Allison Bailey v Stonewall

I stand to be corrected but I think Kelly v Leonardo re-starts on 22nd Oct, and is Glinner back in court on 29th?

(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.

Well, isn't that interesting? Surely it can be argued convincingly that Stonewall did induce them, along with threats of what might happen, if they did not stick it to Alison?

so next week is Alison Bailey and the Darlington nurses - anything else I've missed?

I see the TRAs are attacking Allison with their racist 'spaghetti briefcase' nonsense all over bluesky.

Goodness me; a busy busy week next week! It really shouldn’t have to be so.

That’s really helpful thank you @spannasaurusand thanks for the thread @impossibletoday

I would like to see Stonewall get it in the neck as well, but couldn’t the much-supported Kirin argue that all they/thems intended was for GCC to buy Allison cream cakes and talk nicely to her until she saw the light? That it was GCC alone who chose to interpret it in nasty ways?

They agree that Stonewall induced it but didn't think it was fair and reasonable for Stonewall to be liable for the act of discrimination

I expect the hearing will be legal arguments about what "cause" means which is likely to make it difficult to follow

Thanks for the link, I wonder how the first ET didn't find '....that Stonewall, through Kirrin Medcalf, had “induced” or “caused” that discrimination.' , when it seems quite oblivious that's exactly what Kirrin Medcalf did? 🤔

I found this article from The Legal Feminist helpful in explaining the point that is being appealed.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/07/24/bailey-v-stonewall/

Yes - conference where no photos or social media were allowed. The echo chamber must be maintained!

I’d like to know how many organisations quietly left Stonewall’s pyramid scheme after this unedifying performance.

Oh great there goes any work I was going to do next week. We need this to succeed for the floodgates to be opened. The slow dismantling of this batshittery is delicious. Reducing them all to a pile of weird beta males in dresses having their arses handed to them by strong women.

Allison's Chambers won't be the only people that Stonewall advised to do something unlawful.

If the ruling is in her favour, this could open the floodgates, and absolutely bury them

I listened to that recently - it was absolutely jawdropping. It cost nearly £400 for a ticket, there were no handouts or takeaways, photography was strictly banned, there were no audience questions allowed, and Tanya and Maya F, who went together, were followed around by minders the whole time.

The guy she had as the other person on the podcast used to work for Stonewall before it went mad. She asked him what he'd have done if he was organising it, and his ideas sounded excellent.

That was a good listen. Didn't the conference completely avoid any mention of the SC judgment? 😂
Presumably hoping to avoid having to acknowledge that they'd been economical with the truth about the law of the land

Best of luck to Allison! Well done for standing up to the Stonewall bullies 💐

Slightly off piste, but Tanya De Grunwald attended the Stonewall conference a few months back for her podcast series, This Isn't Working. Very interesting to listen to as it paints a picture of how dysfunctional the organisation is.

The whole performance with Stonewall's witness and his dog / mum / support person was a turning point for the organisation I think. It was a bit like the wizard of Oz. All of a sudden Stonewall wasn't this polished, professional, well-trained, reliable source of legal knowledge. Just the most underwhelming bunch of inarticulate, mean-spirited keyboard warriors, terrified of being called out on their actions.

The damage to Stonewall's reputation was done, and things aren't going well for them right now. I do think Alison is raising valid points that need to be flushed out in court. Whether that translates into something punishable by law remains to be seen.

Goodness knows she deserves to win this. Fingers crossed for a sensible judge.

Yes, and there was clearly a detriment caused to Allison - reputational, career-wise, financial and social - which was foreseeable and intentional.

So much so that I don’t understand how Stonewall walked away from this previously tbh.

I read section 111 and I think they definitely did that, of course they did!

(IANAL. Obviously. 😂)

That is my understanding.

I’m not so sure. The fact she has been given leave to appeal means that it’s been decided that her case merits review.

My understanding is that is not a simple/easy threshold to pass - you can’t just say “I want to appeal” and the answer is “sure, if you can pony up the money”.

I’ve got a bad feeling about this one.

Stonewall always manage to wriggle off the hook, somehow.

Thanks op. I'll watch the thread in the hope that someone comments a basic level for dummies interpretation of what happens.

I've followed Alison's case all along and really hope this works for her.