Ben Cooper QC - Lawyer of the Week (in the Times)

Yes @Helleofabore, I agree that 'Stonewall's posts on this court case is either bravado personified or those posting it simply have no strategic awareness at all'.

I wonder if these responsible also get paid unreasonable salaries for the quality of output, financed largely by UK taxpayers and corporate rainbow-washing.

Interesting to see how long both of these sources of income will persist.

I wonder where the recommendation or at least, the initiative, for this course came from....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11089847/Hate-crime-awareness-courses-SCRAPPED-Hampshire-police-following-controversy.html

I wonder what the £6604 for 2018/19 and the £5690 in 2019/20 that Hampshire Constabulary paid Stonewall actually paid for. I mean they have had a very long history with Stonewall.

www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/10193525.force-has-come-top-for-six-years-in-equality-index/

I can only assume that Stonewall was involved somehow in the three forces that rolled out this hate crime course. I look forward to being shown evidence to the contrary. But it seems that their over reach is becoming very apparent to all organisations who were previously (and rightfully at that time) supportive. A lot has changed in the past 5 years.

howdoesatoastermaketoast

The judge heard the evidence and decided that Clara's window had indeed been broken and Paul was responsible. The judge said that Peter had told Paul to break the window but that hadn't mattered so much because Paul thought Peter was a bit of an idiot and didn't usually listen to him. Also Paul was older and better educated than Peter and even if Peter had told Paul to break the law Paul still should've known better. Therefore Paul should pay for the window.

This is good and maybe is in clear enough language for those who are obviously lacking the understanding to maybe start to understand. But I doubt it.

It will take a few years, but the withdrawal of organisational support will be hard to miss. And most people experienced in business realise that budget cycles take some time to catch up with events. But the very poor quality advice that has been seen to be given (and particularly by an author of a certain book who Hearache is declaring a genius) by Stonewall is being noted quietly in the background by those who are ultimately responsible for the liability of the organisations .... not those who are posting trite phrases and logo changes to suit the 'week' who seem to not understand the ramifications of that poor quality advice. You know, the advice that costs big bucks, and all too often from the tax payers....

I will say again that Stonewall's posts on this court case is either bravado personified or those posting it simply have no strategic awareness at all. And why should they, strategic thinking... fuck.... how boring and mainstream, eh?

Nice analogy, howdoesatoastermaketoast!

I put in a tenner IIRC, and the hilarity as a result of some of the utter batshittery on show was worth every penny.

Might have to retire this username now though.

Well I personally put in £20 so the massive 22k payout was a spectacular return.
Some women put in a fiver so I'll let you do the math.
Plus from now on we can use the decision in future tribunals.
You keep saying stonewall won, but they didnt bring the case, there was nothing to win.
Plus all the sunlight on just who will be lobbed under the bus by stonewall was worth more than my 20 quid, other womens fiver and the grand total. It would have been worth double or triple the amounts put in. And the humour as it all rolled on was worth more than money.
Support mothers, dogs, wrens and all.

@Hearach15 You asked earlier if we wouldn't have rather AB won against SW and speaking for myself no not really. You are clearly deeply embedded in an adversarial mindset but I don't think we think what you think we think.

Clara window was broken and Clara sued that either Peter or Paul, or Peter and Paul had done it and should pay for the window.

The judge heard the evidence and decided that Clara's window had indeed been broken and Paul was responsible. The judge said that Peter had told Paul to break the window but that hadn't mattered so much because Paul thought Peter was a bit of an idiot and didn't usually listen to him. Also Paul was older and better educated than Peter and even if Peter had told Paul to break the law Paul still should've known better. Therefore Paul should pay for the window.

For people who listened to the trial this seemed a very fair reflection of what the testimony and evidence had told us - and therefore we are happy about it. For people who have been thinking for a while now that Peter's advice isn't so great it's really nice to have a judge agree in the judgement that the advice Peter gave is wrong, and that people should ignore bad advice, we think that too.

@Helleofabore "perhaps they don't realise...perhaps they don't care"

Quite and in the gleeful use of tl:dr and the general just not reading responses it's often fairly clear that the reason they don't realise is that they don't care enough about Women / Lesbians enough to listen and even try to hear enough of what we're saying to make a judgement.

That is a lot of money to spend for so little return.

That's what these court cases cost 🤷‍♀️ we're very happy with the return, as was Allison.

feel confident in speaking for lesbians and bisexual women even when arguing with lesbians and bisexual women.

Yes. On a feminist board too no less.

