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.

I bet there’s some interesting emails and WhatsApp messages between the stonewall trustees tonight....

Oh yes!

It would be interesting to hear their reason for doing that...

It would.

Going back to the specifics of this case - I wonder why they have been happy to name Michelle brewer (of Brewster? ) as someone who was saying stuff that has been put before the court, & that the judge suggested was disparaging of Allison - but they've redacted others. Is it because she has left?

It's one thing to encourage young LGB children to take up sports via the rainbow laces campaign and another to exclude girls from sport via their championing of trans identification into women's sport. It's totally contradictory

Sorry long but bullying and political victimisation stuff:
I will always admire Allison, particularly for focusing on the SW champions relationship. ‘Plain’ Discrimination and bullying cases are so hard to win against employers - they classically use their employer power against everyone else in the organisation to dredge up that time you were late on one task, or in the lift picking your nose when the door opened and ‘no-one felt alright about working with X any more’. It’s an onslaught which is why bad employers can pressure bullied staff to accept non-disclosure settlements.

This is potentially different, and could be reduced to: A has a service contract with SW, whereby SW gives A a badge of (current) respectability, and SW threatens to remove the badge - with ‘consequences’ - if A does not act against a member/employee of A, and as part of the service contract, SW will help in the action.

I am old enough to remember (reading about not experiencing) construction companies blacklisting ‘troublemakers’ (usually trades unionists - this is in the 70s-early 90s) who insisted on eg checked harnesses and working hours/dark/wet conditions restrictions. There was an ‘advisory’ group that kept a list of people not to employ, and some shockingly big names were signed up to it. I will try to source a bit more this weekend.

I hope Allison wins but I also hope that even if she doesn’t, a lot of people will see that SW is a malign organisation.

The relevant point here is that Stonewall appear to have (arguably) been involved in inducing a company to take action against a lesbian asserting her rights, and she has suffered a detriment as a result. Their remit is LGBT matters, and if they have done this, they appear to have prioritised the T over the L, which kind of goes to her point that they’re not representing her interests, which is the reason for the LGB Alliance existing. They’ve then claimed that they couldn’t possibly have done this inducing, because they don’t have any skills in lobbying for such things.

These matters need to be untangled.

@Impatiens

Shame about the derailment - nothing good will come out of it.

Quite. Tediously predictable but par for the course in threads of significance like this. Thank you so much for this thread, it's been invaluable over the last day. I really appreciate the time it has taken to relay the information. I feel slightly ashamed that I am hidden on Twitter and not in a position to post my support for Alison. I see in her such a brave and determined woman, yet I can't even put my name to a simple comment of support in the fear that it would have repercussions on my job.

Wow. Just caught up with this and want offer congratulations to Alison for taking her case this far, and thanks to the tweeters and Ovahere for putting it all up so efficiently. I don’t really understand the legalities but the comments from posters here have been really helpful. all round.

Just caught up but going back to earlier discussion about Stonewall. When the purpose of any organisation is fulfilled then the organisation itself becomes the purpose. They need to keep their work current and vital. Hence the T agenda for SW. Once organisations go down a certain route, they will do all to protect themselves and their reputation. Hence the overreach.

Shame about the derailment - nothing good will come out of it.

It's not a derailment if someone posts something you disagree with. It's a discussion board after all, people are allowed different opinions.

I see in her such a brave and determined woman, yet I can't even put my name to a simple comment of support in the fear that it would have repercussions on my job

Just an awful, awful situation.

I find twitter so cruel.

A has a service contract with SW, whereby SW gives A a badge of (current) respectability, and SW threatens to remove the badge - with ‘consequences’ - if A does not act against a member/employee of A, and as part of the service contract, SW will help in the action.

A company, organisation or government department which signs up to the Stonewall scheme is inviting conflicts of interest into their organisation. When there is a conflict between what Stonewall wants them to do and what they believe is best for the organisation or for their employees, what happens then? Stonewall seems to get to make this decision.

Organisations would do better to write their own equalities policies which are compliant with the law, and buy in training packages from a variety of outside organisations where necessary, but tying themselves to one particular lobby group for their equalities training and compliance is a poor choice. The 'off the shelf' service which Stonewall is selling is an easy option to take, but ultimately may leave them in a vulnerable position (as GCC have found).

When the purpose of any organisation is fulfilled then the organisation itself becomes the purpose.

This. Stonewall exists to perpetuate Stonewall.

