Allison Bailey to sue Stonewall -thread 2

[OvaHere]

Previous thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3950877-Allison-Bailey-to-sue-Stonewall

Allison's website allisonbailey.co.uk

Statement

First and foremost, I hope that my legal action will bring me justice. I also hope that it can stop Stonewall from policing free speech via its Diversity Champions scheme.

Stonewall have signed up many companies, public bodies, voluntary sector organisations and government departments to their manifesto and their value system regarding trans rights. What is called Stonewall Law. Without most of the public realising it, a large swathe of British employers have signed up to the Stonewall value system. It has done this by trying to silence and vilify women like me who have genuine concerns about how its approach to trans inclusivity conflicts with the protections, safety and dignity of women, girls, children and LGB people.

We cannot achieve a just outcome for everyone while Stonewall are free to threaten women like me with the loss of our livelihoods and reputations. Stonewall must be held to account. I intend to do just that.

Safe Schools Alliance
@SafeSchools_UK
·
21s
Replying to
@SafeSchools_UK
#AllisonBailey

Judge Stout: Would you like to respond Ms White?

RMW: we should put this matter over until later in the litigation

DisgustedofManchester - "Reputational damage will be difficult when she is a founder of a group that HM opposition has labelled a hate group."

If that is the case then the reputation being damaged here is HM Opposition.

OldCrone

Is this legal recognition that SW Champ Scheme is effectively a protection racket?

I was just about to post something similar.

Companies give SW money and must do as SW says, otherwise SW threaten to ruin them.

Makes me wonder about the many other organisations that have swiftly issued grovelling apologies, apparently solely on the basis of some anonymous random on Twitter shrieking, "Transphobia!" or offering "kindly advice".

I bet there are some beady-eyed corporate bods watching this from the sidelines and totting up the financial cost (and potential "reputational damage") of continuing to be associated with Stonewall.

Thanks all for the posts and explanations. Does it appear that the judge is getting fed up with the tactics of SW and GCC?

Its called the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_of_Lobbying,_Nonparty_Campaigning_and_Trade_Union_Administration_Act_2014

It has ironically got the nickname 'The Gagging Bill' when passing through parliament.

So seeing as Stonewall have a manifesto, has stated aims to change the law and their representatives seem to spend most of their time informing many organisations (the employers of 1/4 of the working population by Stonewalls claim) that the law has already change to their specifications- how are they not mainly a lobbying group?

And we are paying them to do it!!

Had a look to see what TRAs and allies are saying:

twitter.com/drewbiedoo72/status/1360233708385632256?s=20

If that is the case then the reputation being damaged here is HM Opposition.

And I think that's pretty much a given.

Thanks all for the posts and explanations. Does it appear that the judge is getting fed up with the tactics of SW and GCC?

A bit hard to tell. To be honest I imagine a lot of this stuff is par for the course in many legal cases. Trying to run out the clock, swamping the opposition with paper work and running up costs are known legal tactics.

@persistentwoman

Interesting RedToothBrush I have heard some object to the word lobby group yet their website states:

.... We will continue to campaign and lobby governments to change laws that do not ensure equality for LGBT people, or laws that do not go far enough ....

Probably best screenshot that ...

OvaHere

Absolute blinding reporting.

Huge thanks.

To anyone from the outside, the claims over having no relationship, just being bystanders, and 'nothing to see here', look ludicrous.

Talk about not realising when you're painting yourself in a bad light.

Having said that Owbist the judge does seem to be getting a bit testy now.

Replying to
@SafeSchools_UK
#AllisonBailey

Judge Stout: you’ve all set your own timetable which has resulted in additional costs.

I am disinclined to get into this.

RMW: I will take instruction

Judge Stout: I’m not deciding this today and I’m not inclined to want to see it again

Donated

My goodness. The judge managed all this whilst having small children at home.

Session ended now. Hope she has a large glass of wine waiting!

Replying to
@SafeSchools_UK
#AllisonBailey

Judge Stout: I think written reasons are going to have to be issued
1
2

Safe Schools Alliance
@SafeSchools_UK
·
49s
#AllisonBailey

Hearing has ended. We would like to thank Judge Stout for her thorough, fair and good natured approach to this case . Total respect on passing judgement with small children (3+?) in the background!

#Shero #workingfromhome #workingmom #WomenEd

According to LGBA

Stonewall thinks it has "come very close" with correct disclosure. White asks for the costs hearing to be heard at another time. Judge notes that Respondents have ignored Judge's directions. Most cost would have been incurred by Claimant who had to do the work of Respondents
twitter.com/ALLIANCELGB/status/1360251313997697025?s=19

"Probably best screenshot that"

What does this mean?

Judge Stout: I’m not deciding this today and I’m not inclined to want to see it again

Thank you, Ova - I think you deserve a or two yourself!

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Had a look to see what TRAs and allies are saying:

twitter.com/drewbiedoo72/status/1360233708385632256?s=20[/quote]
One of the posters responding misgendered the judge. O, the humanity.

I was perusing Stonewalls mission statement earlier today. For a non lobbying group, they surely do a lot of lobbying like activity.

Thank you, @Triphazards, and @RedToothBrush. I'm sure there's quite the archive out there about lobbying activity.

I'm certain the we're officially registered as a lobby group. And it was changed a little while back. I can't remember where I saw it now, though.

@OwBist

Thank you, Ova - I think you deserve a or two yourself!

Thank you and thanks to everyone for the commentary and discussion. It's not easy to follow the goings on as a layperson.

they're', not we're

Strewth

Thanks for the great thread, Ova.
Allison Bailey is a hero.

One of the posters responding misgendered the judge. O, the humanity.

Funny that. They presumed sex and then presumed pronoun on the basis of sex?

This case is going to be fascinating. Apart from the public reaction to a charity openly acknowledging the behaviour revealed in court by some of their members, would an unfavourable outcome generate complaints to the Charity Commission? Government funders? And what about criminal charges?
Is it a criminal act to threaten to harm the reputation of a business if they fail to sanction a member of staff in the manner that you require? Or is that why protection rackets get away with it so often because it's not a criminal act? I have no idea.