Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

Ah yes. I forgot about Newsnight.

Yes, perhaps the BBC is 100% 'trained', but not 100% captured.

I will await the decision before forming a view

Hi Helen8220 and welcome

I’ve got a simpler question for you, seeing as you don’t feel well apprised enough to answer the previous one yet.

Do you think that an exclusively same-sex attracted [black, working class] lesbian who advocates for the rights of others to also be exclusively same-sex attracted should have a reasonable expectation that “LGBT” group Stonewall would represent her interests?

Yes or no?

Can't believe he used the biological essentialist (almost) word 'Overy'. Bit insensitive to those womxn who don't have them.

Sounds like it. Maybe in JM's world there's no difference between whacking a fox to death with a cricket bat and setting up an organisation to offer support to marginalised people.

Perhaps Jolyon should take action, then, if he thinks he's been detrimented under the protected characteristic of fox bludgeoning?

Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) Tweeted:
Am remembering when Allen & Overy's Head of Litigation told my old Chambers that, so long as I was in Chambers, not only would they not send any work to me, but they would not send any work to any other member of Chambers either. twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1360934124312264704?s=20

Is Jollyon trying to ... compare what happened to Allison to what happened to him in the aftermath of boasting about foxmurder?

John McManus has put some stuff on Twitter about this. He hasn't said why Ben Hunte was too busy doing tik tok videos to cover it.

There seem to be a few brave GCers holed up inside the citadel, but getting word to the outside world is difficult.

The BBC is 100% captured.

I think they've 'had the training'.

Is Lewtin still the Culture Secretary? Might be worth a letter I suppose.

Found it strange that BBC , even in their diversity section, didn't pick up this legal case against Stonewall . I would have thought it would have been worth a mention?

It really is strange. The BBC made such a big deal of the new LGBT correspondent. Said correspondent is busy making TikTok videos for Stonewall
Now the BBC even has a dedicated Gender & Identity correspondent, but apparently no one who could report on this case.

Thanks! I will watch out with interest

I will be interested to see the outcome of the case. Is there a publicly available copy of the judge’s decision on the strike out application?

The judge indicated she would be providing written reasons for refusing to strike out the claim at the preliminary hearing.

The full hearing is scheduled to start in June.

“ CharlieParley

There you go Helen8220. Ask away on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4165041-Q-A-thread-for-New-Posters”

Thank you! Sorry for diverting the discussion

“ Forgotthebins

Helen8220 the medical history of a speaker you heard does not seem relevant to the case of Allison Bailey. Which is a clear case of overstepping boundaries by Stonewall - they might have a role offering advice on policy to their corporate partners if that’s what the corporate wants, but I have never heard of a charity getting involved in hiring and firing within a corporate partner - that is clear boundary being broken stuff. The fact they tried to persecute a lesbian for discussing a matter which is subject to a possible change in the law and therefore quite reasonably something you would expect a barrister to take an interest in is - that is, well, quite something.”

I will be interested to see the outcome of the case. Is there a publicly available copy of the judge’s decision on the strike out application?

In general terms, I think there is a fine balance for organisations to strike between preventing employees/associates from publicly expressing views that they consider would bring the organisation into disrepute or make other employees feel under threat, and overstepping and oppressing free speech. Setting aside the reasonableness or otherwise of the views we’re talking about, there must be circumstances in which it is justified for an employer to sanction employees for expressing certain views - eg, if someone in a prominent position in a local authority were to openly express blatantly racist views on Twitter under their own name, i think it would likely be reasonable for them to lose their job.

Maybe the chambers got it wrong in this case - and maybe Stonewall’s involvement was inappropriate - I will await the decision before forming a view

Good idea 👍

There you go Helen8220. Ask away on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4165041-Q-A-thread-for-New-Posters

As pp said this is a question for another thread. So I'll start one for you to ask whatever questions you may have.

Yes well, more prominent than that is a fawning interview with Laverne Cox containing all the usual lies, by Observer commissioning editor and signatory of the Suzanne Moore denouncement letter Eva Wiseman, so let’s not go too far with the praise .

I won’t link it, likely to give too many the rage.

Aaah - it's an Observer article, not a Guardian one! 'Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist' is the end credit.

Times UK seems to be posting quite a few GC articles though they also post TRA articles for balance.

Janice Turner was at Speakers Corner. She’s been covering it for years now & is the main reason a lot of GC women subscribe to the Times.