Update on my case, and on exactly how much Girlguiding is spending of their money

It looks to me, as a complete legal ignoramus, that GGUK is spending in such an OTT way to try to frighten Katie into dropping the case out of fear of having to pay the other party's legal fees. I would be interested in what legal experts have to say on this matter.

Me too. Surely it can't be legal to do this - it's clearly intended to intimidate. And, as Katie has shown, so many lawyers was not needed. Surely you can't just spend 10x the needed costs as an intimidation tactic?.

It's David and Goliath for sure.

Thank you Katie. It must be so stressful.
I guess doing the right thing is what girlguiding is meant to be all about.
Will do some more digging when I find the hole!

It looks to me, as a complete legal ignoramus, that GGUK is spending in such an OTT way to try to frighten Katie into dropping the case out of fear of having to pay the other party's legal fees.

I would be interested in what legal experts have to say on this matter.

Why are you trying to police other people posting about their experiences? Di somebody put you in charge of MN?

It's another thread about the same old thing.

I thought this thread had been deleted? Or have you started other threads on the same subject @KatieAlcock

There are lots of things wrong with this, but if you can't take in the subtler stuff just consider that they plan to have mixed sex sleeping/showering on any trips and everyone is forbidden to tell the parents.

if there was an assault they'd be complicit.

Bumping, placemarking, etc

@MindTheMinotaur I’m so sorry to hear you experienced this

I think you should consider contacting the police and reporting this to ceops as a historical abuse case. It just isn’t good enough for the organisation to say they can’t investigate this.

For sure, but then surely the onus is on GGUK and their PR boss to think about how this case looks. I support this case and I think it's important GGUK try to defend their position because the only way this will stop is if they are told to stop. Otherwise they'll just keep being pushed towards mixed sex and won't be able to say no. I want the courts to say no, so GGUK can say no. I want the EA exemptions to be used because of the unique environment GGUK provides young girls as illustrated by pp. Scouting is mixed sex already and readily available to join instead.

I just find it frustrating that they would spend 5 times what Katie did, on minor technical points that they didn't even win. I mean, FFS.

I also agree with pp that it may be difficult to collect census in the next year. When we open again, we're going to have to alternate weeks as we run our meetings (R, B, and G) on same evening, with time overlaps. We can't ask parents for full subs for half the meetings.

The only people tearing down GGUK is GGUK - when they got confused about what an adult human female and a human female child were, and put in place a hugely discriminatory and dangerous policy that breaches the EQA. Katie had done absolutely nothing wrong. All she did was put herself on the line in defence of her Brownies.

I think it's right that you are not being allowed to inflict your prejudices on the GG association in a personal vendetta against trans people.

If I had a daughter in GG I'd be removing her. Not for the cost of this case which is bad enough but for the reason Katie is taking them to court.

actually my suspicion is that it vanished because if was too popular - it was trending which is how I caught it .... and this led to a pile on of complaints from those wanting it to vanish without trace

Or am I just being too cynical??

At the end of the day, Girl Guides is meant to be single sex, it’s currently not.....have they told their trustees, insurance companies etc? This is a fiasco waiting to blow up, they know it & are being belligerently dishonest

So agree happydappy

And anyone know why the other thread has gone? When I posted on it recently - saying THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to Katie, it all looked pretty amicable with a mix of people applauding Katie, others who didnt know about it and some who disagreed and felt it was anti trans (which of course it isn't, just pro safeguarding and inclusive of those who need single sex).

So why did it vanish? And do we still have a situation at Mumsnet that non-regular posters can just challenge and posts vanish?? IF so, this feels very bizarre. What did they need to look at???????

but let’s not tear GG down when it’s a policy OP is challenging, not GG as a whole.

GG members aren't trying to tear guiding down. But they as members are entitled to know how the funds are spent.

Presumably as members they are also entitled to question policy if they don't agree with it. Or maybe Not, judging by the current case.

Running a charity is hard. GG do an amazing job. Doesn't mean people shouldn't ask questions. If that causes problems for GG I would suggest the fault lies there, not with the members.

What level of court is this case being taken to / heard by? Is it the High Court?

saxa23 I don't know what your agenda is, but unless you know of magical porridge pot churning out legal funds at GGUK headquarters, the money for this litigation is coming out of census money. Please don't insult the intelligence of people like me - a Unit Leader and a solicitor - unless you have knowledge to the contrary that you are willing to share.

Katie, I've just discussed your update with DH (seriously shit hot litigation lawyer). We both deal with litigants in person on a regular basis, and find it astonishing that GGUK would argue the direct/indirect discrimination point on your claim form, filed when you were unrepresented, when the particulars make it clear that your claim is for indirect discrimination. However, I imagine that whoever is dealing with this on the other side is taking instructions from insurers. I wonder if they are worried about a floodgate of similar cases and are trying anything to nip yours in the bud.

Donated. I withdrew my daughter from GG because of the change in their rules. Thankyou for standing up for XX girls.

That’s probably fair to say Honey, maybe I am just pissed at such a statement made by op can be damaging when it hits something like the DM, exaggerated even more so , and then Flossies mum and pals kick off at her leader and decides she’s not paying subs.
OP can fight her case without it. Totally.

Thank you Honey You beat me to it with that reply.

Well done for getting through your day in court. I donated to your action and would happily do so again if required. I can only imagine how intimidating it must have felt and you have stood your ground with grace.

Well I think it's rather obvious that the entirety of subs aren't going on legal fees. Of course not. but the point is, that's £33k+ that now isn't going on the girls, the running costs, the centers.

You've now swung from "it's not subs" to "it's only a little bit of subs". I think we probably agree on the statement I made in my previous post. I'm just unsure why you think you can say blanket statements about where funding is not coming from, and not then say where it is.

I think what you meant to say was what you've now admitted - it probably is from subs but as a portion of income it's small (and won't disadvantage members in a measurable way.)