Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

Surely only Stonewall could say on what grounds they attempted to get Allison fired.

I think maybe I had got the wrong idea of the case, which for me was if it was clear ie there was evidence that Stonewall tried to get her fired for whatever reason, her employer's should not have written.

I dont see why the Judge would think it was okay for them to interfere.

I've been waiting a long time to use an expression my Dad used of his mother. I was surprised when he said it, because I recognised its model from Kipling where Puck said of an old woman who saw fairies as "seeing further through a millstone than most". My father's version, more native Sussex than that, was "she saw further through a stone wall than most" and he meant that she was more perceptive of what people were up to, perhaps politically. I had hoped to use it, as he did, positively at the conclusion of this case, but I am afraid to say that these judges lack the gift, and can see no further than the moss on the surface.
It would have nice to applaud people with my granny's gift, as she spent most of her life in Brighton, and Dad was born and bred there.
There are plenty here of whom it could be said, of course.

The bits I've put in bold just don't make sense to me.

Me neither.

Surely only Stonewall could say on what grounds they attempted to get Allison fired. Why is it on Allison to show that it wasn't due to the manifestation of her belief?

Not saying this helps to understand how just on purely legal terms this judgement was reached but ....

" ... the tribunal failed to find that Stonewall satisfied the legal test of “instructing, causing or influencing” the discrimination she experienced, and she lodged an appeal.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has not upheld the appeal, finding that Stonewall did not act unlawfully in complaining to her employer.

Judge Bourne said in his judgment that Bailey had fallen “well short of showing that if Stonewall either induced or attempted to induce GCC to inflict a detriment on her, the inducement was to inflict the detriment on grounds of her protected belief rather than because of an allegedly objectional manifestation of her belief”.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-stonewall/

The bits I've put in bold just dont make sense to me.

And I think as said up thread, a jury would not have agreed a verdict on this sort of word salad, but more on what AB experienced.

This is one of the few weaknesses of the jury system: that a jury can basically ignore the law because they like the defendant, don't like the witness, or don't like the law itself and there's no consequences for them.

It's frustrating, and I haven't had a chance to read the judgement yet, but ultimately it reinforces to every organisation that SW won't be held responsible for how you act on their advice.

I think if people realised this outcome then practically speaking it might do more to weaken anything they say. Orgs should be on their guard against uncritically acting on SW's advice.

If this had been successful I think SW would pass it off as a single over-enthusiastic mistake and would be less direct, but give essentially the same advice, about discriminating against lesbians.

Again I haven't read the judgement so this is just my initial feeling from the original case.

The jury trial instances are different because juries are allowed to find someone not guilty, even if they believe they did it. It's called a perverse verdict.

Haven't there been a lot of weird judgements recently centering around protests? The JSO lot recently seem to be an exception as they got real jail time. Others were just let go, although iirc they were jury trials so probably irrelevant to this.

Was the judge this one? The Hon Mr Justice Charles Bourne

If so his bio says: ' In 2003, he was the founding Chair of the Human Rights Lawyers Association'. In which case I don't think that he will be unfamiliar with the Equality Act, but he may have had a lot of sympathy for the protest not being discrimination argument?

Wasn’t this appeal funded by a private philanthropic donation? Must’ve taken a lot of stress out of the situation not having to crowdfund.

This is so, so disappointing. I'm another who will stand with and keep funding Allison to continue this fight, should she have the strength to carry on. I know I'd have keeled over and given in by now but she's proven to be made of stronger stuff than the ordinary woman.

That said I would completely understand if she just wants to stop and have her own private life back.

Nope, the appeal is the recourse.

I'm so angry about this, the judgement is wrong but she'll have to go through all the fundraising and stress of an appeal. It really does look like an example of 'the process is the punishment'.
Isn't there any other recourse when the judgement is that bad?

I don't think there's anything in the Equality Act that supports discriminating as long as its a protest. Even a political protest. WTF is the judge talking about?

One thing my exposure to the entire trans nonsense has done has provided me with a pretty effective litmus test.

I've been surprised, over and over, how people who one assume are highly informed, insightful, intelligent, analytic and fair, really aren't.

I don't think there's anything in the Equality Act that supports discriminating as long as its a protest. Even a political protest. WTF is the judge talking about?