Perhaps they don’t realise how misogynistic it is…. But then in some cases (not necessarily those actively involved on this thread) , I realise they don’t actually care.

This really is the most wonderful thing to see in a court judgement - thanks Datun.

I love how hearach15, and may others to be fair, seem utterly convinced that the evil nonbelievers and LGBT communities are completely distinct groups and feel confident in speaking for lesbians and bisexual women even when arguing with lesbians and bisexual women.

I would much rather hire lawyers with a strong track record of recent success and with that in mind I would happily hire Ijeoma Omambala QC and Robin White who represented Stonewall so well.

I am loving this one!

Have you ever had any discussion with Robin White? Oh no. They disappeared from chastening women on MN when their book became out of date within weeks of launch. And they feel abused when you mention the negative reviews they got from a book they spent months telling us would change the world and we should all read it and learn.

Not one MNer was surprised at the inept bundle when we realized who had been involved with putting it together.

Please keep rolling out your pithy comebacks. It still shows you have little knowledge on what you are talking about but they really are very funny on this particular thread.

@Hearach15 'I think we should all take some time to salute the skill of Ijeoma Omambala QC and Robin White - both exceptional lawyer'

I refuse to do so unless IO also confirms that she 'learned about different cultural and religious norms, which helped me understand how to make a workplace more inclusive. I also gained the confidence to ask about cultural differences that I did not understand' in a national newspaper, because such unusual activities and learnedness is what distinguishes RMW.

Do you have any proof she did? Or does she remain ignorant of different cultural and religious norms, like the vast majority of ignorant women (not the special new kind, those are superior in all ways)?

Oh @Hearach15 they really should not be putting dogs and mums through this shit (although dog may've been credible if allowed to provide witness statement, with dogs known for distinguishing men from women with ease, unlike some of their owners).

But we were all VERY impressed, and the judge, and the papers, it has not caused hilarity and bewilderment for weeks that an established charity would pay £40k a year to someone who doesn't know males and females are different.

I really look forward to more Stonewall employees giving evidence in Court, just that was worth my donation, the bundle fiasco was a freebie.

indeed lol - Stonewall's advice was discriminatory, the opinion that Stonewall is in general sexist and homophobic is specifically protected.

A mighty victory indeed /sarcasm

Stonewall's victory was "pyrrhic" in the same way Biden's win was against Trump was "pyrrhic". Stonewall won, AB lost.

"I’ve never had to engage the services of a lawyer."

If I were to engage a lawyer I would want one that would win me the case. For that reason I would not employ Mr Cooper (I'm sure he's won many cases in his time but he lost comprehensively against Stonewall).

I would much rather hire lawyers with a strong track record of recent success and with that in mind I would happily hire Ijeoma Omambala QC and Robin White who represented Stonewall so well.

Thus far I've been told "We didn't expect her to win against Stonewall", even though her CF headlined with "I'm suing Stonewall". Now you're saying "She wouldn't have expected to be compensated for loss of income."

So what you're saying is she raised 500k so win 22k for hurt feelings and had no chance of winning on the two most important counts?

That is a lot of money to spend for so little return.

"Their lawyers were particularly brilliant in presenting most credible witnesses". Quite so, that's why they won the case.

I think we should all take some time to salute the skill of Ijeoma Omambala QC and Robin White - both exceptional lawyers.

Er, that's what they do all the time. They just also do things for trans people too. What with them being an LGBT charity....

Seems apt to announce my name change on this thread (pyjamagame)

At it is her most important claim against Garden Courts (loss of income) was thrown out. Had she won that she would have been entitled to substantial compensation whereas she spent 500k to win 22k - and she could well have to pay Stonewall's costs as well.

Haha! Someone isn't grasping a) what's actually important here and b) that what Allison spent was made up of ten and twenty quids from an overwhelming amount of supporters.

This is a political slam dunk of a win. The entire reason why I and many others supported it. If it was about money, we'd have given it to her, not her barrister 🙄

I’ve never had to engage the services of a lawyer.

Am guessing that, if I needed to, I’d probably aim for one that knows how to mute a microphone and, more importantly, one who doesn’t produce a bundle that seems randomly thrown together (not my put-down).

BC gave a masterclass in how to draw out information whilst remaining respectful at all times.

Yes, good point. It's just a fantasy scenario of the poster.

That generally doesn't happen in employment tribunals.

And presumably extremely unlikely as she won the discrimination case against her employer - she clearly wasn't a vexatious litigant.