Allison Bailey v Stonewall

I have gone back and watched bits several times since. I find it very soothing to hear the clean legal arguments without a load of emotional witnesses and bundle shenanigans. Specially Ben Cooper's bit.

Yes I think you can still view the FWS hearing.

Supreme Court cases are great for remote viewing - good sound, no limit to number logged in, no need for advance emailing. And I think you can even pause or view after the fact, not only live.

💕💕💕💕💕

I would expect Allison to continue to be represented by Ben Cooper.

Thank you.

Should be very interesting!
Wonder who'll be representing Allison? And the other sides?

Date for your diary: 9th March 2027! Delightfully, we'll be able to watch without the faff of registering and WFTCHTJ, I think, as SC cases are broadcast routinely.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0017#change-log

I should say that Harriet talks about proceeding until someone raises a flag. Obvs if you’re a mediocre bloke you’d ignore that part and bluster on. But Thats the advanced class 🤣

Me too!

Ha hah! Bundlejuice Bob!

I understood it

Thanks for the suggestion.

In case anyone else wants to listen:

Just decide to “proceed until apprehended”. Theres a TED Talk by Harriet Minter. Liberating!

God grant me the confidence of a mediocre man.

Bundles 5: A Good Day To Bundle Hard

Sorry

The appeal is on s111(2) causation but not s111(3) inducement.

So it may be sufficient that the effect of the email was that GCC did discriminate against AB irrespective of Medcalf’s intent

Ah stop being so “factual”. Were in a post truth society now you know 🙄

Yes, you are wrong. About many things.

Can they do that at this point? While this might be a typical strategy we’ve seen from the other Tribunals that the Rs just double down on how right they are. I reckon they won’t throw KM under the bus because that wouldn’t help them escape anyway

So they have to show how it’s not causation (which seems to be the broader term which include the inducement).

BC needs to read up on behavioural economics and choice architecture methinks. The Behavioural Insights unit of gov was set up in 2010 i think and is taught in business schools. Any CEO worth their salt, looking to expand their business, would at least consider how to use these techniques.

Ive just finished reading the TT of the first hearing and Alison’s evidence was interesting. The bit she said about Stonewall “as good as” instructing or similar. She’s dead right but didn’t have the vocab to explain it. Einstein and Cialdini’s works explain it all imo

The reason I don’t think it will make a difference is that it’s not stonewall’s advice that MF claims to be the problem. Stonewall is not in court for getting the law wrong, so saying they had good intentions when they did so is an irrelevant factor. The SC isn’t going to judge the correctness of Stonewall’s advice under its champions scheme. This hearing is not a Judicial Review-like process into Stonewall Law.

I agree 100% that I am not august like Baroness Faulkner nor Alia Reindorf. Can I respectfully point out though that there are some widely differing expectations for the SC here? One person feels that because the appeal is lodged only on the basis of s.111(2) (cause discrimination) and not s.111(3) (induce discrimination) the SC will not refer to or clarify inducement at all, i.e. will take a very narrow view of their remit, and produce a judgment that is tightly focused on the specifics of this case only. Others are hoping for a widely ranging opinion that will have wide ranging consequences throughout the industry. Those seem to be very different outcomes.

🤦‍♀️😂😂😂

I don't think the first bit flies, either.

Medcalf's email stated that Bailey's actions and her link to GCC "threatens the positive relationships yourselves [sic] have built with the trans community...For GCC to continue associating with a barrister who is actively campaigning for a reduction in trans rights [eye roll] and equality, while also specifically targeting members of our staff with transphobic abuse on a public platform puts us in a difficult position with yourselves [sic]".

How the ET saw that as 'protest' escapes me.

And there should be an extra charge for the reflexive pronoun abuse.

They will try & claim that the email sent by Kirrin Medcalf was not intended to induce GCC to breach the EA by discriminating against AB for her GC beliefs. Furthermore they will claim that even if it was intended to induce GCC to breach the EA that Kirrin Medcalf was a rogue employee not acting on behalf of Stonewall. I don't think that this latter point will fly as employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.