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.

Could they be sued for misrepresentation? Or the legal equivalent.

The ASA regulates a lot of online activities.

Also there's the Fundraising Regulator, which has quite a stringent code. E.g.:

"1.3.
Informing donors and treating people fairly

1.3.1.
You and the fundraising materials you use must not mislead anyone, or be likely to mislead anyone, either by leaving out information or by being inaccurate or ambiguous or by exaggerating details.

1.3.2.
Before you make any direct or implied claim in your fundraising which is likely to be taken literally, you must make sure that there is evidence to prove the claim.

1.3.3.
You must not take advantage of mistakes made by a donor.

1.3.4.
When talking about finances and financial benefits, you must tell donors that you are not in a position to offer formal financial advice.

1.3.5.
Your fundraising must meet equality law as it applies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. You must not discriminate against people with characteristics protected under the law of these countries. You can get more information from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland."

There are many marvellous things about this thread but a side issue of interest is just how much emotional energy it must take to scaffold the 'take' that those who support the conflation of gender and sex - or even the erasure of sex to be replaced by gender alone - are 'winning' because they are being 'attacked' in court.

Lets have a think about this. In March there is Harry Miller's challenge to the Hate Crimes Guidance in the Court of Appeal. I hope to hear around that time if I and Miss B have permission also to challenge the HCG.

Then hopefully Maya Forstater's appeal in April? Allison in early June, Keira Bell in late June. Don't know timings for Ann Sinnott but hopefully around then too.

It's an absolute tsunami of legal action. Cases that are proceeding on an arguable basis. Which, if won, will change the legal and social landscape significantly. Funded almost entirely by grassroot donations of £10, £20 a pop.

Just how much energy does it take to twist this into an alternative narrative of 'bigots making a fuss'? It must be exhausting and take a serious toll on people's mental health.

Far better to accept reality. That the attempted forced coupling of 'trans rights' to 'gay rights' is coming apart for the obvious reasons that being same sex attracted and wanting to compel others to deny the reality of your own sexed body HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.

@TheLaughingGenome

Could they be sued for misrepresentation? Or the legal equivalent.

The ASA regulates a lot of online activities.

Also there's the Fundraising Regulator, which has quite a stringent code. E.g.:

"1.3.
Informing donors and treating people fairly

1.3.1.
You and the fundraising materials you use must not mislead anyone, or be likely to mislead anyone, either by leaving out information or by being inaccurate or ambiguous or by exaggerating details.

1.3.2.
Before you make any direct or implied claim in your fundraising which is likely to be taken literally, you must make sure that there is evidence to prove the claim.

1.3.3.
You must not take advantage of mistakes made by a donor.

1.3.4.
When talking about finances and financial benefits, you must tell donors that you are not in a position to offer formal financial advice.

1.3.5.
Your fundraising must meet equality law as it applies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. You must not discriminate against people with characteristics protected under the law of these countries. You can get more information from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland."

Crikey. They are flouting at least four of those.

1.3.4.
When talking about finances and financial benefits, you must tell donors that you are not in a position to offer formal financial advice.

Could Advising someone that they will suffer 'reputational consequences' if they take such and such an action be classed as this ^

Could they be sued for misrepresentation? Or the legal equivalent.

Im not really able to really comment on this from a legal angle but can from a political angle and from what i think the stumbling blocks are legally.

Since they are not elected its hard because you just need a few people saying they are lesbians saying Stonewall represents them to get around the issue.

You'd need to demonstrate that Stonewall were actively discriminating against homosexuals somehow. The definition is a good starting point, but i think you would have to demonstrate further than that with actual actionable examples within law that prove discrimination within the organisation or facilitated by the organisation. I think what Stonewall have done to Allison Bailey is a very good example of that on an institutional level as it goes. At some point if that goes through in Allison's favour you have to then start looking at whether its institutional or whether its down to individuals within the organisation who can be singled out for homophobic behaviour. At this point having a lesbian in charge matters. How do you go about a court case involving a lesbian being taken to court for homophobia? Of course this then begs the question whether this is quite a deliberate strategy and points to institutionalism. Which i suspect will make it much harder to demonstrate as you will see a closing of ranks.

Imo what needs to happen is probably that the LGB Alliance needs to gain legitimacy and for Stonewall to be forced to compete for the Lesbian, Bisexual Gay 'market share' and to represent them. Accountability from diversity of organisations (and therefore representation) is probably the best option out there because it forces Stonewall to actually do things in the interests of homosexuals rather than act against them if gays and lesbians have the ability to vote with their feet (and more importantly money).

This means the LGB Alliance does need to step into the full role and services that Stonewall originally provided as well as dealing with the T conflict.

I note that the neo-liberal / current crop of Conservatives tend to believe in the concept of markets because self regulating through competition rather than regulation so the politics of the time kind of align in that respect.

I think this case is a perfect stepping stone to demonstrate issues. It may go against Allison but in taking to court it illustrates the problems and the very thing Stonewall is trying to deny: that there is a conflict between womens rights and lesbian rights and trans rights which is not being fully recognised and appreciated.

