Crowdfunding and extortionate costs

Well, Stonewall are doing their level best to ensure she won't have surplus funds. So that's nice of them.

I find it very tiresome how the same people shuffle around the upper levels of charities, from one cause to another, with no deep commitment or understanding for any issue in particular.

I am seriously looking at my pension pot. I only donate what I won't miss - but I hate being bullied.
Stonewall et al are not just bullying Allison , they are bullying all of us with this.

It's a shame we need to do this but I will do my best to support the women fighting these fights on my behalf.

Actually Allison's surplus funds will go to the Samaritans not other GC causes. I get why she has said Samaritans - would have been an uncontroversial choice years ago - but the woman who helped introduce a lot of the gender stuff at Girl Guides, Julie Bentley, is now their CEO.

I really wish she had said to other GC causes.

Bristol university seem to have done the same to Raquel Rosario Sanchez- using their power to deliberately drive up her costs in the hope that we, the public, won't be able to keep her funded.

It is appalling and manipulative. But this is the price of resistance currently. Either we resist, or we balk at its price and submit.

It's weird how they think the money goes to the named individual.

We are digging for the cause. 50 years of advancing womens rights being ripped away from us.

And when the courts realise that this case is only before them because lots and lots of women, and some men, put their hand in their pocket to stick a tenner or 20 quid into the pot... it's powerful.

It's not grifting, Aidan, it's community.

The first time I was sued I was, after witness statements were exchanged, quoted £50-60K by my then Barrister for a five day High Court trial. At that point, I agreed to STOP (people tend to threaten me with "harassment" reports and further claims if I state what occurred). For one thing, the real financial risk would have been borne by me, and for another, my case was making no wider political point. Given the complexities of Allison's case and the court time required, it doesn't seem a hugely disproportionate sum. It's just deeply regrettable that women are constantly put in a position that severely impacts their mental, emotional, and sometimes physical, health simply to try and uphold fairness and the truth.

Incidentally, the Guardian had a whole long article about "Slapps" - strategic lawsuits against public participation - and how journalists are being silenced
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/29/online-abuse-lawsuits-gendered-personal-attacks?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Not a peep about all these crowdfunders though - I guess it's the wrong kind of public participation?

Thanks for the reminder - have donated to Allison.

I do see your point OP - the costs are crazy. I hope she raises what she needs and I hope she wins.

I have dug and will keep digging.

Alison Bailey's case is so important because it gets right to the heart of Stonewall's MO. "Such a nice law firm you have there ..."

I'm also following the James Esses case closely, because it includes influence exerted by a professional body - the UKCP - that effectively barred him from receiving a professional qualification.

I contribute where I can and will contribute again to Allison's case. However I find it really sick that Stonewall is given taxpayer's money (I think?) while it is in breach of the Equality Act and has caused so much harm, while individuals like us have to crowdfund these cases.

I think the BBC deserves to have legal action taken against it too, for the part it has played, and the damage it's caused to (at least) half of licence fee-payers, and the population it is meant to provide for. But imagine the costs of that.

Don't ever give more than you can afford.

I'd love to be able to support all of these people, but as it is I give what I can. Allison's case seems crucial to me.

I would have expected Stonewall, CGD, Garden Court Chambers etc to have comprehensive insurance which will be covering their legal fees and potentially damages if they lose, normally on the condition that the barristers judge the case as having a 50% or greater chance of success.

For the same reason it's a good idea to make sure that you have legal cover under your home insurance which will cover employment legal costs where there is a 50% or greater chance of success (usually - always check the policy wording)

Are we allowed to ask for a link or is that verboten?

As for the handwringing OP: it’s for each of us to decide what we support and if we can afford to contribute. Many women have ditched monthly DD payments to captured unions and charities and are happy to divert funds to uphold women’s rights instead. Personally, while it pisses me off this is necessary because of Stonewall’s mendacious misrepresentation of our equalities law and public bodies’ credulousness, I really enjoy sticking it to the patriarchy by funding these cases. Allison’s case also has the potential to hole Stonewall below the waterline. 💪

I've just donated to Allison's fundraiser. I will contribute again when I can, exposing Stonewall's horrific and illegal treatment is so important, however obviously people can only contribute if they can afford it. There will always be some people in a position to contribute more, but we are all here supporting and spreading the word and sharing the truth about what's happening.

I do understand balking at the cost, it's a huge amount of money and it's horrific that women are having to pay for this, however I imagine Stonewall with its taxpayer generated funds slushing around are throwing everything at this case. This vile organisation (the head of which recently told women who have experienced male violence, rape, assault and abuse, once again, not to 'weaponise their trauma', needs to be dealt a death blow.

I agree with PP - this is the big one. For those who can't donate, you can still support by spreading the word, even if you do so under the radar. Not all of us have spare cash, particularly if small kids are being brought up. Certainly I didn't in those days.

I was once sued (I won by the way, in that the Claimant withdrew his quite bonkers case, and thus had to pay my costs as well as his own).

After 2+ years, we had not even got to the point of exchanging evidence and witness statements. There had been very little court time - just management hearings and a couple of off-the-wall applications by the Claimant, who was constantly writing letters, changing the goalposts (or trying to), and dragging his feet. Even so, my costs were approaching £200k when he pulled the plug - and I didn't have a QC or anything like that.

Going to Court is an expensive business, particularly if one side can afford to win by default, by making the costs landscape unsustainable for the other party.

Yes, we have to remember that these women aren’t just defending themselves, they’re defending all of us.

Allison’s case is incredibly important. It really pisses me off women are having to fund this fight for our rights but we have to and really good legal representation is essential. Losing would set us back so far.

I console myself that all thats being asked of me is to donate, these cases are taking over the lives of the women brave enough to take them on

Strategically we do need to pool resources into those cases with the biggest potential for wider impact first.

As you say, I hope it leads to a situation where people aren't forced to raise extortionate costs to seek justice.

Hopefully the whole David and Goliath aspect to Allison Bailey's case will generate publicity. Which in turn will generate money.

We’ll have to see, won’t we?

The alternative is to let SW get away with it, and that’s not something anyone other than AB can decide. Nobody has to donate.