A woman is being sued for being disabled

Thanks for this link. I listened to all the episodes this afternoon. It was really gripping and worth the time spent.

Bad nanny

Podcast is called Carrie Jade does not exist.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0mk4hn5

@Namelessnelly do you know the name of it?

There is a good documentary on the BBC on this. It’s wild!

This story is surreal! There have been so many people on line scamming by adopting fake identities and faking illness, it's awful.

Wow, that article is something else. How on earth was she allowed to just skip about doing all that? It is actually unbelievable.
Shows how shit 'fact-checking' has become in our national press, too. Might be worth starting a whole thread on this scammer?

There's a great Blocked and Reported podcast on this.

Good grief! What a weird world we live in. Thanks for that.

Thanks for posting the link. Having read the article, just can't get over how many people have been duped by her.

Sorry to revive this thread - I thought people following this case might want to read the article which just came out. It gets worse and worse. www.vice.com/en/article/m7gn9q/carrie-jade-williams-tiktok-samantha-cookes

Yep, I was just coming on here to say, it's a scam! She is clearly a very disturbed individual.

I often feel like after listening to that podcast,there are some very odd people out there.

It’s a bit quiet at work for me today so I just got sucked into this thread and the linked one and have listened to some of the Podcast.

I’m now going to lie down in a darkened room, have several stiff drinks and contemplate re-locating to a different planet……

I'm just listening to a podcast about this. Seems it was a hoax and the woman had previously scammed people by pretending to be a surrogate.

www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-135-a-monstrous-french-family#details

It's towards the end.

The law says you need to make reasonable adjustments, but obviously if the other person you are claiming discriminated against you was disabled as well that may influence what was reasonable in the specific circumstances. There is no hierarchy allegedly.

When I first watched the video I did start to think about parallels and where self id trump's other things. I was trying to work out the angle though, was it someone trying to undermine the EA in general, or trying to prove / not prove that one PC / self-identification trumped another.

For all it now seems to have been a load of guff, it could have been an interesting case, because rights and protections of the group's can be in conflict and how do you decide an outcome.

The premise was ridiculous though.

I think the French guests refer to her reporting them to Air BNB in a way they consider unjustified in their review.

Who are the group funding the legal action? Are they anonymous? It’s not the Christian Legal Centre again is it?

It's very likely there is no group and no legal action.

There must have been a real incident where AirBnB were working from different (and more accurate) information about whatever happened between her and the guests, but even so it seems likely that a confused customer service person did say something foolish that would have been insensitive to a disabled person.

It was very interesting, too, how many different culture war buttons she was mashing to get a reaction. She obviously borrowed the shadowy “anti-woke” Christian Right boogeyman funders from the TRAs. And all her talk about the UK Equality Act was presumably borrowed from the trans debate too. But then the colouring books and weighted blankets demanded by the evil lawsuit people for their trauma seemed designed to annoy Daily Mail readers.

YY.

Who are the group funding the legal action? Are they anonymous? It’s not the Christian Legal Centre again is it?

To be fair the AirBnB part gave it some initial credibility and momentum. It was hard to understand why AirBnB didn’t just deny saying the things they were accused of.

There must have been a real incident where AirBnB were working from different (and more accurate) information about whatever happened between her and the guests, but even so it seems likely that a confused customer service person did say something foolish that would have been insensitive to a disabled person.

It was very interesting, too, how many different culture war buttons she was mashing to get a reaction. She obviously borrowed the shadowy “anti-woke” Christian Right boogeyman funders from the TRAs. And all her talk about the UK Equality Act was presumably borrowed from the trans debate too. But then the colouring books and weighted blankets demanded by the evil lawsuit people for their trauma seemed designed to annoy Daily Mail readers.

You ought to show him the Dave Chappelle skit on Jussie Smollet, it's on YouTube, it's hilarious if you haven't seen it already!

I will definitely do this, thank you! And I’ll pass on to him what you said about his ability to keep it all straight, though I might just pretend it’s my compliment!

But I hushed my intuition down because so many people believed it and it just wouldn't have been the craziest thing I've heard by a long shot anymore.

Same here!

Yes I should have stuck to FWR, because it did strike me as slightly strange that it didn't pull much discussion on this board. But I hushed my intuition down because so many people believed it and it just wouldn't have been the craziest thing I've heard by a long shot anymore.

This case is not straightforward.
Someone is making the point that the guests self-identifying as mentally unwell takes precedence over her reality of being disabled. Somebody is making a parallel.