Allison Bailey sues TRA vets

@Misspotterer

Well, your ‘good authority’ means fuck all, actually; and ‘i can’t see where she thinks this is going’ is a pretty moot point now, don’t you think??

The judgment is out. Allison won, remember?

I don’t really have any tips.

Leading from that, a few of us wrote to the RCVS about their links to Stonewall, which were finally cut around a year later, albeit very quietly. A journalist from the Vet Record was quietly pursuing it, which is the only reason I know. The statement in the screenshot appeared in the Vet Record at the time.

If something comes up at work and affects me negatively, I will act, but I am in something of a precarious position, so I haven’t done anything otherwise, other than pointing out during a corporate induction that gender was not a protected characteristic, which was obviously news to the woman giving the talk, but was accepted without fuss. She clearly didn’t know that me pointing it out would be considered contentious by some, which suggests not all DEI people are actively captured. Some (somehow) remain blissfully unaware!

I am a member of SEEN within my (large) organisation. I’m not in any way hiding my views, but nor am I involved in any active campaigning.

I haven’t checked it recently, but I don’t suppose the RCVS social media policy has been deStonewalled. It’s a travesty, but now the RCVS have left Stonewall, I no longer fear a complaint would immediately be referred to them for handling advice (a la Allison Bailey) so I am, to an extent, “out” on social media. Not famous or particularly popular anywhere and haven’t been reported to my employer, as yet, though I recognize it may happen and I will deal with any fall out as and when I need to.

I am interested to know which veterinary social media bans GC views, if you can tell me that. I’m honestly saddened that there are so many in our profession that have swallowed this nonsense and don’t even have the courage to discuss their views, but ban discussion, thus preventing us from making obviously rational arguments that they find hard to rebut.

[edited by MNHQ at poster's request]

The juvenile and wholly unprofessional notes added to Allison’s notes surprised me.

It felt like the sort of thing that a young and inexperienced colleague would (still unwisely!) write to a colleague on Teams, or WhatsApp.

So many younger colleagues in my own employment just don’t understand how to behave in an adult and professional environment.
One of my son’s teachers writes emails like a teenager, and i feel like he needs extra training.
He frequently makes daft spelling mistakes, his grammar is appalling, he uses loaded terms that grate on the reader, and he uses words like ‘yourselves’ and myself’ incorrectly.

Oh dear. I hope you don't identify as someone who understands the law.

Hahahaha you might be want to read the whole thread but if you can’t arsed

TLDR Alison won her case

She was not sacked as a client for her gender beliefs, I can't imagine how that would even come up at a vet consultation. She was sacked for being repeatedly rude and threatening to staff. I have that on good authority. People like her are the reason vets and nurses are leaving the industry in their droves. Some practices will pander to abusive clients whilst their staff burnout and leave. Others have decent management and zero tolerance policy.
Vets are private businesses and can sack any client they want anytime they want. I can't see where she thinks this is going.

Especially when one of the members of staff was supposed to send an email with the dog’s records to another company.
And the employee just didn’t do it.

In Allison’s line of work, if you are expected to send an email, etc, then you are supposed to do it.
You can’t be airy fairy about it and not do it, because you’re busy, or you just forgot.
People were waiting for the information and Allison probably assured them it was going to be sent.

It’s unprofessional, and i can see why she was pissed off, to be honest.

I just presumed that a combination of Allison's training as a barrister and the backbone of steel she must have developed to not only get through but triumph over not only the abuse she suffered in childhood but the racism, sexism and classism she must have come up against on every step of her academic career and pupillage have forged her into someone very unlikely to tolerate any kind of patronage or condescension ever again. Add into this the fact that levels of self assertion that would be perceived as perfectly ordinary coming from a man are experienced as arrogance and rudeness when expressed by a woman and I can see where a bigot might want to put her back in her box. Multiply this by whatever factor of outrage is added in because she is not only a woman, but a black woman, and a lesbian at that, and the badly camouflaged frothing rage that seemed to be the modus operandi at the practice in their dealings with her becomes understandable. Not in any way excusable, but understandable.

I'd have to experience Allison's "rudeness" first hand to make a judgement, but like others I think people are mistaking assertiveness and directness for 'rudeness'. So many women ourselves will call a woman rude and 'bossy' when they'd never call a man bossy. So I take her as simply being direct and straightforward assertive and 'rude' with a truckload of salt.

