Allison Bailey v Stonewall

This is why it should be tested in court. But it appears the Appeal Court has inadvertently ruled and surely that should be appealed???

@MyrtleLion Kemp has a solicitor advocate career to protect, though I think that flush may be busted too. One does not hire a lawyer in order to be advised on the fruits of his imagination, nor those of an LLM.

On the other hand (I was talking to a lawyer after all), given that gender-critical/sex-realistic beliefs are WORIADS, then it may follow that alternative beliefs are automatically WORIADS.

On this point, here's a counterexample: the belief that people with red hair are entitled to the same human rights as everyone else is clearly WORIADS. The converse, not so.

Has this been posted https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-and-others-Press-Summary-1.pdf

I read it as it supposed to help no legal people understand.

I am none the wiser.

Quoting my own post, to add that I posted it BEFORE I read that the message from Stonewall was
I trust that you will do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people.
which sounds anything but face-value innocent!

What was 'the right thing to do, and how were they being exhorted to 'stand in solidarity with trans people' specifically vis-a-vis AB?
There was a context, and that context gave the words weight and meaning, which they judge seems to have ignored.

I'd like to get it established that extreme GI beliefs are not WORIADS, because of the way they attempt to coerce others,

I happened to be out with a lawyer today and we discussed whether GI beliefs are WORIADS.

On the one hand, it can be argued that until such beliefs are established as WORIADS by a court, then they may not be, but they may be - Schrödinger's belief if you like. And the only way to establish WORIADS would be through a case where someone with such beliefs was challenged/discriminated against. As this hasn't happened (and I believe Naomi Cunningham would love to take such a case to court - if only to get a definitive definition), then they can't be said to be WORIADS (yet).

On the other hand (I was talking to a lawyer after all), given that gender-critical/sex-realistic beliefs are WORIADS, then it may follow that alternative beliefs are automatically WORIADS.

So I don't have an answer, but my lawyer friend did say that the point should be legally tested and not allowed to stand as it is.

My friend also.said they were surprised Kemp had not yet resigned because (and I quote) "there is no way in hell I would allow any client to appear in front of him. He would have to be recused. And I don't see any other lawyer allowing him to pass judgment on any of their clients".

My guess is - worth what you pay for it - no. Permission to appeal, if sought, will be refused. There is no palpable error of law that is arguable here and no issue of sufficient public interest outside the narrow confines of this case to make the SC want to revisit it.

Sorry, cross post! So can the appeal on perversity grounds go further?

(My autocarrot wanted that to read "perversion", which is perhaps a whole other thread...)

Yes, I think the most crucial bit is perhaps that saying "I trust you'll do the right thing" didn't suggest that Stonewall actually wanted GCC to do anything (!) was perverse. Now that the CoA didn't make that finding, can that be appealed to the Supreme Court?

The CoA agreed that’s a question of fact for the first tribunal or court to decide on. Not a question of law that’s appealable. AB had her kick of the can on that point and lost it, back in 2024 or whenever.

I agree, but those are all questions of fact which it was the ET’s job to rule on. And they held against AB on those points. The CoA couldn’t overlook the ET finding that it was “just a protest”.

I see your point, I'm only arguing for argument's sake, so to speak
I understand that the legal definition of things like 'causation' may differ from the everyday understanding, and that judges have to judge on the legal definitions.

But I also expect [perhaps wrongly] judges to have a bit of subtlety and cop-on and awareness of human interaction in how they read situations.

So I would argue that it depends on who the speaker is:
if it is someone with a known dislike of Allison and her ilk, who represents an organisation that thinks the likes of Allison are carrying out literal violence and genocide against them, and who has considerable influence in society and over the owner of the brick, I think
“Allison’s a meanie, I trust you’ll do the right thing”
has clear implications understood by both the speaker and the brick-owner.

It may have been accompanied by tapping the side of the nose

I mean... yes? Specially if you're a GP and I'm your receptionist.

Or maybe if you say, "I don't like people with Oriental names. I've got an appointment with one this Friday. I trust you'll do the right thing," and then (moving away from the broken windows) I cancel it. SURELY that is you inducing me to do it?

Yes, I fear so. I hope Sandie has ovaries of steel and her backer pockets as bottomless as they appear to be.

This does make me think that the Peggie tribunal needs to be rerun then.

Court underestimated how devastating it is for organisations to be accused by the Witchfinder General.

But this particular organisation was already full of enthusiastic witchhunters.

Not a good analogy.

More like: I tell you “Allison’s a meanie, I trust you’ll do the right thing” then you go and break Allison’s car windows.

did I tell you to break her windows? Did I mean you to break her windows? Am I to blame that you broke her windows?

'Lovely motor you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it, right?'
And then it got its windscreen smashed in.
"But I only said 'it'd be a shame IF anything happened to it', you can't prove causation, guv.."

No, it wasn’t a coincidence, but the connection wasn’t strong enough.

I wouldn't blame Allison one bit if she decided she'd had enough. I hope that she is able to continue this one if it's sensible to do so as it doesn't directly involve her participation any more - but it must be hugely stressful regardless and I know full well that I wouldn't even be able to cope with a little ET, so hats off to her. Strategically I think we do have to be careful what we focus on; if the very clever legal people involved decide it's sensible to let this one go I trust them, similarly if they don't. I'd like to get it established that extreme GI beliefs are not WORIADS, because of the way they attempt to coerce others, but if the behaviour continues so will the opportunities for challenging that. I could easily believe that what constitutes causing and inducing was one to leave to others.

However, my gardening budget is now recurring and growing, and I have a Euromillions ticket for tomorrow in the hope of being able to extend it further than will otherwise be possible. And there are a lot of us. So TRAs crowing about how Allison's cases have cost a million and she's lost again, meh.

ETA @MyAmpleSheep because quote fail

Stonewall were the service provider: it would have made more sense the other way around eg client of recruitment agency demands agency only forwards applications from certain classes of candidates.

They were giving quasi-legal advice to actual lawyers 🙄. If gcc had just been a n other employer who had abused an employee's rights whilst relying on advice from their lawyers, could they get redress from their lawyers? Could the employee? (Genuine questions)

I'd love to see Stonewall pilloried and ruined, but this wasn't the case to do it, not least because gcc are in effect shielding them.

It’s a basic principle of the legal system, not just ETs. The court of first instance gets to say what the facts are, and nobody can gainsay that unless they, in specific legal terminology, fuck up completely.

Same for county court, crown court (criminal actions) etc. Appeals only focus on what the law means, not on what actually happened. That’s set in stone.

It was just a complete coincidence about what happened to Allison afterwards right?

So we’re always going to be stuck with ETs’ ‘findings of fact’ in appeals, even when they are palpably flawed?

It seems a bit innocent? naive? 'I see no ships' to claim that a complaint from somebody at Stonewall is not a complaint from Stonewall, and that a complaint from Stonewall does not - or did not at the time - carry huge weight when sent to one of their Diversity Champions.

At that time they were pretty much unchallenged in their role as parallel legislators😒