Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

Can't help but think that if anything dodgy was going on financially that there would be some CCJ's floating around somewhere though

An excellent point IamNotInvisible

If a company has debts and does not pay them then, ultimately, that may end with CCJ.s

Q. What if the purpose of the company set up is not to buy goods or services? ( Theoretically speaking)
Q. What if I were to set up a company for, ( theoretically speaking) say, giving legal advice to people with "hurty feelings".

A PROPER solicitors firm might say, "Invisible, sorry that XX said your bum looked big in them there trousers, and here is a hanky to dry your tears, but you have no chance of a hurty feelz court case or for claiming constructive dismissal for your office flounce"

BirdseyeBoffin Limited might say, "sure, hurty feelz are literal violence and we will huff and puff till we blow their house down and give us some dosh. The [apply relevant descriptor here] Bastards.!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take 20%"
Nope. Can't see any CCJ's there.

Disclaimer:
All characters are fictitious and any resemblance to actual persons either living or dead is purely coincidence and not literal violence. Honest Guv dib dib dob.

We may need a thread on the money/finance boards re the wider issue of company formations and uses, if anyone does it, post a link. Ta.

Jack

Getting so confused now doxxing, and Father Ted.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6222135/Bafta-award-winning-creator-Father-Ted-reported-police-online-row-transgender-activist.html

If there is a libel court case, is that something as the defendant you have to pay for yourself?

Note to self: Jack, if you ever lose your mind, change your gender and name & pretend to be a lawyer, don't make the same stupid mistake as the Flying Lawyer and make vexatious legal threats to members of Mumsnet. You'll regret it, not least because in such a context you're stupid and they're smart.

Further, should you ever find yourself in such a position in life, don't live under the delusion that changing your legal name / gender erases your past, your connection to your financial & criminal records or the myriad of public posts you freely plastered all over the Internet (thus into the Public Domain) for everyone to see.

Doing so will just be digging a deeper hole for yourself & will make you look like an even bigger CLOWN SHOES than you did beforehand.

Be smart, Jack, and don't be like the Flying Lawer. 👍

It's not SH suggesting it Popchyk . Am too cautious to add the link or even be explicit. Cowardly feminist here.

This quote from Steph is so very telling

"The process is not laborious per se but just a little admin intensive. Get the bureaucracy right and the system can be a 'cake walk' IMO!"

"I see there is twitter talk of taking up a class action."

Great. Now you just need someone to be in charge of the donations to fund the case. I think that person should probably be someone who identifies as a professional. And should be the person who instigated the idea of a class action.

I genuinely don't foresee that person running off with the money and assuming a new identity.

BreakWindandFire - yes, those companies would be the ones. Had thought it a just coincidence that Peter Francis Halliday and Jamie Chambers were both born Dec 1982 though.

Betty and BirdsEye, thanks for the explanation as to why someone could feel the need for so many companies, was blindingly obvious once it was laid out in front of me. If accounts aren't due, and names/director numbers are different, then on a quick check it makes a company look totally legit - just a new company. Can't help but think that if anything dodgy was going on financially that there would be some CCJ's floating around somewhere though.

As for Stephanie's latest company which has the SIC code for solicitor - there's no evidence I've found yet of that company trading. She repeatedly refers to herself as being a 'lawyer' presumably courtesy of her recently completed LLB at Birkbeck. Can we extrapolate that the idea of the new company may be to add a bit more weight to her litigious threats? Or am I overthinking. If this company doesn't advertise or trade, then no one notices if the incorrect SIC code has been used and no harm done?

I'm still not quite sure what relevance all this background info has on this person's behaviour on twitter, which I believe is the main objection? Surely dredging all this up is a form of ad hominem attack?

I see there is twitter talk of taking up a class action.

Look, here's another example of wrongthink you can add to your list.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3423318-Male-police-officers-can-intimately-search-women-New-guidance

ps When you check on a company with Companies House.
There is a handy little blue sentence bottom left of link which says "is there anything wrong with this entry?"
Pedants Corner dream.
It has to be fairly concise, but no name of corrector required.
beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11516925

Jeez! Thanks BreakWindandFire!
I do hope certain people are looking in! Must stop by the GP as my jaw seems to be dragging on the ground. On second thoughts... I'll go to my dentist.

I posted on the Harrop thread so will keep it shorter here.

If "Steph" was trading as man in 2016, my view is that their GRC (if there is one, no law says you have to have one) is from abroad.

You can apply to have a foreign GRC (different rules) as evidence for a UK GRC using an "Overseas" application, faster track in effect.