This might be a coincidence but its the third example I've seen of attempts to frame unlawful behaviours as either protest or art; and give the same kind of protected speech status as an art installation.

According to Dennis Noel Kavanagh, it'd go to the Court of Appeal, assuming they give permission.
https://x.com/Jebadoo2/status/1816052604754935847

Firstly, the judgment gives permission for organisations like Stonewall to procure the withdrawal of employment from people whose protected characteristics they disagree with, if this can be framed as a “protest”.

Right. So women's organisations can do the same? Fair play for women can procure withdrawal of a transperson's employment on the basis of it being a protest?

So can sex matters, LGBA, etc?

Allison Bailey's Twix thread;
''I am sorry that I have not succeeded in my Appeal against Stonewall....my initial view is that there are five key aspects of the judgment which are of concern.
Firstly, the judgment gives permission for organisations like Stonewall to procure the withdrawal of employment from people whose protected characteristics they disagree with, if this can be framed as a “protest”. This seems to go directly against the terms of the Equality Act.''

Thread unrolled & archived; https://archive.ph/wip/hRugo

It's very confusing. Surely Stonewall are the only ones who can say what it was about AB's behaviour that they took such exception to that they attempted to get her fired. Did this not all come out in the wash in the first ET? And since it was AB who was discriminated against in this case why are they talking about the manifestation of HER belief rather than the manifestation of Stonewall's belief?

"Ms Bailey also fell well short of showing that if Stonewall (by Kirrin Medcalf) either induced or attempted to induce GCC to inflict a detriment on her, the inducement was to inflict the detriment on grounds of her protected belief rather than because of an allegedly objectionable manifestation of her belief."
Is that legalese for 'it ain't what you do it's the way that you do it'?

If Stonewall did try to 'inflict a detriment on her' it was because she manifested her GC beliefs objectionably, i.e. how she said it, not what she said?
I have to go right back to the beginning to get the facts straight!
Commiserations to Alison, and thank you for having the courage and strength to take on this important fight.

Obvs I haven't read the full judgment, don't understand legalese etc etc but on the fact of it this reinforces my feeling that the Law is an ass, and its pronouns are he/haw!

Disappointing outcome for Allison. She has been amazing.

I attended an evening discussion about the Equality Act in Swansea a few weeks ago and Akua Reindorf KC (commissioner at the EHRC) said (I paraphrase, obviously) that many judges don't fully understand the complexity of the law in this area and don't delve very deeply or thoroughly in their judgments. She was, IIRC, referring particularly to the Scottish situation currently under appeal by FWS.

I suspect her comment would apply in this case and wouldn't be at all surprised if Allison were to appeal. I'm another one prepared to dig for victory.

Does anyone know If she decides to appeal would it be to the Supreme Court?

Final two paras of the Appeal judgment…..

141. From the facts found by the ET, and which in my judgment it was entitled to find, Ms Bailey also fell well short of showing that if Stonewall (by Kirrin Medcalf) either induced or attempted to induce GCC to inflict a detriment on her, the inducement was to inflict the detriment on grounds of her protected belief rather than because of an allegedly objectionable manifestation of her belief. Just as the ET found at [318] that Ms Bailey’s protected belief, rather than the manifestation of it, was the reason for the response tweet, it also found at [328] that her belief significantly influenced the complaint outcome. But the complaint as summarised by the ET at [367] was focused on the manifestation of the belief rather than the belief itself. Although the protected belief significantly influenced the making of the complaint (see paragraph 126 above), there was nevertheless a lack of correspondence between the content of the complaint and its outcome. I therefore see no basis on which the ET was bound to construe the complaint as an inducement to discriminate on grounds of the belief.

Conclusion

142. For those reasons I perceive no error of law in the ET’s decision and the appeal will therefore be dismissed.

I am so sorry, like so many of us, I had hoped.
This came to me as I read. Stonewall must fail - but when.

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said "There was a great wall built of solid stone
The base was mason made, the top,worn by windblown sand
More like old rubble, some fallen careless down
Yet still the barrier sought to bravely stand
To still survive, to see its message read
To still survive its loathsome message rings
Mocking those its barrier crushed with dread
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Stonewall, fear me cis-made things
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Sorry Percy. But we are many, they are few, and must give way sometime.