Organisations would do better to write their own equalities policies which are compliant with the law, and buy in training packages from a variety of outside organisations where necessary, but tying themselves to one particular lobby group for their equalities training and compliance is a poor choice. The 'off the shelf' service which Stonewall is selling is an easy option to take, but ultimately may leave them in a vulnerable position (as GCC have found).

Yes and not just because of the conflicts in beliefs. The amount of time and money that needs to be dedicated to upholding your side of being Stonewall champion has been found by some organisations to be a detriment overall. I imagine other protected characteristics are overlooked and don't have similar resources spent on them as a result.

@WarOnWomen

Just caught up but going back to earlier discussion about Stonewall. When the purpose of any organisation is fulfilled then the organisation itself becomes the purpose. They need to keep their work current and vital. Hence the T agenda for SW. Once organisations go down a certain route, they will do all to protect themselves and their reputation. Hence the overreach.

indeed, they did have a brief pop at including the I but then people with DSDs didn't appreciate their condition being appropriated to back up the T and made it known.

Stonewall seem to have reverted to listing only LGBT on their recent public communications. I wonder if the Q are a bit miffed at being dropped too? And what about the +? They seem to have been dropped too.

I see in her such a brave and determined woman, yet I can't even put my name to a simple comment of support in the fear that it would have repercussions on my job.

This x1,000

I think someone asked upthread whether a card to Allison's chambers would find her... does anyone know the answer? Maybe a card sent c/o her lawyers?

it has just occurred to me! Maybe Stonewall are lining up for the big prize - women's rights!! With lesbians as the main focus.

They are waiting for making things to get so dire for women that in 6 months time because they are relying on everyone having the attention span of a gnat and forgetting that they caused it, they will ride in like the white knight and take us up as the next great cause.....

@OldCrone

A has a service contract with SW, whereby SW gives A a badge of (current) respectability, and SW threatens to remove the badge - with ‘consequences’ - if A does not act against a member/employee of A, and as part of the service contract, SW will help in the action.

A company, organisation or government department which signs up to the Stonewall scheme is inviting conflicts of interest into their organisation. When there is a conflict between what Stonewall wants them to do and what they believe is best for the organisation or for their employees, what happens then? Stonewall seems to get to make this decision.

Organisations would do better to write their own equalities policies which are compliant with the law, and buy in training packages from a variety of outside organisations where necessary, but tying themselves to one particular lobby group for their equalities training and compliance is a poor choice. The 'off the shelf' service which Stonewall is selling is an easy option to take, but ultimately may leave them in a vulnerable position (as GCC have found).

Excellent point. It has to be asked, how many other government bodies, the CPS, schools, charities, businesses have been subjected to this "special attention" that GCC have been on the receiving end of in relation to their employees or policies?

There’s a reason why audit of accounts and policies has to be kept separate to implementation. What SW are coining is training/implementation and audit all in one

Doing not coining

Although there’s an irony to autocorrect selecting ‘coining’ in this context

@Arghmetoes

I see in her such a brave and determined woman, yet I can't even put my name to a simple comment of support in the fear that it would have repercussions on my job.

This x1,000

I think someone asked upthread whether a card to Allison's chambers would find her... does anyone know the answer? Maybe a card sent c/o her lawyers?

Her chambers will forward it, I asked

Excellent point. It has to be asked, how many other government bodies, the CPS, schools, charities, businesses have been subjected to this "special attention" that GCC have been on the receiving end of in relation to their employees or policies

But it's not just equalities policies and diversity training. It's their UK workplace equality index which has somehow become an important "official" thing where companies compete against each other to implement Stonewall policies best...

It's also the Stonewall name - sadly Stonewall is still synonymous with LGB liberation - can you imagine how bad it would look for a company to be expelled from their Diversity Champion scheme?

Definitely demanding money with menaces.

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave ...

Her chambers will forward, I asked

Thanks for that, I will do that.

@Arghmetoes

I see in her such a brave and determined woman, yet I can't even put my name to a simple comment of support in the fear that it would have repercussions on my job.

This x1,000

I think someone asked upthread whether a card to Allison's chambers would find her... does anyone know the answer? Maybe a card sent c/o her lawyers?

If Alison wins her case, let's hope this sort of thing will be well and truly scuppered. I understand the problems with woke work too. I have quit my job in the last week, in favour of being able to speak freely. But I was in a position, not too far off retirement and a couple of other options. Many/most can't do that. It is completely shit, that it has come to this for so many of us. Let's never forget it. Alison - amazing Your case is for each and every one of us.