In short: if theres no case to answer, and there is no conflict between lesbian/womens rights and trans rights, then why is there a court case at all? Stonewall's argument there is no conflict is blown out of the water.

Much as I despise public shaming and wokeness in general I have this morning read a story about Justin Timberlake and some mysoginistic female tv presenter publicly shaming Britney Spears and even Timberlake himself references patriarchy as the reason he got away with it.

I know misogyny is way down the list for most social justice warriors but I am getting a sense that 'calling it out' (hate that term) is getting swept up a bit in the wave of BLM/pride etc call outs. Ditto there seems to be a lot of support for how Taylor Swift has been treated by her ex record company.

Taking Stonewall out of the equation I wonder if GCC might get caught on the back foot with all of this because of what seems to be condoned bullying of a black, working class lesbian in a profession so dominated by white privileged straight men.

For any chambers that's not a good look but for a purported left wing human rights chambers it will make them look plain unhinged.

AMK42 absolutley. I think masses of us are writing, e-mailing and though we're not co-ordinating, we are picking up information from these threads and doing what we can. I'm passing on information to friends who are also doing the odd bit, but without my rabid zeal . This thread has been really fantastic. SO many new ideas, my thanks to all of you. Ovahere fantastic work (I mis gendered the judge early on I have excuses sitting in a pile

Imo what needs to happen is probably that the LGB Alliance needs to gain legitimacy and for Stonewall to be forced to compete for the Lesbian, Bisexual Gay 'market share' and to represent them. Accountability from diversity of organisations (and therefore representation) is probably the best option out there because it forces Stonewall to actually do things in the interests of homosexuals rather than act against them if gays and lesbians have the ability to vote with their feet (and more importantly money).

This means the LGB Alliance does need to step into the full role and services that Stonewall originally provided as well as dealing with the T conflict.

YY I agree. And that's what TRAs fear, and why there has been such a smear campaign against LGB Alliance from the start.

When those opposed to you realise you are such a threat that they have to move from ignoring you to throwing pretty much every resource they have into attacking you then it's just a matter of time.

That basically describes how TRAs and their allies have treated the LGB Alliance from the moment it launched.

is probably the best option out there because it forces Stonewall to actually do things in the interests of homosexuals rather than act against them if gays and lesbians have the ability to vote with their feet (and more importantly money).

Money is one of the key factors here and where a lot of the issue lies. I suspect it wouldn't matter very much financially to Stonewall if every LGB person in the UK stopped donating or bequeathing to them because their business model now is built around state funding plus money from corporates and public/third sector organisations.

YY I agree. And that's what TRAs fear, and why there has been such a smear campaign against LGB Alliance from the start.

As always, follow the money.

Why does Stonewall want to resist competition to its monopoly? Surely lots of organisations representing the LBG community itself are great and in the best interests of that community? Why oppose other LGB organisations if you are all about giving voice to those who are LGB?

@OvaHere

is probably the best option out there because it forces Stonewall to actually do things in the interests of homosexuals rather than act against them if gays and lesbians have the ability to vote with their feet (and more importantly money).

Money is one of the key factors here and where a lot of the issue lies. I suspect it wouldn't matter very much financially to Stonewall if every LGB person in the UK stopped donating or bequeathing to them because their business model now is built around state funding plus money from corporates and public/third sector organisations.

They only get state funding if its deemed a worthy cause by the public. Also the LBG Alliance could apply and compete for these pots of public money too which might reduce the amount going to Stonewall.

I am not nearly as clever or articulate as others, but it has seemed to me, for a very long time, that the whole strategy of institutional capture and government funding was to make charitable donations unnecessary. They have enough money to please themselves.

@chestnutSquash

I am not nearly as clever or articulate as others, but it has seemed to me, for a very long time, that the whole strategy of institutional capture and government funding was to make charitable donations unnecessary. They have enough money to please themselves.

I am expecting a big reduction in public money going to charities like this in the next few years.

One of the political narratives at the moment which is rising is the one about the charity gravy train particularly with large charities being more about self interest rather than their actual cause, and the sector being in need of massive reform because of this.

Theres also a narrative about 'woke training' being beaucratic, pointless and a waste of time which doesn't achieve what it sets out to do.

With the economic effects of covid to raise its head its going to be harder to prioritise funds to lobbying groups.

People will want money to go to things like the NHS frontline, housing or retraining for employment not 'luxury ideology'.

There is a big shift on the cards if you are reading the political stars correctly...

1.3.1.
You and the fundraising materials you use must not mislead anyone, or be likely to mislead anyone, either by leaving out information or by being inaccurate or ambiguous or by exaggerating details.

1.3.2.
Before you make any direct or implied claim in your fundraising which is likely to be taken literally, you must make sure that there is evidence to prove the claim.

