Allison Bailey sues TRA vets

Hopefully they're not barking up the wrong tree.

🤣🤣🤣

Some absolutely are. There have been massive discussions about Stonewall on vet groups on Facebook (pro-trans, I believe) and Vet Surgeon forum (more mixed - think there’s a preponderance of older vets there) where there were absolutely some ideologues. The RCVS was also heavily captured, Stonewalled to the hilt, with a social media policy that used to really worry me.

I think lots of vets are from the same privileged background as other groups whose children become social warriors at their naice school.

I think, unless she has some actual evidence, that she’s quite likely on a hiding to nothing. The timing of her “sacking” could be significant, I guess, if it happened at the same time she hit the news. She might also have some evidence of the dispute with the vet who’s no longer there, but if the clinic staff are united against her and willing to testify that she’s been rude, it might be her word against theirs.

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

What an odd case. Have to assume Allison and Akua know what they're doing, given their respective records.

I think some posters on here might be amazed what can emerge from a simple Subject Access Request under GDPR/DPA, let alone Disclosure under Civil Procedure Rules.

Some businesses have a habit of letting staff put a lot of ill-advised opinions on group emails and group chats, in telephone notes, and in work journals.

Sometimes you find a nugget on drilling down into the detail.

You can't prove a negative.

They wouldn't have to. If the vet can demonstrate that they have a policy on unacceptable customer behaviour, that they apply it consistently rather than just when it suits them, and that they followed it in this case, then they're good.

🤣

Yes, you would think the accountant would have had more sense!

You’d hope so but barristers have the cab rank rule so can’t refuse a case just because they don’t like it or don’t think it has merit. Of course she could advise Allison of that, but if Allison chooses to pursue it nevertheless then Akua couldn’t just opt out.

That said, Allison is clearly not an average client who might pursue something hopeless just to ‘have their day in court’ or ‘on principle’ - she’ll be well aware of the costs, stress and risk of litigation, particularly meritless litigation, so you would have thought she wouldn’t choose to pursue something that has no real chance.

That's not how things work. I can't just raise a case against a business and say they have discriminated against me because I am a lesbian with no evidence.

You can't prove a negative.

They will say, 'no we didn't, we didn't even know she was a lesbian, we did this because she was rude to our staff'

More evidence will change my mind, but based upon the reported facts in this article, it would mean madness for discrimination law if this succeeds

This is a shame.

I think the fund is a great idea, but this case?? What is Bailey suing for? Hurt feelings? That’s not a good use of money, I don’t think.

Haha! Well let's see if there's something like that in this case then. They're keeping it under wraps if so.

In the Wings over Scotland case his accountant said he didnt want to do his accounts any more because they have trans clients who wouldnt like it, and he put it in an email!

https://x.com/WingsScotland/status/1933493250922365212

Yes but she's making the claim so there has to be some sort of basis or evidence for that claim. She can't just say it's because of her GC views out of nowhere. I didn't see anything where she said why she thought this was the case. But perhaps she has some evidence tucked in her back pocket.

It’s hard to believe that Akua Reindorf would agree to represent her if there wasn’t strong evidence

Well we will just have to see how it turns out. I just can't see how her GC beliefs could affect her visits to the vets or why they would be bothered about them if they knew. Unless she'd spoken about them in some sort of offensive way. She doesn't seem to offer any reason why she thinks this is the cause. She doesn't say they've said anything to her about it, they're just claiming she was rude and unpleasant. If she had some evidence it would be different. I just think there are far better uses for that fund, this seems petty and a bit, well, imaginary really. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong!

I've no idea whether it's true that she was rude. But even if it were true, it may well not matter. If they tolerated rudeness from other customers, but not from her because of her beliefs, that would also be illegal discrimination.

Yes- glad you said this as I was just wondering how on earth a vet could be a gender ideologue, with their knowledge of male and female mammals and the differences between them!

I don't think it's got anything to do with discrimination. She's been thoroughly unpleasant from the sounds of it. It's not just one person saying it, the whole practice seems to experienced it.

I am very interested in seeing the outcome of this story as I struggle a lot to comprehend how many of my profession are believers.

I don't know any vets on a personal level but I have known doctors. And I can't help thinking that the doctors I knew must have used all their considerable intelligence (brains far bigger than and different to mine) on doctoring. Very clever in their field but a bit clueless on almost everything else. Maybe that is what is at play here. Not, I'm sure, that all vets and docs are like this.

That's a relief. It does though make one wonder why we brought in laws against discrimination in the provision of services if it would never happen.

Stonewall have won so far, but it's just one case and it's still in progress. The Court of Appeal have granted her permission to appeal, saying she has a "real prospect of success". I wouldn't count those chickens just yet if I were you.

Good god how ridiculous!! They're going to make themselves a laughing stock. A vet wouldn't deregister a client for nothing and I certainly can't see why they would care about her GC views or any other view. It sounds like she's thoroughly unpleasant. What a joke.

Ps the pharmaceuticals end of things popped into my head because of the Lib Dem links to Ferring. To clarify to Elanco (if you're reading this!) for randomly picking out your name. It was just an example of a large pharma in the vet world.