Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

Permission to appeal is different to the appeal itself. Anyone party can apply for permission to appeal @MrsOvertonsWindow . My point is that’s a substantial hurdle.

In think you can rest assured that women on here are capable of reading Allison's words. I even read as far as her second sentence:

"I have filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against Stonewall, appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment.

The first stage in the appeal process is to obtain permission to appeal...."

Interesting. This seems to be a compromise access that X must have bought in.

as said by PP they now show a screen shot of the individual tweet - not the thread.

Obviously realised they were lossing potential subscribers with their original policy of blocking non users acess to whole thread.

I could read it too. I was merely pointing out that she’s not going to the CoA just yet. She’s asking them if she might be allowed to.

Maybe they cancelled that policy.

Yes, I can read it.
It's only when it's a series of tweets you can't read them as a non-user - unless you use threadreader app but sometimes it asks you to log into TwiX first.

Sorry @IwantToRetire I'm not on X but I could still read the linked tweet. I assumed it would be the case for other posters.

@Harassedevictee - no worries, but just a reminder to twix users because I think pre Musk you could.

And I think other FWRers are more polite!

@IwantToRetire sorry I was in the car wash when posting so only had time to do the link. Thanks for adding the text.

@ElleWoods15 good point, I was just please to see Allison has decided to try and appeal. At the time she pointed out the Appeal judge missed several points of law.

Most people aren't on twitter so pointless posting links or expecting discussion.

It doesn't take long to post the content of a tweet (and the link to verify its source)!

ie

I have filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against Stonewall, appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment.

The first stage in the appeal process is to obtain permission to appeal.

I continue to be represented by Ben Cooper KC, who drafted the grounds and skeleton argument for the appeal, and Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton Solicitors.

Huge thanks, as always, to everyone who has supported me in my fight for justice.

https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1829147158370541618?s=46&t=lJm6-66fq4MtGcwwAsK6Kg

I am indeed aware of who she is. You’d be surprised at the number of applications for permission to appeal that get rejected. Many people do indeed just ‘take a punt’ as you put it, especially if doing so for ideological reasons.

Just cautioning a little restraint with your excitement that’s all….!

You are aware that Alison Bailey is a barrister and will understand that yes? She is unlikely to just be taking a punt at it and will have assessed that she has a good chance of being given leave to appeal.

2nd line of the tweet posted just upthread.

All the best Allison.

She’s asked for permission to appeal. Not to rain on your parade, but before you all get too excited, that’s a hurdle to get through.

Not only will she have to show that there is an important point of law to be tried, she will also need to show a realistic prospect of success.

Good news. I do admire her courage and tenacity

Wow

Fantastic!!

Good.

News update: Allison is going to the Court of Appeal
https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1829147158370541618?s=46&t=lJm6-66fq4MtGcwwAsK6Kg

One of the senior people reviewing the report was a trans activist or at least adjacent. She said the investigation report should state that Allison was "likely" to be in breach of the Bar Standards Board code of practice and this is what was given to Allison. Allison was asked to remove the two tweets by the Heads of Chambers, following the investigation. She agreed at first but then told them she disputed that they were a breach of BSB conduct and left them up, especially as she had asked them to delete their public tweet (upheld detriment 2) and they said no because once it was published it was published. The same went for her tweets.

She then started the process of getting evidence for a claim against GCC for victimisation.

They didn't bother to review the evidence she sent them to explain why she wrote what she did about Page and the cotton ceiling, or about how the debate in general was conducted towards gender critical feminists, which the court says should have shown them that the language used was reasonable.

You need to take into consideration that the emails and investigation happened prior to Maya Forstater's EAT where this protection for gender critical beliefs was confirmed as WORIADS.

I still don't see what was so 'allegedly objectionable' in her expression of her protected GC views that it negated her legal right to protection for expressing her GC views..

I give up, it's obviously beyond my mental dexterity and knowledge of the law, but I hope Alison appeals, if she believes that's the right thing to do for her. She has already put herself on the line so bravely, and whatever she decides in the future, she has our* thanks and our admiration.

*I hope it's OK to use the 'royal we' here

I don't see how GCC can object to a factual description of "Overcoming The Cotton Ceiling".

The court agreed, as Allison provided a full explanation of why she said what she said which wasn't taken into account during the investigation.

I don't see how GCC can object to a factual description of "Overcoming The Cotton Ceiling".