Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

[MsJeminaPuddleduck]

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer)
09/11/2018, 08:16
Have just seen this. Argument is Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues. pic.twitter.com/WVkBMxZeqv

I don’t want anyone to feel targeted, (although I don’t believe that’s happening here) but someone in this person’s position should know the consequences for wasting police time and how arguably more urgent crimes are not being dealt with as police resources are used to deal with social issues. There is a lot alleged in the complaint and if those claims cannot be backed up further action should be taken in response. The CPS seem to take a dim view of of premeditated malicious and flimsy claims.

There is a difference between saying "I have no criminal convictions" and "I have never been convicted of a criminal offence".

whatsthecomingoverthehill

This is very true, but SH is trying to be a lot more sneaky in saying Stephanie Hayden has no criminal offences because SH is a new identity and sex (I guess the birth date would be that on her GMC?).

If asked, before becoming SH and before using the name Steven Hayden, were you know as Anthony George Steven Halliday and did Anthony George Steven Halliday commit those said offences" then SH would have to answer, yes.

Someone is trying to play smart on technicalities and bury their past, which seems totally normal behaviour for this fraudster. I suspect if nothing in the public limelight goes her way, we will end up with another name change in preparation for her next scam (may even become male again).

Probably not the same person as the "Steven Hayden aka Tony Halliday" who was suspended from Birkbeck Students Union and all affiliated societies in 2016 either amid allegations of misconduct and harassment in 2016 either then.

Also all publicly available information.

ALH you don't know any of that I'm afraid and you are speculating.

And I think you are also wrong in thinking that a GRC means there is no link to convictions under the previous name.

What happened the the case in Ireland where a lawyer for a trans women was arguing that the crimes committed by them as a 'man in a 'past life' shouldn't be tried because they aren't the same person?

What happened in that case in Ireland, where the person said they couldn't stand trial because they had been charged in their 'dead name'?

Sounds like Stephanie is going down that route, where if you change your name your criminal record is magically erased.

I can't see any problems with that at all. No safeguarding issues whatsoever. No security issues at all. No legal issues. Nope nothing.

Just magic. Poof.

I think this is rather in the public interest to be discussing the effect of not being allowed to know 'dead names' for public figures and activists.

cross post fekko.

Is this really about harassment by MN or about establishing the 'right to divorce your past'?

And it's not a 'dead name' it's a previous name. Like when a woman fills out a form and try want to know if you have a maiden name. Nobody is dead. Melodramatic claptrap.

Can we so bin the phrase 'honour killing' whilst we are about it?

I think you guys are wrong. Steph hasn't said their objection is because it is related to a previous name, or divorcing their past.

An individual was certainly operating under two names back in 2015. How odd?

mobile.twitter.com/birkbeckunion/status/670323865621536769

Steven Hayden aka Tony Halliday elected as Employment Rights & Trade Union Liasion; Tom Noble as Anti-racism & fascist; Luc Sei as Trans*

Two names, ONE person. We aren't discussing theology and the Holy Trinity here.

so was Stephanie Hayden not born Anthony George Steven Halliday then whatsthecomingoverthehill

if they were then what's their issue?

Or is it their contention that it is a different Anthony George Steven Halliday, who happens to share their date of birth, who had been in front of the courts 6 times as at 2002 (they would have been 28 at that point), for a variety of offenses?

in which case a simple explanation would clear this whole thing up wouldn't it? honest mistake made, no harm done. Anthony George Steven Halliday is a common name right?

The wording is interesting -
The material is factually inaccurate in that I am a person of good character and have no criminal conviction

The conviction would be spent now so not normally need to be disclosed when applying for a job (although law is an exception here) so I suspect the wording has been chosen for that reason.

Good character also has quite a specific meaning in law. You definitely have good character if you have no past convictions but can also have good character if you have old convictions for minor offences and good conduct since.

[Edited by MNHQ at poster's request]

Allegedly, someone has not used their new persona consistently during the past two years. I wouldn't know about that, but if that was the case, could they still have a GRC?

I'm not sure why you are PM-ing me whatsthecomingoverthehill

I'm quite happy to talk about this on the thread

I think you're saying that it's OK for Stephanie Hayden to use vaguely threatening legalise to try to intimidate a mumsnetter into removing a post which links to what appears to be a court document because what they say is technically true - i.e. a conviction from 2002 is now spent, so they have no convictions

however the document linked to is also appears to be factually correct, and states that a person who shares Ms Hayden's birth name appeared in court in 2002.

can't see the issue really.

A politician could have a spent conviction, but from a point of view of a voter I think transparency is important and I would expect them to be able and willing to talk about that experience as a matter of trust.

I tend to hold leading activists and public figures to the same standard if they are campaigning on a particular issue, because its a matter of trust.

If someone tried to wriggle out of that with 'lawyer speak' or technicalities I'd have a problem with it, because I'd immediately question why they weren't prepared to be honest about it.

The conviction itself might not be the thing that I have a problem with. It's the credibility and honesty I'd have a greater issue with because that's the thing that helps me assess their current intent.

Because I don't want to talk about it here. You clearly don't know anything about the law. And if you think I'm some cheerleader for Steph you are very much mistaken.

There are rules about publicising spent convictions which mean it is usually defamatory - it's an exception to the rule that truth is a defence to libel.

Instead you'd have to rely on the defence that publishing was in the public interest. Publishing details of spent convictions of a public profile 'lawyer' might fall within that.

(just out of interest - are there any other exceptions?)

yep, I know zip about the law.

a quick google however reveals that while it would be illegal for me to refuse to employ Stephanie Hayden on the basis of any spent convictions she may or may not have (unless I was employing her in certain specific roles), there is no law to say that people can't discuss historical offenses. And luckily I'm not interviewing Steph for a job.

still dunno why you pm'd me though. you didn't say anything that needed to be said in private

I would not ask anyone for a GRC in a job. Others might disagree.

I would ask for a DRB check if working in certain jobs such as law, police, or with YOUNG PEOPLE.

All names need to be disclosed with or without a GRC. A GRC is not a get out of jail Monopoly card for those who would abuse it's use.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act regarding spent convictions does not apply in named circumstances. Whatever you describe yourself as.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-guidance-on-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974

Because I didn't (and still don't) want to get into a back and forth with lots of dubious speculation on a public board. Believe it or not I was trying to be helpful to people who could be potentially getting themselves into bother.