The London company which is listed as active is described as a "solicitors" ( bottom left of screen on link) NOT a lawyers/legal firm.
beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11516925

Stephanie Hayden is the only Officer. Stephanie Hayden is not a solicitor.

Which probably explains all the vituperation from" Steph" and on a now deleted thread.

Right, off to do some work, have a nice day all!

The thing is Stephanie can have no objection to us discussing this.

Because in 2016 Stephanie (as Tony Halliday) was Secretary of the organisation 'The London Union' (aka London Students for Free Speech").

Steph was responsible for minuting all debates, emergency debates, Standing Committee, Open and General Meetings and writing the weekly newsletters.

Steph was clearly passionate about supporting free speech and allowing open debate on topical matters of the moment.

Steph (as Tony) was also Secretary of the London University Brexit Society in 2016. So busy!

As an aside, The President of the London Union was a chap called Luke Nash-Jones. A google of him throws up some 'interesting' results. He was suspended by UKIP in August after being accused of being part of a mob who trashed a left-wing bookshop.

MyEyes, thanks for that. I have yet to see that any of the companies set up by Steph have filed any returns or confirmation statements. This id going back a long time.

Do you happen to know why you would give a large statement of capital at incorporation? Most small companies have a nominal amount of capital declared.

It’s not clear whether some of the companies mentioned were actively trading. There doesn’t need to be any great conspiracy involved in a company being dissolved. It can come down to poor admin.

Often, someone who is self employed will open a limited company as a means of legitimately minimising the amount income tax to be paid for example.

In SRH Law mentioned above, from the filing, it appears the company was passively dissolved by CH prior to the due date of any accounts as opposed to an active dissolution pursued by the directors. No DS01 has been filed which is the form directors use to instruct CH to dissolve.

Ltd Company accounts are due 9 months after the end of the trading period, May 18 in this case, or longer if the trading period is to be greater than 12 months. However the confirmation statement is due 12 months after incorporation. So Sept 17. Failure to submit a confirmation statement will lead to CH to strike the company off and it is possible for a company to be struck before final accounts submission date.

It is technically an offence to not file a confirmation statement or submit accounts under the Companies Act. But small fry very unlikely to be pursued unless other factors involved. If it happens multiple times, could be disqualified from being a director, potentially. But if someone changes their name, well, I dunno.

Something to look at is what SIC (standard industrial classification) the company is registered as as this is supposed to accurately reflect the economic activity of the company. Someone using the Solicitor code may potentially be misleading if they are not an actual solicitor but a 'lawyer' instead. In which case they would be advised to use the appropriate SIC like Legal Services. Of course they may employ real solicitors. The SRA really don’t like people purporting to be solicitors when they’re not, I believe.

So, even in February 2016, Hayden was still a man? When was the GRC awarded? Seems they managed to secure it quick.

We're always told that men would never go to such lengths to abuse the system...

It is truly fascinating, isn't it. I have looked up companies house stuff for some CF would be developers before and it was nothing like on this industrial scale (they had also been in court for criminal convictions but got off by arguing the toss ).

With all the changing of names and location and company, you can see why a legal change of gender and name is so inviting, the right to forget and avoiding deadnaming.

Thanks Betty
You can also write references for others via the company, have a bank account in the company name, hold and sell assets in the company name etc etc

A company, is in effect, an artificial legal person. I'd put the dictionary definition on a poster but .. it can sue, and be sued, make contracts, buy and sell property in it's own right.
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/artificial-person.html

At a certain rate of income into the company, or under certain circumstances, it should be registered for VAT.

Obtaining credit/running up debts/avoiding creditors/preventing employees from gaining entitlement to maternity pay etc (because they haven’t been continuously employed long enough to qualify).

Thank you, Betty, for this explantion. It is so blindingly obvious, once you spell it out, but it definitely took your explanation for me to wrap my head around it.

Funny that they don't threaten legal action against The Times or the DM or Guardian for all their gender critical articles and journalists. But they threaten to go after a forum full of (mainly) women.

Wonder why that is? I mean if they had a good case they'd go after the big profile national paper wouldn't they? Surely this can't be a simple case of trying to bully and silence women?

Does anyone know what the point is of setting up so many companies, file no accounts, allow the company to be dissolved and then just set up another one?

Obtaining credit/running up debts/avoiding creditors/preventing employees from gaining entitlement to maternity pay etc (because they haven’t been continuously employed long enough to qualify).

Forming a limited company means you aren’t personally responsible for repayment, and once you’ve hit your credit limit you can close down the company and open another one - www.gov.uk/government/publications/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_company

Using partners or family members as ‘shadow directors’ is an associated practice.

For the record:

www.lampandowl.co.uk/campus/news-on-campus/welfare-bbkelects/