Thread removed- girl crowdfunding to get Stonewall OUT of the CPS

[UppityPuppity]

Gardeners - the previous thread was deleted because I linked a tweet from Safe Schools Alliance.

There is a hearing on 12th Jan to try & secure a judicial review of the CPS’s membership of Stonewall’s champions programme. Please support the crowd justice fundraising.

Please google SSA/crowd justice. You know what to do.

Remember to remove the CJ donation - and if you can afford it, add it instead to your donation. Google what Crowd Justice did to Allison Bailey if you want to know why.

This decision seems to imply that public bodies are reviewable if they promote or pursue the aims of lobbying groups, against the existing law. It would be good if the judgment says that. For the bigger issue, we are probably going to ask for review (judicial or executive, by the governing bodies of our employers) on the basis that hitching up to Stonewall’s programme creates, and/or can be seen to create, a hostile working environment for employees seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of speech and conscience; and their legal rights to single-sex spaces. Onwards; they are in the legal, and moral, wrong.

So this is yet another case of guidebce being withdrawn to ensure no one looks at it?

Isnt that what happened with OCC and thr 14 counties that followed suit ?

Why won't they let it get to court?

Do you know when the judgement will be available crossparsley

For the bigger issue, we are probably going to ask for review (judicial or executive, by the governing bodies of our employers) on the basis that hitching up to Stonewall’s programme creates, and/or can be seen to create, a hostile working environment for employees seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of speech and conscience; and their legal rights to single-sex spaces.

This.

I thought it was very debatable to try to paint the CPS involvement with Stonewall as merely just about employee type nice support. Wise made it clear: there are commmittments well beyond how you treat employees and that the guidance ever existed demonstrates that affiliation with Stonewall is to promote and incorporate Stonewall's political stance. The CPS has no business reflecting or furthering the interests of any political group, and its undeniable that this has happened.

I'm sure there are sighs of relief that this huge can of worms has managed to keep its lid on for one more day, but I don't see how this decision is defensible, the facts just don't add up.

So does this mean that any school that implements what they were trained in via this guidence now has no legal back up of it causes problems and a student seeks legal advice?

So schools will now foot the bill as they weren't following legal guidance?

It reminds me of the tactic of testing boundaries repeatedly to find a weak spot. New guidance issued, to test the water, withdrawn, and then the process begun elsewhere. Never allowed to be challenged in a precedent making way, so the bad faith actors remain free to continue again, while the big narrative of inclusion is pushed to shift wider opinion. Classic propaganda, really. Quite sickening when it's the rights of women and girls being toyed with.

CPS also need to take a look at SafeSchools alliance where supporters of Stonewall are making very clear that recognising and caring about the equal interests of female humans, or expecting British law to be impartial and uninfluenced by politics is 'throwing LGBT+ rights backwards'

Draw your own conclusions.

Sorry highame, I was going on the reported judge’s comments in tweets from safe schools UK. I’m not directly involved - just directly affected as an employee of a public sector Stonewall champion.

Ah, sorry I typed too fast. Should have said ‘we are probably going to have to review in my earlier post.

will keep an eye out. Don't think it will be long

This is massively disappointing given that the bias is so obvious. CPS were acting in the specific interests of Stonewall's legislative agenda.

But well done all those involved for shining some light on this travesty and forcing organisations to think twice before they give up any pretence at independence or even-handedness. Here's to you .

Let's hope that Harry Miller's case succeeds. Step by step...

Safe schools have put out a statement here:

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/01/12/cps-hate-crime-schools-guidance-permanently-withdrawn-judicial-review/

Please read and share. Twitter here:

twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1349070573721235468?s=20

Thank you so much to everyone who has dug deep. The support is incredible.

Further, we are disgusted at the CPS’s attempt today to depart from normal practice and seek punitive damages against a 15 year old girl

Fuckers

Seriously?

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Further, we are disgusted at the CPS’s attempt today to depart from normal practice and seek punitive damages against a 15 year old girl

Fuckers

Yes quite. Showing bully boy tactics there. We are all absolutely appalled.

A warning shot over the bows rather than a direct hit. Let’s hope the CPS changes tack, other captured vessels take note and all chuck Stonewall pirates and stowaways overboard ⚓️

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Further, we are disgusted at the CPS’s attempt today to depart from normal practice and seek punitive damages against a 15 year old girl

Fuckers

And the reasoning: We believe this is intended to have a silencing attempt on others seeking to oppose Stonewall’s anti-women and anti-safeguarding ideology.

Arseholes. Want women to just give up and submit. They can fuck off with that shit.

I am really shocked by that. Truly disgusting

It's really frustrating that the judge failed to see the bugger picture. That even if it were just a case of employee "rights", those employees will be making decisions on cases and representing women in court.

Good point 2falls, it's about capture. Like the typo

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Good point 2falls, it's about capture. Like the typo

Oops. Must wear my glasses to post!

Further, we are disgusted at the CPS’s attempt today to depart from normal practice and seek punitive damages against a 15 year old girl

Wtaf?!

Unbelievable.

What an interesting PR choice that was.

I mean, I could suggest that such an action indicated a certain amount of vindictive anti-female animus quite consistent with a government body that had been thoroughly immersed in the anti-female policies of a certain lobby group, and therefore an appearance of bias, but I'm assured such an idea is baseless, so I'll trot along and contribute quietly to Ann Sinnott's crowdfunder and gird my loins for the next battle to protect women and girls, because We Will Not Be Intimidated Into Compliance.