@coplawyer.bsky.social
No mention or even consideration of intersex people at all! I'm just so bloody angry.
April 16, 2025 at 2:57 PM
No mention or even consideration of intersex people at all! I'm just so bloody angry.
The judgment just seems crap, like the "only possible interpretation" arguments that they use to make massively prejudiced statements at the end are just... Embarrassing. Shameful and embarrassing. If they mean phenotype then fucking learn the word.
April 16, 2025 at 2:51 PM
The judgment just seems crap, like the "only possible interpretation" arguments that they use to make massively prejudiced statements at the end are just... Embarrassing. Shameful and embarrassing. If they mean phenotype then fucking learn the word.
Paragraph 172. "Sex Based Rights" is a massive transphobic dog whistle.
The general mentioning of lesbians as well, even though they are statistically the most trans-inclusive demographics.
The general mentioning of lesbians as well, even though they are statistically the most trans-inclusive demographics.
April 16, 2025 at 2:51 PM
Paragraph 172. "Sex Based Rights" is a massive transphobic dog whistle.
The general mentioning of lesbians as well, even though they are statistically the most trans-inclusive demographics.
The general mentioning of lesbians as well, even though they are statistically the most trans-inclusive demographics.
It's my professional view that it is intellectually lazy, factually incorrect and just plain embarrassing that the supreme court has failed to learn even the most basic of helpful terms like "phenotype".
April 16, 2025 at 2:45 PM
It's my professional view that it is intellectually lazy, factually incorrect and just plain embarrassing that the supreme court has failed to learn even the most basic of helpful terms like "phenotype".
The massive demand on children's services is just a sign that they have not been funded correctly for years, but neither have the preventative measures either. This is cancelling sure start and lower benefits all coming home to roost.
It is however different from the legal aspect of DoLs.
It is however different from the legal aspect of DoLs.
November 16, 2024 at 11:20 PM
The massive demand on children's services is just a sign that they have not been funded correctly for years, but neither have the preventative measures either. This is cancelling sure start and lower benefits all coming home to roost.
It is however different from the legal aspect of DoLs.
It is however different from the legal aspect of DoLs.
This is different from an unregulated children's placement, which is the real travesty.
Families a few decades ago who would not have fallen into deprivation would not find their children being taken into care, but these numbers are unfortunately always going up.
Families a few decades ago who would not have fallen into deprivation would not find their children being taken into care, but these numbers are unfortunately always going up.
November 16, 2024 at 11:20 PM
This is different from an unregulated children's placement, which is the real travesty.
Families a few decades ago who would not have fallen into deprivation would not find their children being taken into care, but these numbers are unfortunately always going up.
Families a few decades ago who would not have fallen into deprivation would not find their children being taken into care, but these numbers are unfortunately always going up.
Only that the restrictions arising from that placement need to be independently reviewed.
I am certain that these types of restrictions have always been placed on young or other vulnerable people, it is only in the last ten years that the court has had oversight. That is not a good or bad thing.
I am certain that these types of restrictions have always been placed on young or other vulnerable people, it is only in the last ten years that the court has had oversight. That is not a good or bad thing.
November 16, 2024 at 11:20 PM
Only that the restrictions arising from that placement need to be independently reviewed.
I am certain that these types of restrictions have always been placed on young or other vulnerable people, it is only in the last ten years that the court has had oversight. That is not a good or bad thing.
I am certain that these types of restrictions have always been placed on young or other vulnerable people, it is only in the last ten years that the court has had oversight. That is not a good or bad thing.
This process is overseen and reviewed by a judge or independent body. It is not easy or straightforward but a last resort to keep someone safe. It is legally necessary in many instances.
A DoL does not automatically mean the placement is poor or that it is unsuitable.
A DoL does not automatically mean the placement is poor or that it is unsuitable.
November 16, 2024 at 11:20 PM
This process is overseen and reviewed by a judge or independent body. It is not easy or straightforward but a last resort to keep someone safe. It is legally necessary in many instances.
A DoL does not automatically mean the placement is poor or that it is unsuitable.
A DoL does not automatically mean the placement is poor or that it is unsuitable.
As others have said, it is the end result of austerity.
I do have to say though, two things have been conflated here I think are quite separate.
A DOL is the lawful basis under which a person can be deprived of their article 5 right to liberty.
I do have to say though, two things have been conflated here I think are quite separate.
A DOL is the lawful basis under which a person can be deprived of their article 5 right to liberty.
November 16, 2024 at 11:20 PM
As others have said, it is the end result of austerity.
I do have to say though, two things have been conflated here I think are quite separate.
A DOL is the lawful basis under which a person can be deprived of their article 5 right to liberty.
I do have to say though, two things have been conflated here I think are quite separate.
A DOL is the lawful basis under which a person can be deprived of their article 5 right to liberty.