gave my mum and it’s priceless to me now that he’s not here. It’s gold, with a diagonal band of green stones on it. If you find it can you please get it back to me

FWS v Scottish Ministers: what to read before the hearing - The hearing next week before the Supreme Court of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers is a big deal. Previous cases in the appellate courts have had serious implications for the impact of gender r...

I've done a quick round-up of pre-reading for anyone interested in following FWS v Scottish Ministers next week: www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/23/f...

I haven't been able to find any substantial commentary arguing that SG should win. Please link in reply if you know of any, and I'll add it.

Utterly absurd, and wrong, that this post is marked by @bsky.app as "intolerance". In reality it consists of links to serious legal analysis, from someone whose opinion you might agree or disagree with.

After the FW outer house decision I had a conversation with @naomicunningham.bsky.social where she suggested the interpretation now essentially that argued by Sex Matters. At that point she was I think a lone voice. But review of the issues of interpretation makes her argument more & more compelling

For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent): supreme court hearing – statement of case Statement of Case for the Scottish Ministers and Lord Advocate to the Supreme Court regarding the For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) hearing.

The Scottish Government has now published its submission, which can be accessed here. www.gov.scot/publications...

This gives me far too much credit. It was Maya Forstater who first persuaded me that there had to be a respectable argument that the GRA didn't stick its spanner into the works of the EqA; and @michaelpforan.bsky.social who did the detailed doctrinal work of putting that argument together.

UK Supreme Court to decide "what is a woman?" A detailed look at the arguments

He gets more than his fair share of abuse, we disagree often, but this piece by @michaelpforan.bsky.social is the best lawyering that I have read this week, in any field.

It is detailed, but changed my view on "What is a Woman" in law

knowingius.org/p/uk-supreme...

There’s no verification on this site, so it’s hard to be sure what you’re looking at.

The Kemi Badenoch account on here is fake, her team tell me

Why I’m suing Survivors' Network Rape victims need female-only spaces

Followed the crowd here 🐑 I like it so far. I’m making a legal challenge to the Sussex rape crisis centre to try and secure single sex rape crisis therapy for women unherd.com/2022/07/why-...

More people are seeing what I’ve been saying. Don’t blindly subscribe to blocklists, block individual accounts, if you subscribe to a blocklist then monitor it frequently as it will change. Many are weaponized to include people who shouldn’t be there to silence & social engineer this space

Many of the claims made for this place are doubtless justified. But note how @naomicunningham.bsky.social ‘s posts are labelled ‘intolerant’. You won’t see them in full unless you click on them. When you do, you discover a statement of fact. Something to bear in mind, I think.

Audrey Ludwig: ‘Poverty means you are one moment away from disaster’ The lawyer tells Catherine Baksi how she founded the Suffolk Law Centre to help those who cannot access legal advice

And a lovely interview of one of employment law’s great clear thinkers and social media’s great explainers of discrimination law @audreysuffolk.bsky.social

www.thetimes.com/article/9ad7...

this letter to the FT says: Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/ab358521-8d7e-424a-92c7-349155b08e79 Far from “protecting the family farm”, as claimed by Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (Opinion, FT.com, November 5), the inheritance tax loophole on farmland, introduced in 1984, simply pushed up the price of land without improving returns to active farmers. This is because, like most agricultural subsidies, the value of the relief was capitalised into land values. As tax planners cottoned on to its role as a licence to avoid IHT, they advised their super-rich clients to buy land and take advantage of it. In the 20 years to 2012, the price of farmland increased fourfold. This turned landowning farmers into millionaires but — especially since land represents a cost of production — did no good to the incomes of food producers. It created impoverished millionaires who claimed a need for more support. At the same time, because more expensive land had to be squeezed even harder for the last drop of revenue, the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture was made worse. Taking at least some of this tax loophole away will do no harm to family farmers but will help both public revenues and the environment. Just a shame the relief was not wholly abolished. Paul Cheshire Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography London School of Economics, London N7, UK

letter to the FT

Turns out a hardcore of keyboard warriors here have caused everything written by @naomicunningham.bsky.social to be branded as intolerant. Including this, about a free to use app.

Utterly spineless by @bsky.app and a pathetic example of pusillanimity