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.

What's a "PCP"?
(Got the song lodged in my head now obviously)

Well, this is awkward if Stonewall are in fact a charity and not a lobbying group, given that they are apparently internationally not lobbying, and havent been doing so from their inception until now 😬

@RozWatching

Just catching up with the live updates from yesterday.

Stonewall writes that @ gardencourtlaw have always been allies. "However for GCC to continue to campaign to support Allison puts us in a difficult position with yourselves".

Then @ stonewalluk continues that it trusts GCC will "do what is right and stand in solidarity with trans people". Stonewall says that GCC must take disciplinary action or they will disassociate themselves from GCC who will then "face the reputational consequences".

Why do we give Stonewall public money, again?

They should be publicly banished just for that "yourselves" alone 😂.

@DeaconBoo

What's a "PCP"? (Got the song lodged in my head now obviously)

'Provision, criterion or practice' in employment law, I believe.

@DeaconBoo

What's a "PCP"? (Got the song lodged in my head now obviously)

From LBGA:

[info: An essential ingredient for all claims of indirect discrimination (s.19 EqA) and many claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, (s.20 EqA) is the application of a
provision, criterion or practice (more conveniently referred to as a “PCP”)]

www.thirdsector.co.uk/charities-say-lobbying-act-made-work-harder-says-report/communications/article/1466580

The lobbying act sets spending limits and makes it a legal necessity for all organisations that spend more that £20,000 in England or £10,000 in Wales on regulated campaigning in the year prior to an election to register with the Electoral Commission.

Does anyone know if Stonewall are registered or simply how to find out if they are?

And don’t get me wrong, I admire what Stonewall have achieved in the past, with involvement in civil partnerships, equal marriage, equal age of consent, lifting of ban on serving in the military, same sex couples adopting etc- all amazing stuf and very necessary. It’s post 2015 Stonewall that I object to. Same way that I don’t object to pre 2012ish Mermaids, who had a noble calling in supporting children distressed over their gender.

The issue in both is the institutional overreach, and the fact that they’re not at present serving the population they are supposed to serve with any measure of credibility or integrity. They’re failing in their core missions, and like any other charities, they ought to be held to account. Otherwise, you end up with another Kids Company scandal.

yourhairiswinterfire

Thanks for the info.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

Today’s report, which is based on telephone interviews, focus groups and an online survey carried out with 92 campaigners and senior managers in the charity sector, says that the act "stops some activity completely", including public comment on politically sensitive issues.

The act also reduces charities’ ability to support local democratic engagement, the report says, and more than a third of respondents said they had changed their language or tone in campaigns or public comment as a result of the lobbying act.

Hmm.

@Datun

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.

Yes, the name was Stonewall Lobby Group Limited until fairly recently.

@SophocIestheFox

And don’t get me wrong, I admire what Stonewall have achieved in the past, with involvement in civil partnerships, equal marriage, equal age of consent, lifting of ban on serving in the military, same sex couples adopting etc- all amazing stuf and very necessary. It’s post 2015 Stonewall that I object to. Same way that I don’t object to pre 2012ish Mermaids, who had a noble calling in supporting children distressed over their gender.

The issue in both is the institutional overreach, and the fact that they’re not at present serving the population they are supposed to serve with any measure of credibility or integrity. They’re failing in their core missions, and like any other charities, they ought to be held to account. Otherwise, you end up with another Kids Company scandal.

I agree Sophocles. We always say in the charity sector "oh yes the ultimate goal is for the charity to have solved the problem so we no longer have to exist" but you hardly ever see charities disband, they nearly always just add something else to their mission.

Stonewall had achieved pretty much everything it set out to do and needed a new cause to keep the wagon on the road and so T became the focus. I think they've also started to make noises about working on intersex issues (not at the request of the DSD community as I understand it)

(Just seen btw that the case against Kids Company has gone in their favour - gobsmacked at that!)

