Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 18

My memory is so bad, am I right in thinking Mermaids are currently pursuing some court case against LGB Alliance? To try to get them stripped of their charitable status?

With Allison being one of the co founders I wonder what this ruling means for that case?

Amazing! So pleased. Trying to. Read it all now.

I wonder how, or indeed if, the BBC is going to report on this..

And then they ran away with their pants on fire . . .

*As I understand it, grrr

@KittenKong I understand it, IANAL:

1. The employer is free to get advice wherever they like, the company providing the advice is NOT legally liable for any discrimination that results from company policy adopting their advice

1. IF the company policy results in discrimination, then the employer can't say 'we were just following this advice', it's every employer's duty not do discriminate in their company policy

The moral of the story: don't outsource your EDI to Stonewall, do your own bloody work!

Good point, @SpindleInTheWind

if I was a business I would not wish to be sued based on their [Stonewall's] erroneous advice.

I wonder if there will be a little tsunami building up even now, with people who have been bullied out of jobs etc but who felt that they didn't dare go forward because they didn't stand a chance and couldn't afford a loss?

Or for Garden Court's legal acumen!

Sexdoesmatter I haven't seen RMW round here for a long time

I'm glad to see that personnel today have reported this. HR departments need to be aware of it.

www.personneltoday.com/hr/allison-bailey-gender-critical/

I'm going to take this statement from the judgement as a hat-tip to all of us vipers

only up to para 32 but the judge is really scathing of the respondents’ counsel. I would be feeling very embarrassed if I were them, quite apart from the fact they lost.

Has RMW been on here yet?

.

From Allisons statement "Women in particular have been slandered as bigoted, harassed and defamed as transphobic and worse, simply for asserting our lawful rights and advocating for proper safeguarding “–We are none of the things Stonewall and others have called us; we are in the vanguard of a powerful and necessary movement that is turning the tide on gender identity ideology.”

You excellent woman Allison

Also I would like to express my thanks to Allison on behalf of my DDs who have now been given extra/renewed courage to speak out at their workplaces with less fear of discrimination by their employers.

It won't stop the amount of shit they get from some of their colleagues though but the tide does seem to be turning. (My DDs themselves have actually become radicalised by Mumsnet total GC feminists - which is a complete circle from the brainwashing they had at school).

Although the Tribunal accepted that Miss Bailey’s belief that “gender theory as proselytised by [Stonewall] is severely detrimental to women for numerous reasons” and is a protected philosophical belief, it did not find that Stonewall had satisfied the legal test of “instructing, causing or influencing” the unlawful discrimination which it found Miss Bailey suffered.

can someone explain this part to me? They literally did instruct it, via the email from Metcalf. They accepted responsibility for Metcalf’s actions.

Do they have to be in a position of authority to count as “instructing”?

It makes sense to me. Anyone is free to tell you anything at all, the responsibility for the consequences of following that advice rests with the organisation, not the advisor.

Unless we're talking about specific professions, where the arrangement is expected and legally bound to provide sound advice? Stonewall aren't legal experts, clearly.

Although you'd think GCC would have understood that better.

Why did she not win against Stonewall? Was it something technical?

.enjoyed this paragraph about the bundle 😂The main hearing bundle was exceptionally difficult to work with. Despite the guidance on preparation of electronic bundles in CPR, the Employment Tribunals Presidential Direction, Employment Judge Stout’s explicit directions in earlier case management hearings, and the time the case had taken to come to hearing, it seemed to have been randomly thrown together. Sections were not OCR readable. Over 600 pages of Garden Court disclosure were not in the main index but in a 13 page sub-index inserted between pages 374 and 375. Five other sub-indexes had been grafted in, but did not reach the tribunal until 18 May. Pagination from earlier bundles had not been removed, complicating the search function. Pages had been inserted sideways. Email exchanges could be 2,000 or 4,000 pages apart. There was frequent duplication of the same emails or tweets. An additional 116 pages (“section L”) did not reach the tribunal until 20 May. The supplementary bundle was added to more than once, and additions not always notified to the tribunal.

Oops, in para 16 of the decision the emotional support dog, mother, and entourage are mistakenly attributed to Shaan Knan!

So, in my basic understanding, Alison Bailey was discriminated against by Garden court Chambers because they mistook stonewall law for actual law.
And this means that officially the "rules" stonewall push don't have any teeth. Is that right?

Congratulations! Very well deserved.

Yes and we not only lost in Court but we have to pay aggravated damages, this is how good we are at being Stonewall champions, the legal bit well that leaves a bit to be desired, truly a unique selling point I'd say!

Any other Stonewall Champions better wake up quick smart to just how expensive and damaging doing Stonewall's bidding is, especially their urging to get ahead of the Law. Follow the actual Law not Stonewall's version of it.

I think is meant to be a disco glitter ball though for a long time I thought it was a grenade.

Works either way.