Round-up

Monday morning round-up

By on
11

The top legal affairs news stories from this morning and the weekend

Legal news stories

Legal bid launched to stop Boris Johnson deleting WhatsApp messages about Covid decisions [Independent]

Will changes to how law in England and Wales treats rape bring justice to survivors? [The Guardian]

A corporate lawyer on why personal style has a place at work [The Telegraph]

My degree is at risk… because I said women have vaginas: How a mother-of-two law student is facing disciplinary action from a university after speaking out during seminar on transgender issues (in a woke new world you thought couldn’t get crazier) [Mail Online]

SFO in the dock as miner hits back at troubled fraud squad [The Telegraph]

Bill that would make assisted dying legal to be debated in Lords amid claims of ‘huge public support’ [Sky News]

Driffield crossbow killing: Victim to fight on for law change [BBC News]

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

Court allows Suez Canal to keep holding Ever Given [Reuters]

Scotland’s most senior law officer James Wolffe resigns [STV News]

Hilarious moment Bradford law student has to call fire brigade after getting arm wedged in steering wheel [Yorkshire Live]

Trump’s revenge: tilting of supreme court to the right poised to bear fruit [The Guardian]

Epic Games Lawyer Jokes About Hoping His iPhone Still Works After Tim Cook Testimony in Antitrust Trial [Complex]

“Definitely the mentorship aspect has taken a hit, no more popping your head in the door to a partner and asking a question. It is pretty isolating. Not to mention, my client facing skills – small talk, knowing how to add filler or avoid a question tactically is suffering big time.” [Legal Cheek comments]

SIGN UP NOW! How to fund your SQE [Legal Cheek Events]

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

11 Comments

Interested 2 know what u think

After a thesis-long article by the the Daily Mail I still struggle to understand the degree to which the law student was disputing transgender identities and invalidating trans people (as opposed to just answering a question in the simple way she thought about it: “someone with a vagina”). Nonetheless, complaining about “not even knowing what you can say anymore” is a direct insult to your own intelligence, social awareness and compassion.

While I stand with the law student because I think withholding her degree is going too far, I despise the idea that today’s world is so “woke” you will get “cancelled” if you say “the truth”. It is simply not necessary to agree with or understand transgender people for you to respect them, and pointing out that biological sex exists simply isn’t a surprise to anyone nor an excuse to offend trans individuals.

(1)(8)

Barry

“It is simply not necessary to agree with or understand transgender people for you to respect them”.

The issue is that it is extremists who are deciding what is and is not respectful. While most reasonable people would not go out their way to insult or attack another person, when you have an entire group who seem to believe stated an objective fact (such as their sex) is tantamount to violence, only the initiated know what is and is not considered disrespectful.

My list for someone to be considered respectful is to leave me alone and not attack me. For the trans extremists the requirements for respectful means you must use their preferred language, you must accept their statements of subjective truth, or you are a bigot.

Comments like yours add to the issue. You would give way and seemingly imply the law student in question should have been more compassionate and respectful toward trans people. I ask you why? Why should one class of people be required to be treated with kit gloves?

This is the reason why they are attempting to compel speech, because people like you permit it in the name of compassion and awareness.. lets call it what it is, enablement.

(7)(0)

Interested 2 know what u think

Not 100% sure I’m answering your comment, but in my ideal world everyone would be “treated with kid gloves”.

The law student shouldn’t have to use different language and shouldn’t be disciplined, and I agree that if someone doesn’t bother you they have crossed the threshold for being “respectful”, while at the same time I see how using “inclusive” language (in this case could be “biologically this but gender-wise anyone who identifies as a woman”) could be beneficial to trans people while not harming anyone else. (Also, I know this is an overplayed argument but her language wasn’t even a “fact” since there are *biological women* with vaginal agenesis etc.)

Basically, no one “has to” or should face consequences for not using “sjw” language all the time, I just think it’s nice and it costs nothing (and like I said in my original comment is not hard to figure out)

(0)(3)

Coperknickers

The SJWs have sought to impose their extremist fiction as reality and it has to stop. Most right-minded ordinary Brits agree with the views of the student. Trans policy has been dictated by a lunatic fringe of fundamentalists. People are free to call the Moon “Jupiter” if they want to, but they should not be allowed to threaten and bully others who want to say “That is not Jupiter it is the Moon, you pillock”.

(13)(1)

Probably unpublishable as not Woke enough

There is no objective “truth” about trans people though.

The law says you will be recognised if you have a certificate of gender dysphoria.

The law does not recognise “self identification”.

Science has shown that XX and XY chromosomes exist.

Why should someone be penalised for speaking objective truths?

And what if a person identifies as a different species? How far do we go in respecting that?

Khadijah

Wow and yet nothing on the largest protest this country has seen on the Palestinian peoples plight….a humanitarian crisis supported across all borders….how many more lives must be taken for press cover and an accurate record at that?

(6)(6)

Applause

Thank you for highlighting such an important world event. The deaths of innocent children in this horrible conflict is heartbreaking and is a fact the world should know.

No mention in any of the legal press (outside of The Times) about the Bar Human Rights Council recently being pressured by some barristers to drop public support for Palestinians.

I was really hoping ‘Billable Hour’ would offer to raise much needed funds for Palestinians too, as they previously have for ‘Save The Children’ in Yemen and Syria.

How many more lives?

(2)(0)

A

The far right regime in Israel has managed to effectively conflate criticisms of its oppression and mass imprisonment of the Palestinians and the murder of their children into something entirely unrelated, namely anti-semitism. It is nonsense, of course. It is no more anti-Semitic than criticising Donald Trump was anti-Christian.

(2)(1)

Applause

As an analogy, I can support England’s right to exist and at the same time be absolutely furious about what happened to the 116 children at Aberfan killed by England’s National Coal Board.

I’m amazed any barristers could argue differently.

(1)(0)

Anon

You can support England’s right to exist, Wales’s right to exist if it wants it, and be appalled by both Aberfan and the hypothetical blockade and effective imprisonment of the Welsh people by the English government. A sticky issue is that bit of Wales which the English have been building houses on like crazy in recent years and filling it with psychotic English ultra-nationalists…

Applause

Exactly. But there were barristers claiming that in such circumstances, it would be wrong to call one side ‘good’ and another ‘evil’. That such language made them scared.

Almost as if semantics, rather than the real lives and deaths of children, was more important.

Eyebrow-raising stuff.

Comments are closed.

Related Stories