Page 2 | Allison Bailey v Stonewall

SidewaysOtter · 11/05/2026 11:50

PrettyDamnCosmic · 11/05/2026 11:47

It's no defence at all. The old legal adage is ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one).

Show quote history

So what do we think they will use? Just "GCC did this entirely on their own and their listening to anything we did or said was, even if it looks very much like we'd advised them AND tried to apply pressure here, entirely their own fault"?

SidewaysOtter · 11/05/2026 11:48

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/05/2026 08:08

Bundles 3: Bundle Harder

Show quote history

Bundles 4: Bundle with A Vengeance.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 11/05/2026 11:47

SidewaysOtter · 11/05/2026 11:24

It would be a defence, I didn't suggest it would be a good one! I'm just wondering where Stonewall are going to go with their defence - either that it didn't happen (tricky, given the 'do the right thing' comment) or that it did, but they hadn't done anything wrong.

Show quote history

It's no defence at all. The old legal adage is ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one).

SidewaysOtter · 11/05/2026 11:46

Ref inducement or causation, the EA states:

(1) A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7* or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).
(2) A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(3) A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

So it wouldn't matter if it was causation or inducement, as both are specifically prohibited?

PrettyDamnCosmic · 11/05/2026 11:45

MarieDeGournay · 11/05/2026 11:21

No, I had found a photo of a very over-crowded station with a screen full of cancellations - but then I realised it wasn't in the UK and I couldn't in fairness use it to suggest - sarcastically and groundlessly, obvs - that RMW's previous career in the railway business hadn't been very successful either, and quickly found a UK-based alternative photo.
Epic fail. 😧

Show quote history

It's never a good look when you need to explain a joke😁.

SidewaysOtter · 11/05/2026 11:24

MyAmpleSheep · 09/05/2026 18:17

My question was whether they could claim in court that they truly believed at the time that the advice they were giving - and the actions they were encouraging companies to take - was correct

Why would it help them to do so?

Show quote history

It would be a defence, I didn't suggest it would be a good one! I'm just wondering where Stonewall are going to go with their defence - either that it didn't happen (tricky, given the 'do the right thing' comment) or that it did, but they hadn't done anything wrong.

MarieDeGournay · 11/05/2026 11:21

PrettyDamnCosmic · 10/05/2026 14:45

Is this photo a "Where's Wally" with RMW hidden in there somewhere?

Show quote history

No, I had found a photo of a very over-crowded station with a screen full of cancellations - but then I realised it wasn't in the UK and I couldn't in fairness use it to suggest - sarcastically and groundlessly, obvs - that RMW's previous career in the railway business hadn't been very successful either, and quickly found a UK-based alternative photo.
Epic fail. 😧

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/05/2026 10:56

Apparently so. Is it some sort of school holiday today perhaps?

BezMills · 11/05/2026 10:47

Has Dunning-Kruger got a sale on usernames or what?

Llamasarellovely · 11/05/2026 06:51

murasaki · 10/05/2026 19:50

Not how the appeal process works.

It's so tedious the way these 'new' TRAs turn up wearing different hats but with absolutely no idea of the process.

Show quote history

Quite funny though 🤣

MyAmpleSheep · 10/05/2026 23:20

Talkinpeace · 10/05/2026 21:44

You are welcome to think that.
I have watched Ben Cooper and Anya Palmer in action
and now Akua Rheindorf and Kwishner Falkner are free to speak

Show quote history

Ouch!

Talkinpeace · 10/05/2026 21:44

MyAmpleSheep · 10/05/2026 20:11

This is not going to be tested.

Show quote history

You are welcome to think that.
I have watched Ben Cooper and Anya Palmer in action
and now Akua Rheindorf and Kwishner Falkner are free to speak

Bundlejuice · 10/05/2026 21:32

spannasaurus · 10/05/2026 20:04

You think the supreme court is being paid to hear this case?

Show quote history

You know when your toes are actually curling with secondhand cringe? That happened on behalf of that poster you are replying to.

Wearenotborg · 10/05/2026 20:51

MassiveWordSalad · 10/05/2026 17:42

If you’d like some background, Matthew Heath aka Legal Gengar has some background here https://grift.watch

It’s quite a read.

Show quote history

Ooh Thankyou. That’s my evening sorted

Harassedevictee · 10/05/2026 20:42

NC is clever, if you recall from the FWS SC case Ben Cooper represented Sex Matters who were Intervenors. Stonewall kept very quiet!

Stonewall could choose to intervene in this case and would be represented by Counsel. This causes Stonewall a dilemma - do they intervene or not. They have much to lose either way.

My understanding of why this case is going to the SC is because there is no case law on section 111(2) of the EA2010. The SC should produce a definitive definition of “causation” and that will decide if Stonewall are liable or not. Either way we will have clarity.

WRT bundles - GCC were responsible for the bundle not Stonewall. RMW was acting for Stonewall and therefore not responsible for the bundle.

MyAmpleSheep · 10/05/2026 20:11

Talkinpeace · 10/05/2026 19:39

If a health and safety advisor told companies to breach H&S law
then washed its hands of them
when they were sued after work accidents
should that be allowed ?

This is the exact equivalent and deserves to be tested to the point of finality.
The Supreme Court rules on such things every week.

Show quote history

This is not going to be tested.

spannasaurus · 10/05/2026 20:04

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:47

Or maybe they like receiving money? Would I be wrong in guessing a certain rich children's author is funding all these appeals?

Show quote history

You think the supreme court is being paid to hear this case?

murasaki · 10/05/2026 20:03

borntobequiet · 10/05/2026 19:59

Oh dearie me.

Show quote history

Quite. Reminds me of that saying about better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.

borntobequiet · 10/05/2026 19:59

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:47

Or maybe they like receiving money? Would I be wrong in guessing a certain rich children's author is funding all these appeals?

Show quote history

Oh dearie me.

murasaki · 10/05/2026 19:56

TheAutumnCrow · 10/05/2026 19:54

Who likes money? The Supreme Court judges?

Show quote history

The idiocy levels are quite something. There would be no appeal if there were not grounds for an appeal. It may not win, but it has been decided that there are grounds to have another look.

The judges aren't getting JKR funded brown envelopes out of this.

TheAutumnCrow · 10/05/2026 19:54

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:47

Or maybe they like receiving money? Would I be wrong in guessing a certain rich children's author is funding all these appeals?

Show quote history

Who likes money? The Supreme Court judges?

murasaki · 10/05/2026 19:50

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:47

Or maybe they like receiving money? Would I be wrong in guessing a certain rich children's author is funding all these appeals?

Show quote history

Not how the appeal process works.

It's so tedious the way these 'new' TRAs turn up wearing different hats but with absolutely no idea of the process.

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:47

murasaki · 10/05/2026 19:28

Well they must think she has something or the appeal wouldn't have been allowed. Hardly any are.

Show quote history

Or maybe they like receiving money? Would I be wrong in guessing a certain rich children's author is funding all these appeals?

Talkinpeace · 10/05/2026 19:39

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:21

She's already failed twice. What's she going to say this time she hasn't already tried?

If a health and safety advisor told companies to breach H&S law
then washed its hands of them
when they were sued after work accidents
should that be allowed ?

This is the exact equivalent and deserves to be tested to the point of finality.
The Supreme Court rules on such things every week.

MyAmpleSheep · 10/05/2026 19:34

MintBird · 10/05/2026 19:21

She's already failed twice. What's she going to say this time she hasn't already tried?

It is not a question of her saying anything new. The SC thinks there’s something about the way the CA interpreted the law that needs fixing or changing.

There may be nothing new apart from that, that she needs to say to win.