Crowdjustice and Mumsnet 😁

If you follow Stonewall's interpretation of the law, you haven't broken any laws and you will win if anyone tries to sue you. That would appear to be the interpretation of this I presume? The £20k GC's had to pay was their fault and their fault only.

Therefore it is in employers' best interest to follow Stonewall's interp. of the law and to avoid making the silly mistake GC's made which meant they had to give a £20k payout.

Thanks to everyone who donated to AB to help clarify this all.

I KNEW you'd have a carroty gif that would be perfect, BB 😍

Gah! That can't be unseen!

There's a thread about it but to summarise the £20k or so AB received from her employer Garden Chambers was about some tweet they posted, nothing to do with Stonewall (and if GC hadn't made that tweet AB wouldn't even have had that £20k). If anyone thinks spending £1M of their own and others' money to get £20k is worthwhile then perhaps business isn't for them.

She got more than £20k, at a later hearing they had to pay a small amount of her costs. And the detriments upheld were a) the tweet they posted and b) the outcome of the investigation into her due to the Stonewall complaint. So it was in fact still to do with Stonewall.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-outcome-allison-bailey-case

Stonewall were found to have not discriminated against AB or caused anyone else to discriminate against her, just to clarify. There's a thread about it but to summarise the £20k or so AB received from her employer Garden Chambers was about some tweet they posted, nothing to do with Stonewall (and if GC hadn't made that tweet AB wouldn't even have had that £20k). If anyone thinks spending £1M of their own and others' money to get £20k is worthwhile then perhaps business isn't for them.

It also shows just how gender critical the mainstream media is in Britain. The first case a tonne of tabloids were milking the £20k Garden Chambers payout for all they could (at least one tabloid falsely stated she "won" against Stonewall which they had to make a retraction for, and Julie Bindle wrote an article about Bailey "crushing" Stonewall and "ending its rainbow reign" [rolls eyes]). The 2nd/appeal case which was against Stonewall only, where AB simply lost outright, the major tabloids are somewhat very quiet about, only a few lesser known websites are posting about it.

"The first case was very much worthwhile for what it revealed about Stonewall. "

Well this is debateable, it would appear to show Stonewall aren't as bad as AB or anyone else with similar gender critical beliefs would claim, and also there is nothing discriminatory about what Stonewall are doing or the program they have that orgs can sign up for.

That one carrot after midnight, if watered correctly, turns into Super Carrot! (AKA Ben or Naomi usually)

I support these cases for a number of reasons, to support the women directly involved but also those indirectly (which is most of us) as the findings generally support women’s rights.

I view it a bit like a Netflix subscription as I get to see the magnificent Ben Cooper in cross examination. Start to remember all his killer lines….

Mumsnetters: course correcting one 🥕 at a time

As the unions are all captured on this issue and can’t be relied on to support their women members (cf Kathleen Stock & UCU), CrowdJustice-funded employment tribunals are a more effective way to the right the ship. That’s my view anyway.

Thanks!

My head was in a spin as every now and again there are odd deletions.

Phew.

And thanks for the article link. Nice to see the power of mumsnet is being recognised more and more, rather than the online forum that asks what are your favourite biscuits (although a very important indication of the person replying!).

“People’s generosity isn’t pure altruism,”
Agreed - we also get to watch/track the live streams of madness unfold

This is the 3rd time I've tried to create this thread.

Just curious. Are you saying MNHQ wouldn't let you use the article headline as the title to a thread?

And at the start the opening paragrapsh are just facts.

How Crowdfunder has helped raise money to pay legal costs.

Although a little mention of mumsnet could have been hinted at.

What was the issue.

The article is a factual report of a development of one (positive?) aspect of an increasingly online world.

Surely MNHQ doesn't censor news?

Article didn't even get into a bunch of other recent huge success from crowdfunded cases like Lizzy vs Cambridge Council or Allyson Bird vs Lib Dems, or Laura Favaro win vs her university. Gardens keep blooming.

Talking of gardening here is a great guide to lots of gardens that need support at the moment :
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5129682-end-of-july-gardening?reply=137138913

Meanwhile TAs have to rely on the fox botherer who spends money on barren wastelands

I think the money I donated towards Allison Bailey was well worth it to show that if you follow Stonewall's interpretation of the law rather than the actual law, they walk away scot free and leave you in the shit. Who would pay for advice from somewhere like that?

Haha I saw this and thought of all the little peas and carrots planted over the years. Every tiny contribution helps the garden grow.

Just a shame they didn't manage to get the phrase 'lady garden' into the article

Yes, a big thankyou to CrowdJustice for facilitating this, and huge respect for the (usually) women who are prepared to take these cases forward. It’s good that we have a route to get clarification & redress when employers break the law.

Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley, a government lawyer, raised £40,000 this year after she was sued for saying that only women can get periods. The case against her was later dropped.

Chambers said that, from a legal standpoint, there are concerns staff members are being punished at work for having views that do not chime with that of a company’s customers.
Worryingly, Chambers says the law can feel “almost secondary to the whims and wishes of the consumers”.
Celebrities and Mumsnetters have helped to spread the word.

Venture Capitalists price in a set number of failures when they're considering their spread of investments. Sometimes they state clearly that they're investing in a particular person and their future rather than a specific project or business proposal.

I am content with the outcome of my investment in Alan Bates and the cases with which FWR is familiar. I wish the successful outcomes didn't have such a wretched impact on the people at the heart of this.

I thought Crowdjustice didn't allow that? It only goes to pay legal fees, if the other side pay costs then the fund gets passed on to another case. So the only people who get champagne and caviar are the lawyers! (Well earned by some of them, to be fair.)

More seriously, there was a time when activists were able to stop GC cases from using some of the main crowdfunder sites. So it's good to know that women now have access to sites where the money has to be spent properly.

Nice to see mumsnetters recognised.

I hope the many women whose crowdfunders I have donated to used any left over funds for champagne and caviar, or their extravagant treat of choice. Money well spent

A lot of employers in GC cases are taxpayer funded so offline I refer to my gardening as "paying my GC tax". If these employers were doing anti-discrimination properly we wouldn't have to pay again to get these cases dragged to court and dealt with fairly for women.

And in case there is any doubt Allison Bailey significantly won her discrimination case against her own employer though not the part of the case (and it was only part) against Stonewall. It is true that her second case (appeal) against Stonewall failed. The first case was very much worthwhile for what it revealed about Stonewall. As well as clarifying the law, these legal cases allow claimants to present their GC view in public without immediately being shut down, and require the defendants to present their counter arguments in all their (ahem) glory. It's been worth a million or two to end #nodebate.

Thanks for the link, how wonderful it is that women can choose what to spend their money on. Despite some people's clear disapproval that we have the choice!

Thank you for the leaping link, great to read about this.

Money well spent. 🤗