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

It is a Safeguarding issue.
All roads lead to Safeguarding.

A fascinating thread. I love the range of expertise on this board.

^
DBS, sorry my eyesight is fecked.

All roads lead to Safeguarding

Don't they just.

Further, ( because I've got my screen on giant print)
Even if you have got a criminal conviction showing up in a DBS check it does not mean you are debarred from a job.

If you nicked a chicken when you were 18 as a single parent because the kids were starving and then in your 40's went to work in Social Services I very much doubt you would not get a job if you had been an upstanding citizen .

Having a conviction for a sexual offence and a violent attack albeit "spent" under an enhanced DRB check would be revealed and would probably be a different scenario all together.

^ DBS again, getting lost with the CRB its predecessor. Off to Specsavers, sorry.

.

We're just talking about the contents of a court paper that is publicly available.

Not sure how pertinent this is, but I found some of the information here really interesting about disclosure of past convictions: hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/reporting-criminal-records-media/

Very interesting indeed Barren.

I'd say it was very pertinent. Thanks ProfessionalBarren
Important extract here.

"More generally, the report states that, ‘As they are a matter of public record, the presumption should be in favour of publicising verdicts and sentences of Crown and magistrates’ courts in the great majority of criminal cases’. This includes the following where they are imposed as part of a sentence: fines, community sentences, absolute and conditional discharges, Financial Reporting Orders and Travel Restriction Orders.*

Ah the good old 'in the public interest' argument.

Which pretty much applies to everything and everyone. Particularly when it comes to activism and politics.

Been idly looking through Companies House public records today. Between 2000 - 2012 there were 14 companies incorporated where the director and/or company secretary were names we are not supposed to mention - 4 different but interlinked names. DOB all July 1973. Can we be certain these are one and the same person or is it possible there were/are twins, triplets, quads? May explain the denial of a conviction in the court case ..?

In addition to these 14, I found a further 9 companies where director / company secretary names aren't actual people but other companies which have links to some of the 14 companies mentioned above. Don't really understand how a limited company can be listed as a Company Secretary/Director rather than an actual person, but obviously legit.

Anyway, all 23 companies dissolved without, as far as I could tell, any accounts being filed although to be honest my due diligence began to wane after a while so I could be wrong.

As for Stephanie, one company dissolved without filing accounts and one active company incorporated 14 August 2018. Obviously no accounts for that one due yet.

Does anyone know what the point is of setting up so many companies, file no accounts, allow the company to be dissolved and then just set up another one? Are there fines for not filing on time? I'm sure there's a rational explanation out there somewhere.

Does anyone know what the point is of setting up so many companies, file no accounts, allow the company to be dissolved and then just set up another one?

You have an irrational love of HMRC and filling in forms.

AmNotInvisible

You mean these publicly available records at Companies House?

Anthony George Steven Halliday

1. United Business Communications Company Plc Company Director 21 June 2001 — 12 October 2010
2. United Business Communications Company Plc Company Director 21 June 2001 — 24 October 2008
3. Riot Media Limited (05023418) Director 3 February 2004
4. Digital Residence Limited (04148404) – 26 January 2001
5. Microtat Communications Limited (04115536) Company Director 28 November 2000 Anthony Halliday
6. Inter-Alia Legal Limited Secretary 13 August 2012 — 25 March 2014
7. Common Law Limited Director 24 April 2014 — 1 December 2015 Steven Paul Hayden / Steven Hayden
8. Tenancy Law Limited Lawyer 18 October 2010 — 5 June 2012
9. I A Legal (Assignments) Limited Lawyer 7 October 2008 — 18 January 2011
10. Pink Networks LLP (OC337108) – 20 October 2008
11. I A (Legal & Collections) LLP (OC334341) – 24 January 2008
12. Digitaldancefloor.Com Ltd (06426235) Lawyer 13 November 2007
13. Steven Hayden Ltd (05873660) Lawyer 15 July 2006
14. Village Business Limited (05873506) Lawyer 15 July 2006 Stephanie Rebecca Hayden
15. SRH Law Limited Lawyer 1 September 2016 — 6 February 2018
16. I A Legal (SRH) Limited Lawyer Director 14 August 2018

All the companies are dissolved except the last one.
And yes there are lots more companies served by the ones listed above. Funnily enough many of them run by Peter Francis Halliday AKA Jamie Chambers - who I assume is Steph's little brother - who also appears to have overseen multiple dissolved companies.

Nice to see family working together in harmony!

www.legalcheek.com/2014/04/blogging-barrister-refers-himself-to-the-bar-standards-board-after-committing-very-serious-contempt-of-court/#comments

Any idea where this fits in (it was posted on another thread)?

Look to the comment by Mr Hardy and also reference to brothers by "Chris".

Find it really interesting that MN have allowed AlittleHelp18's post from Monday to stand

derigueur
It looks to me like the link is a comment (maybe in response to another deleted comment). The lawyers calling old Anthony / Steven out.

For the record:

www.lampandowl.co.uk/campus/news-on-campus/welfare-bbkelects/

Does anyone know what the point is of setting up so many companies, file no accounts, allow the company to be dissolved and then just set up another one?

Obtaining credit/running up debts/avoiding creditors/preventing employees from gaining entitlement to maternity pay etc (because they haven’t been continuously employed long enough to qualify).

Forming a limited company means you aren’t personally responsible for repayment, and once you’ve hit your credit limit you can close down the company and open another one - www.gov.uk/government/publications/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service/phoenix-companies-and-the-role-of-the-insolvency-service

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_company

Using partners or family members as ‘shadow directors’ is an associated practice.

Funny that they don't threaten legal action against The Times or the DM or Guardian for all their gender critical articles and journalists. But they threaten to go after a forum full of (mainly) women.

Wonder why that is? I mean if they had a good case they'd go after the big profile national paper wouldn't they? Surely this can't be a simple case of trying to bully and silence women?

Obtaining credit/running up debts/avoiding creditors/preventing employees from gaining entitlement to maternity pay etc (because they haven’t been continuously employed long enough to qualify).

Thank you, Betty, for this explantion. It is so blindingly obvious, once you spell it out, but it definitely took your explanation for me to wrap my head around it.

Thanks Betty
You can also write references for others via the company, have a bank account in the company name, hold and sell assets in the company name etc etc

A company, is in effect, an artificial legal person. I'd put the dictionary definition on a poster but .. it can sue, and be sued, make contracts, buy and sell property in it's own right.
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/artificial-person.html

At a certain rate of income into the company, or under certain circumstances, it should be registered for VAT.

It is truly fascinating, isn't it. I have looked up companies house stuff for some CF would be developers before and it was nothing like on this industrial scale (they had also been in court for criminal convictions but got off by arguing the toss ).

With all the changing of names and location and company, you can see why a legal change of gender and name is so inviting, the right to forget and avoiding deadnaming.