Men like Bee are so eaten up with hate for feminists and so deeply ensconced in his hateful Mens Rights ideology that he cannot see the forest for the trees.

No one hates 'trans' people, any more than an atheist hates Christians. We hate men such as yourself invading womens safe private boundaries. Your hatred of females and feminists is so great I am sure you would prefer to see the UK turned into Afghanistan.

Gender Critical beliefs are that it's wrong to stereotype based on sex or gender.

What you're admitting, is that you believe in stereotypes. Your whole dangerous, Mens Rights Supremacist toxic ideology is based on nothing but pseudoscience.

Feminists keep on notching up the wins, COPE and SEETHE, sir. Cope and seethe sir. The good guys are winning. Common sense, science and human decency and compassion are winning.

I think that I have posted this before.

In my corner of England, the expression "I shouldn't think so" is a hard no. When I used that expression in London, it was regarded as an opening negotiating position. So I changed my response to "No." This was also regarded as a negotiable position. My response now to an ill thought through proposition is "don't be so fucking stupid!".

It avoids a lot of misunderstandings.

Presumably direct talking is also much more efficient in terms of staff time. This is one of the reasons I like the blunt woman I work with. It's so quick and easy and straightforward.

It's another reason why it's bizarre so many organisations have enthusiastically jumped on board the 'let's change the meaning of frequently used words and make language so difficult to understand no-one can anymore' bus.

That's lovely of Sainsbury's to do that! Makes me want to try them out.

I used to have a boss like that who would blether on incomprehensibly, but if you asked him a straight question got flustered and didn't like it. Couldn't be clear for the life of him.

I hate being left wondering what someone actually means. Straight talking wins for me, every time.

Sainsbury's can be a bit hit and miss sometimes, but I think that is purely down to who is picking the shopping.

I did love them the time I put a note on, as the shopping was coming on my birthday, asking if their delivery driver would sing Happy Birthday as they delivered my shopping.

The driver didn't sing, but he did hand over flowers, a birthday cake, and a giant it's my birthday badge from to the delivery manager. ❤

Very interesting what you said above about Ocado. I don't feel like being a customer of theirs any more.

We have weekly deliveries of £300-400 each time, so it would be a big change for us to switch.

I wasn't keen on Sainsbury's when I shopped there, but could try them. Some of our neighbours have deliveries from them.

I also work with a woman who is very blunt and to the point. I like it myself, I much prefer not spending pointless time on lies and word salad

I'm glad someone else thinks like this. I've always found myself much more confident around someone who is clear about what they want rather than someone who says nice things about everything, as there is usually subtext to try and decipher and I get very anxious when this is left up to me.

Yes, sending the letter was trying to punish her for wrongthink I believe. It was completely unnecessary. FOFO springs to mind.

And I agree 'aggressive' in a woman is often assertive in a man. My friend was called 'aggressive' by a junior member of staff when she calmly and in writing pointed out that he was not doing what he was contracted to do in his job, but doing something entirely different instead.

I also work with a woman who is very blunt and to the point. I like it myself, I much prefer not spending pointless time on lies and word salad and a pretence there's something more going on than the job (the company might claim they care about our wellbeing and identities but their actions suggest quite the opposite (below inflation pay rises)). Generally people definitely don't like this woman's directness when they'd accept it from a man.

The letter also shows that they think they're bulletproof - how high on your own sanctimony / lacking in intelligence do you have to be to do something that petty and vindictive to a barrister FFS. One who won a case against her own Chambers.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude - "... For the lawyers amongst us, the opening line of the judgment “Jonty is an Airedale Terrier” has wonderful echoes of Lord Denning"

Quite. "It was bluebell time in Kent..."

Reading the full judgement I wonder if she was also treated differently because she was female. Behaviour that in a man would be called assertive is called aggressive in women.

Will the judge award low damages because she was seen as a difficult client? Or will they take the view that the practise had made mistakes and she was just pulling them up on it? Expecting someone to behave perfectly when a much loved pet is dying is certainly not being the "kind" people they thought they were.

Not nearly enough has been made of the fact that she had decided to leave anyway and a sensible practise would have sent the records quickly and breathed a sigh of relief. Sending the letter saying you arent welcome here anyway was petty and stupid.

Arrogant, more than stupid. TRSOH think they are untouchable.

All of this! I mean honestly how stupid do you have to be to behave like this???

I'd like to know, too. Have stuck with them for now but would like alternative.

ETA: ignore - have seen answer now.