Ah! I see Robin Moira White is a Trans Identifying Male. And, I infer, a Trans Activist. Generally I find them not to be the most self-controlled individuals - maybe that's the score here?
Unfortunately the world has gone mad. Aristotle stated that "the law is reason unaffected by desire", but Stonewall say "the law is desire unaffected by reason".
My understanding is that, if there is an active case and each party has legal representation, one side's lawyers should not contact the other side other than through their legal representatives. Very very unethical to engage with the opposition directly.
Yes, it's completely inappropriate. You should never contact the opposing party directly if you know she or he is legally represented. But even if Allison Bailey were representing herself, it's deeply weird and unprofessional to force your way into her online conversations this way. I hope she or her lawyers raise it with the Court and the Bar Council because this is outrageous.
I work in criminal law and have other crim lawyers as FB friends, but will not engage in discussions about current cases either publicly or by PM with them. I think it's terribly dangerous territory. I once got a Facebook PM from opposing Counsel (I was the instructing solicitor so she should have been contacting my barrister anyway) about a trial we were involved in and wouldn't answer it. If another practitioner wants to contact me about one of my cases, use my work email, thanks.
I’m sure that the unprofessional appearance on to a social media site of a Plaintiff, regardless that the matter under discussion isn’t the case that he’s involved in, should mean that he’s in breach of Something!?!
I geekily had a look at his profile page ... there’s a Book, imminent!! Perhaps he’s trying to market it by spreading his views around?!
Well ethics can’t be in your vocabulary when you are representing an organisation whose raison d’etre now seems to be the facilitation of the sexual abuse of young lesbians and the exploitation of the mentally ill.
Surely he should now be kicked off the case. This is harrassment in the circumstances. He's not supposed to have any direct contact with AB outside the strict legal requirements of the case. Hope Bailey's legal reps throw the book at him.
Trans people are protected and can get away with anything and out of any situation. I bet half the judges are transbangers, there will be no issue here
There is the military view of everything "Know your enemy". I admit it only works for a while, as Napoleon found out, but knowing your enemy means seeing how they respond to certain things. Someone who is impulsive and prone to outbursts due to lack of restraint is easily overwhelmed by tactics they never suspected would be deployed. They give away a lot of information they didnt mean to. It is best not to let them know you are onto them and let them keep doing what they do. If you are trying to defeat an impulsive enemy just let them keep running around giving away more about themselves than learning about you. Be wise, talk a lot without saying much. Learn when to strike. In this case it would be best to just let them carry on and on and strike in the courts turning their words and actions against them
The TIM is using a DARVO tactic. The University of Essex said something to the effect that Stonewall is spreading lies by insisting that the law is what it wants it to be, not what the law actually is.
Ah! I see Robin Moira White is a Trans Identifying Male. And, I infer, a Trans Activist. Generally I find them not to be the most self-controlled individuals - maybe that's the score here?
Unfortunately the world has gone mad. Aristotle stated that "the law is reason unaffected by desire", but Stonewall say "the law is desire unaffected by reason".
Robin has a tendency to also shoehorn himself into threads on Mumsnet and constantly behaves in a very unprofessional and petty manner.
My understanding is that, if there is an active case and each party has legal representation, one side's lawyers should not contact the other side other than through their legal representatives. Very very unethical to engage with the opposition directly.
Yes, it's completely inappropriate. You should never contact the opposing party directly if you know she or he is legally represented. But even if Allison Bailey were representing herself, it's deeply weird and unprofessional to force your way into her online conversations this way. I hope she or her lawyers raise it with the Court and the Bar Council because this is outrageous.
I work in criminal law and have other crim lawyers as FB friends, but will not engage in discussions about current cases either publicly or by PM with them. I think it's terribly dangerous territory. I once got a Facebook PM from opposing Counsel (I was the instructing solicitor so she should have been contacting my barrister anyway) about a trial we were involved in and wouldn't answer it. If another practitioner wants to contact me about one of my cases, use my work email, thanks.
But good news that Allison's opposing legal team will be shite quality.
He's another cluster B narc (arent they all) who's hubris knows no bounds -
I’m sure that the unprofessional appearance on to a social media site of a Plaintiff, regardless that the matter under discussion isn’t the case that he’s involved in, should mean that he’s in breach of Something!?!
I geekily had a look at his profile page ... there’s a Book, imminent!! Perhaps he’s trying to market it by spreading his views around?!
http://www.lawbriefpublishing.com/product/transgenderlaw/
Well ethics can’t be in your vocabulary when you are representing an organisation whose raison d’etre now seems to be the facilitation of the sexual abuse of young lesbians and the exploitation of the mentally ill.
Surely he should now be kicked off the case. This is harrassment in the circumstances. He's not supposed to have any direct contact with AB outside the strict legal requirements of the case. Hope Bailey's legal reps throw the book at him.
Trans people are protected and can get away with anything and out of any situation. I bet half the judges are transbangers, there will be no issue here
But Graham, narcissism trumps all boundaries, including professional ones. Didn't you know that?
I don't know about the UK but in the US that is NOT OK. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_parte
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4166666-50-50-Parliament-Campaign-to-Encourage-Women-in-Politics-now-have-TWO-Transwomen-on-the-Panel
RMW turned up in the 50:50 Parliamentary Campaign to encourage women into politics, AND on the thread on Feminism Chat to discuss it. Boundaries...
There is the military view of everything "Know your enemy". I admit it only works for a while, as Napoleon found out, but knowing your enemy means seeing how they respond to certain things. Someone who is impulsive and prone to outbursts due to lack of restraint is easily overwhelmed by tactics they never suspected would be deployed. They give away a lot of information they didnt mean to. It is best not to let them know you are onto them and let them keep doing what they do. If you are trying to defeat an impulsive enemy just let them keep running around giving away more about themselves than learning about you. Be wise, talk a lot without saying much. Learn when to strike. In this case it would be best to just let them carry on and on and strike in the courts turning their words and actions against them
The TIM is using a DARVO tactic. The University of Essex said something to the effect that Stonewall is spreading lies by insisting that the law is what it wants it to be, not what the law actually is.