Allison Bailey sues TRA vets

Makes sense if it didn't need a crowdfunder, far fewer people would have heard of it or been looking out for it.

The case seems to have gone under the radar a bit with no reporting until the 19th it seems which must have been day 4 at least.

The newspaper reports are sparse for 4 days of a hearing so maybe no one actually attended as a reporter.

@spannasaurus yes tomorrow is day 6 out of an estimated total of 7. I just meant 7 days is a lot of time. I'd have expected 1-2.

Hasnt the tribunal has already started and Monday is day 6

screenshot of above link.

@Pioou Yes I've just seen that too about it previously being Jeffrey Jupp. Also only that JKR is a friend.

Interesting it's estimated to take 7 days (link below). Seems a long time.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/county-court-at-central-london-cause-list/county-court-at-central-london-daily-cause-list-27-june-2023

Is JKR definitely funding this? All I can see in press reports is allusions to them being friends presumably just to boost interest in the story.

Also I wonder why her barrister changed. Looks like it was Jeremy Jupp at an earlier point.

Akua Reindorf is an exceptionally good barrister. I trust her.

(And I trust JKR and Allison Bailey too).

JKR has been clear that she will only be funding cases that have a good chance of winning and are strategically important.

Allison Bailey won her discrimination case against her employer and Akua Reindorf is very reputable.

So although this legal action on the face of it seems to me to be somewhat shaky I trust these three women to know what they are doing.

1. I think the most anyone can say is that so far Stonewall escaped scrutiny in the first hearing but thats what has permitted the appeal.
2. Most people in the UK have sex realist views but the vast majority won’t know anything about kiwi farms. I think I only know of it from your posts
3. Replying to someone who mentions you isn’t what most people define as stalking

Are you accusing me of being a member of kiwi farms? That site that is banned access from most internet providers because of the content?. Please provide proof that I am a member or an apology. I mean, there are many threads on Reddit, which is very very pro trans calling for the rape, murder and assault of women but I have not accused you of being a member or of endorsing any of the views on that cesspit have I?

As far as I know, anyone is allowed to tweet anything they like within the guidelines on X. If you don’t like what JKR tweets, why not just block her? That way you won’t be upset when she tweets things? It’s what I do. If India is so upset at being called out on India’s batshittery then India can also then block and not engage. I mean, is India the biological male who claims to have a cervix or the biological male who threatens to Punch a TERF”? I do get my misogynistic men mixed up sometimes.

So true. I once got into problems at work with younger staff saying that they didn’t enjoy my directness. As far as I know they didn’t call out my (male) colleague who raised his voice at them from time to time!? Simply complaining as a woman is somehow breaking the rules…

I don’t regard Stonewall as having won because the legal process has not finished.

What is that saying which has words to the effect of ‘you might have won the battle but you haven’t won the war’?

Kiwifarms is extremist. It is not part of the dialogue most GC people are having. It allowed for the targetting of all sorts of people - it wasnt just an anti trans site. It got that reputation because trans people rallied against it but it was a mean site that attacked lots of non trans people too.

Allison had a tribunal case with 3 respondents, stonewall, GCC and individual members of GCC. There was no case against her employer GCC independent of her case against stonewall . She was awarded aggravated damages which is unusual in a tribunal case.

If the appeal court agrees that Stonewall had a relationship with GCC in accordance with s111 of EA she will win against stonewall at appeal.

Doesn't matter how you spin it- Stonewall won outright twice against AB. Her small win the first attempt was against her employer and independent of Stonewall.

@Annoyedone frankly I find it ironic for anyone from the GC community to accuse anyone of "stalkerish". GCs have the site kiwifarms which is dominantly for stalking LGBT people and a quick check of Jo's Twitter shows of literally just 1 hour ago she has tweeted yet again about India Willoughby. Jeez Louise.

I agree. Allison's win against her Employer, who was being guided by Stonewall, must have been a factor in the speed and amount of organisations cutting ties with Stonewall. Her appeal looks to have a very good chance now in view of the SC ruling. Will be cheering for her.

I think Chris is trying to play ‘the process is the punishment’ card, as that’s a go to tactic from the TRA handbook.

People laughing cruelly at confused posters, rather than mirthfully with entertaining posters.

Hilarious. Never change, Chris.

365.However, the section only applies where the person giving the instruction is in a relationship with the recipient of the instruction in which discrimination, harassment or victimisation is prohibited.

I think that this is the specific clause that is being examined as the tribunal ruled that Stonewall didn't have a relationship with GCC

It's an interesting appeal as section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it an offence to encourage a 3rd-party to breach the Equality Act 2010. AFAIK Allison Bailey's case is the first time that section 111 has been tested in court.

Section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a person to instruct, cause, or induce another person to discriminate against, harass, or victimize a third person.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/8/4

It may be helpful to remember that Allison won her tribunal case against her employers and has a real prospect of winning against stonewall on appeal

Yes, it is proved that she was discriminated against, and accepted that Stonewall encouraged it, the only thing that didn't get accepted and is now being appealed is whether stonewall can legally be held to account in the nature of their relationship with employers.

It was still the beginning of the end for Stonewall's employer schemes, probably worse if Allison loses her appeal actually - then employers will have no assurance that Stonewall will give correct advice in future seeing that they're not even held to account when doing what they ask leads to discrimination.

It may be helpful to remember that Allison won her tribunal case against her employers and has a real prospect of winning against stonewall on appeal

In granting permission, Rt Hon Lord Justice Singh found that the grounds of appeal lodged on Ms Bailey’s behalf:

“have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.”