Surely it could be argued that the vast swathes of misinformation about the content of the law (and possibly exaggerating the hate crime/abuse levels) on the Stonewall website would count as fundraising material?

Their website is part of the public presence and forms part of their publicity material in which they base their fundraising so surely it falls foul of the above laws?

Presumably the lies propagated in their training offering comes under the Trade Descriptions Act as not being fit for purpose because it is giving false information leading large companies and organisations to spend money on that basis.

Not wanting to derail but it’s interesting to see an example of a local. Authority which has been captured by SW. the assumption that we are all part of a jolly lgbt community makes me sick. Very little about lesbians or women .50 pages
democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s177906/LGBT%20Inclusive%20City%20Report%20Appendix%201%20180618.pdf

The LGB alliance will struggle to compete with stonewall on service provision, one because they don’t have the infrastructure and secondly because all the contracts put out will include the T in the service specification. What they need to do is to be seen as the grassroots voice of LGB ppl

It will take a long time before stonewall loses its influence . They’ve just been awarded a contract from the nhs to take rainbow badges to the next phase. This will include wouldn’t you know it an awards scheme which wouldn’t you know will include stonewall providing training & monitoring to ensure compliance
www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/nhs-rainbow-badges-%E2%80%93-play-your-part-promoting-lgbt-inclusion-healthcare

@PotholeParadies

But it’s just a stepping stone to TWAW and probably why the school suggested following someone on Instagram or Snapchat to show your support. The random person can then fill in the gaps.

Wha?

Doesn't that go against internet safety lessons?

Yes. The thread on it was removed.

There is some thought in legal circles that SW and GCC may settle if the odds continue to stack higher against them. Things will become clearer as more is released to AB’s team. Pre-trial they can go back to court to seek documents if GCC or SW don’t provide them.
Very many Employment cases settle before court but often with compensation tied to NDAs however I would think that since money isn’t the motivation here and AB fully able to practice elsewhere this is an unlikely outcome.
Will be a v heavy costs burden given respondents spending so much time docking around in a legal sense. Judge appeared to recognise that financial burden lay on AB’s side yesterday

dicking

Why does Stonewall want to resist competition to its monopoly? Surely lots of organisations representing the LBG community itself are great and in the best interests of that community? Why oppose other LGB organisations if you are all about giving voice to those who are LGB?

Why indeed.
They are entitled to lobby for the erasure of sex in law, GnRH hormones for kids, mixed-sex women's rugby and whatever else, but they have no right to demand that the whole 'community' agree with them.

The leaked chat between Jan Gooding and an unnamed bank is quite revealing. She comes across as completely power-mad.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/leaked-transcript-confirms-stonewalls

“I find it shameful that even now one of the original, well a group of the original founders and supporters of Stonewall actually have set up what's essentially an anti-trans organisation called the LGB Alliance that was literally formed to campaign against any reform of the GRA and I think that tells you that within Stonewall I'm afraid I think there was a transphobic element.”

“…..as long as Liz Truss is the Minister for Equalities I have absolutely no idea who she thinks she's representing because she, I've never heard her talk about race, I've not heard her do anything positive for trans people, she's being really weird on conversion therapy. I mean why is this woman, and I'm speaking very openly to you, I mean she's the most disastrous Equalities Minister so let's hope we get somebody new, but we at Stonewall now are regrouping on our strategy for the advance of everyday life of trans people and yes, that's going to be around trying to change the law…”

“I think we've got to really think about what campaigns we are going to run to win hearts and minds again, and get away from this ridiculous toxic tennis between JK Rowling and the rest of the world which is not helping anybody. It's superficial nonsense and no-one understands it and so we've got to regain that middle ground. We've lost people that we should never have lost because of the nature of the discourse.”

(Our insider said “Reading a transcript doesn't convey the spitting rage that came across in her voice. She is really angry about JKR.”)

“Number 10 listen to business more than they listen to Stonewall.

It's going to be another decade and this bank and other corporates are absolutely critical allies. The power of your brand, the power of your reach, the power of your branches, the power of the customer experience that you choose to give. That beats anything that Stonewall can do.”

So pleased to see #IStandWithAlisonBailey trending on Twitter. There's a lot of support for feminists out there.

that's going to be around trying to change the law

I'm assuming she means the law around self-identifying into another gender.

Thing is, changing the law won't actually help transpeople who are discriminated against in lots of low-level small ways.

It will make it worse, IMO - 99% of the population know that transwomen are not women in any common sense understanding of what a woman is. They are transwomen, ad there's nothing wrong with that.

But if we are all forced into compelled speech and even more so, compelled belief which is anti-scientific and anti-materialistic, the law becomes an ass.

It's interesting that Gooding calls JK Rowling's concerns 'superficial nonsense'.

Stonewall and trad Tories have at least one thing in common - an aversion to feminism. JG would probably have Dominic Raab as Women's minister if it meant that she could have her beloved self ID.

Wasn't that leaked discussion with Gooding where she confirmed that Stonewall's current priority is to target primary schools?