Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that stonewall have been uncooperative!

It has elements of a ponzi scheme too, everyone who buys in has an interest in promoting it to others but what they are purchasing is essentially worthless

Yes - I hadn’t thought of it like that but you are absolutely correct - protection racket and ponzi scheme.

@MoleSmokes

Trending Now on Mumsnet - sunlight!

• My DP planning to buy his DB a car, I don't want him to, Who is BU?
• Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2
• What to say to the childminder
• We cannot cancel life, to preserve every life
• Refused Antenatal Scans - Help

Thank you Ova and all

Maya's case will be relevent, as will whether she can claim sex discimination on the grounds her views are mostly held by women/lesbians

You mean views which are held by all of humanity, for the entire history of humanity - until last week - when a few people said they didn’t agree with the views, but still seem to be fully able to distinguish the form of human to send rape threats to.

That would first need to be established, and polling suggests otherwise.

Are you suggesting that the concept of biological sex needs to be established and that polling suggests people (who are all created from one egg and one sperm) don’t believe in it?

Even the editor of Penis News can miraculously understand the concept of biological sex - when a surrogate mother is needed.

Is this legal recognition that SW Champ Scheme is effectively a protection racket?

It has elements of a ponzi scheme too, everyone who buys in has an interest in promoting it to others but what they are purchasing is essentially worthless

What a great thread - thanks for all the effort Ovahere and everyone contributing - the legal stuff is a bit of a rollercoaster as it is hard to tell what they mean sometimes.

It is super chilly outside but I spent a bit of time in the garden - just so glad she’s made it through to the next round. I find it quite astonishing that these people have treated her so badly and are refusing to co operate.

Some of my faith in people is being diminished with all of these events.

That's interesting, RedToothBrush

When is a charity not a charity and when is it a political lobby group?

There are implications about this.

Its called the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_of_Lobbying,_Non-party_Campaigning_and_Trade_Union_Administration_Act_2014

It has ironically got the nickname 'The Gagging Bill' when passing through parliament.

This is why Stonewall will try to avoid saying they are a lobby group rather than a charity...

Thanks for the tweet sharing and explanations!

I'm full of admiration for Allison (and for posters here), it's really inspiring!

(and it would be nice to not have this thread derailed)

Good point, typed a reply to pp but have deleted.

I think we just just ignore all the 'what about'-ery which is attempting to derail this thread and just focus on the good news. Thanks Ova and everyone who has been explaining things on this abs the first thread. And thank you to Allison for standing up on behalf of us all.

This is really long, but Allison explains it on her site.

Thanks - that explains it really well, and IANAL but surely it's obvious that Stonewall have a relationship with GCC

Like I said, you can post all the what ifs in the world, but this is actually happening. On the grounds stated in court today.

Hear hear Kit

Ova you have been brilliant

(and it would be nice to not have this thread derailed)

The key aspect of the hearing is that Stonewall has applied for the Tribunal to determine whether there was a relationship (which they say didn’t exist) between them and Garden Court Chambers in order for s.111 Equality Act 2010 to have effect. If Stonewall are successful in this, they will seek to have my claim against them struck out.

Section 111 is the aspect of the Equality Act 2010 on which I am relying to say that Stonewall acted unlawfully in causing me to be investigated. Section 111 says the following (and it is easier to read if you substitute “Stonewall” in place of Person “A” and “Garden Court” in place of Person “B”; I am Person “C”):

111 Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions

(1) A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).

(2) A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(3) A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

(5) Proceedings for a contravention of this section may be brought—

(a) by B, if B is subjected to a detriment as a result of A’s conduct;

(b) by C, if C is subjected to a detriment as a result of A’s conduct;

(c) by the Commission.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), it does not matter whether—

(a) the basic contravention occurs;

(b) any other proceedings are, or may be, brought in relation to A’s conduct.

(7) This section does not apply unless the relationship between A and B is such that A is in a position to commit a basic contravention in relation to B.

(8) A reference in this section to causing or inducing a person to do something includes a reference to attempting to cause or induce the person to do it.

(9) For the purposes of Part 9 (enforcement), a contravention of this section is to be treated as relating—

(a) in a case within subsection (5)(a), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between A and B, A is in a position to contravene in relation to B;

(b) in a case within subsection (5)(b), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between B and C, B is in a position to contravene in relation to C.

Our position is that there is a “relationship” according to ss.111(7) and (9) between Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers that is necessary for section 111 to have effect. Primarily, this relationship was through the Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Scheme, of which Garden Court was a member and through which Stonewall provided them goods and services. My case is that Stonewall unlawfully applied pressure which instructed, caused and induced me to be investigated by my chambers because I had campaigned against Stonewall specifically, and in favour of gender critical feminism more broadly; further that this pressure was applied by Stonewall onto Garden Court via the Diversity Champions Scheme, which gave Stonewall the relationship they needed to impose a threat that detriment would follow to Garden Court if they did not so yield to the pressure that Stonewall was applying. As a result of this, my claim alleges, the unlawful discrimination and victimisation by Garden Court Chambers was instructed, caused and induced by Stonewall, and therefore that Stonewall’s actions were unlawful by reason of section 111.

So SW were denying they have a relationship with GCC. But the judge seems to think they do-the champion scheme.

(Sorry for pasting the wall of text, I tried linking to the part of the site where this is explained, but it kept going to the main page.)