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

Yambabe - wow what a great wheeze.... I wonder how common it is.

I do know vaguely a builder I checked out who is on his fifth company, charges against the first four. Banks hold the charges. Is this how it works. The mind boggles.

I remember a small time crooked businessman once bragging to OH that bank managers were like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them plenty of shit.

re costs - from what I understand if you are taken to the county court, put up a watertight defence, and the other party loses, then you can claim 'reasonable costs' ie not all and can be awarded costs less X% by the judge. So you may be able to recoup a large proportion but not all costs. If they do not pay up then you have to go through the bailiff palava. They are really good at financial checks though and all sorts comes up.

Thank you, Yambabe, you've explained possible actions very well

Yambabe and all.

Heya Danaquestionseverything,

Indeed that thread was my doing. Thanks very much for the compliment, I'm glad it's resonated with some people over here.

J 👍👍

Always good to remember that there are gender critical women in many MANY places that can both help and support victims of TRA bullying, TRA's assume GC feminists are just a bunch of middle aged, stay at home mothers, how wrong they are.

Jack

I'm in Australia that's how far you're reaching.

Yambabe, thanks, all very interesting. Do you know why when starting a company you would choose to incorporate with a non-trivial statement of capital?

Yambabe - thanks, very interesting explanation.

Birdseye - Invisible, sorry that XX said your bum looked big in them there trousers, and here is a hanky to dry your tears, but you have no chance of a hurty feelz court case or for claiming constructive dismissal for your office flounce

So very very cruel of you - surely my hurty feelings are worth a few bob so I can buy decent shape wear ?

Because you're likely to get a better credit rating.

Capital as stated is a company asset (even if the shares haven't actually been paid for).

So on paper, a new company that has issued 150 £1 shares is worth £150 and that's the only known capital available to pay debts until accounts are filed.

A company that has issued 50000 shares is worth £50000 and in theory has that much available to pay any debts.

In practice both are just numbers on a piece of paper.

Should have added, it doesn't necessarily have £50000 in the bank, it just looks like it should!

Thanks, it just struck me as odd, especially when one recent company started up with (in theory) £0.5m!

IAmNotInvisible Fair enough.

Righto, at no cost to yourself, the Company has consulted with a real erm..."Consultant."

One Susie Orbach. She is sending you her book " Fat is a Feminist Issue" and in the interim she advises:

“Dare to be as physically robust and varied as you always were.”
hth

We need a like button

Re the share capital thing, a company can issue as many shares as it likes when forming.

The theory is that if each shareholder pays £1 per share, the company is formed with that amount of capital in the bank. So along comes Mr Supplier, thinking of doing business, goes to credit check them and yay, that company apparently has £0.5m in the bank! I'll sell them something on credit as they will be good for it.

Actually however, shares only have to be paid for over the life of the company. So if nothing is paid for the shares upfront and the company only has a life of 12-15 months then ceases to exist the shares may never get paid for. But nobody will ever be any the wiser because accounts will never be filed...... and once the company ceases to exist so does any obligation on a shareholder to pay for shares in it if they haven't already.

IAmNotInvisible

LOL now this antipodean is completely confused 🤷🏼‍♀️. Completely off topic but I'm trying to smother my giggling. So over in the UK you're calling it shapewear. Here we call them Bridget Jones Undies, well sometimes, when casually chatting with friends.

And that's probably good night from me.

I genuinely don't foresee that person running off with the money and assuming a new identity.

No, the risk is negligible, definitely. It's a watertight plan.

Lozza - not quite sure what you mean by that comment but as far as I'm aware Stephanie Hayden has the paperwork to be referred to as "she". Better score at scrabble too.

Strange isn't it how a small organisation such as Fair Play for Women published details of their accounts yesterday without any prompting or legal requirement to do so and yet our learned friend here is reluctant to allow a company to be in existence long enough to be legally compelled to file accounts - which one is the more open and transparent?

Just on the Companies House thing.

There was a Private Members Bill backed by Nicky Morgan, Maria Miller and Jess Phillips among others that would compel Companies House to delete references to a transgender person's past on the Companies House website. The bill did not go ahead. Because a snap election was called.

Companies Documentation (Transgender Persons) Bill 2016-17

Because that would never be used to hide a dodgy criminal past, oh no.

Holy shit popchyk either Morgan, Miller and Phillips are as thick as two short ones or they are sinister and complicit.

Blimey! This thread has been very informative, in several ways.

P.I. Mumsnet is always a beautiful thing to behold.