Arguably I would suggest there is a strong case that Stonewall shouldn't be doing any advice work in schools, with the police or any other public or private sector companies during election periods because it could be considered lobbying and therefore problematic in law.

donated - thank you for flagging this up.

Stonewall pages archived

Stonewall Changing and Protecting Laws
stonewallimpact.org.uk/changing-laws/
Archived: archive.is/18Cdu

Stonewall Mission and Priorities
www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/our-mission-and-priorities
Archived: archive.is/pEQ8m

Stonewall Transforming Institutions
stonewallimpact.org.uk/transforming-institutions/
Archived: archive.is/WJiqc

The cover photo on "Transforming Institutions" is priceless!

Cash-strapped schools are throwing money at Stonewall for students to waste time being bored to tears and antagonised, by the look of it!

If SW Indoctrinators are this bad at their job then our children are probably safe - but what a criminal waste of taxpayer's money and children's time in school.

You see certain people saying that if you support this action, you stand against everything Stonewall have ever achieved.

Not so. I support the things they have actually achieved on behalf of LGB people, and those things will remain even if Stonewall disappear because they have fulfilled their remit. It's only the overreach, bullying and undermining of their own achievements that will end. And speedily, I hope.

And don’t get me wrong, I admire what Stonewall have achieved in the past, with involvement in civil partnerships, equal marriage, equal age of consent, lifting of ban on serving in the military, same sex couples adopting etc- all amazing stuf and very necessary. It’s post 2015 Stonewall that I object to. Same way that I don’t object to pre 2012ish Mermaids, who had a noble calling in supporting children distressed over their gender.

This is the thing - something has gone horribly wrong in the last few years. LGB Alliance members include ex-Stonewall campaigners who felt that they had to come out of retirement, so to speak. Transgender Trend advocates for watchful waiting, just like Mermaids did before Green & co took over and got on the hormone bandwagon.

Who are the 'bad' guys?

@BuntingEllacott

You see certain people saying that if you support this action, you stand against everything Stonewall have ever achieved.

Not so. I support the things they have actually achieved on behalf of LGB people, and those things will remain even if Stonewall disappear because they have fulfilled their remit. It's only the overreach, bullying and undermining of their own achievements that will end. And speedily, I hope.

By that logic anyone in the USA who voted Democrat supports slavery. Because history.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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

And I think that's pretty much a given.

Could be a big clue to one of the reasons they are HM Opposition

Thank you for a really interesting thread. So pleased Allison wasn't struck out.

Onwards!

This is the thing - something has gone horribly wrong in the last few years.

Historically it very often happens.

A desire to ensure people weren't starving and shelterless and funding and groups set up to create buildings and programmes for this ended up being the appalling misery and abuse of workhouses.

A desire to rescue abandoned children from starving city deaths or deaths climbing chimneys and a foundation set up to send them to countryside with clean streets and air and the opportunity to learn a trade - became confiscating kids and shipping them off in droves to be abused and worse in Canada and Australia.

Well intentioned ideas grabbed on to by well meaning overenthusiastic people on personal crusades, power that enabled personal prejudices and agendas, and a whole lot of mission creep.

Plus ca change.

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

Keira Bell appeal also in June, 23/24 June.

As in Tavistock appeal, not Keira herself!

Just saw this quoted by glosswitch, and I thought of the Stonewall email to the chambers, ending in 'to yourselves '.

This was that Oz bloke who had a twitter hissy, tweeting to Janice Turner that these things should be discussed, but only by

"people who aren’t so evidently and extremely prejudiced against trans women such as yourself ."

Maybe we need a thread of them. I always imagine it in a Boycey-like nasal voice.

Exactly, michelle. And reflective, well governed charities are on the alert for where they might tip from doing good to do-gooding.

It shouldn’t ever be held to be self evident that they’re doing good just by existing. This is a problem endemic across the charitable sector, and Stonewall are only unusual in this instance that they’re going on the attack against anyone they perceive as not supporting them.