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.

LGB Alliance
@ALLIANCELGB
·
13m
Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
C: White’s position is untenable and astonishing for an equal opportunities organisation to make.
1
3
8

LGB Alliance
@ALLIANCELGB
·
9m
Judge decides to reconvene at 1.45

I think that's because the other barristers are having to tiptoe around the many elephants in the room.

Does anyone know where I could send a card to Allison? If I sent it to her chambers would she get it?

Place marking to lurk later. Completely missed the last thread

Does anyone know what the Information Commissioner might play, if any, in challenging these redactions?

I appreciate that the defendants left AB no time to prepare for and respond to them (the redactions).

[quote nauticant]Peripherally related, look at this shameful cowardice from a nasty bully:

twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1360006890130923523[/quote]

He's been ranting about those awful, terrible lesbians at the LGB Alliance for days now. He is certainly showing stamina, if nothing else. He appears to be basing his accusations of bigotry on quicksand though, which is embarrassing. https://voidifremoved.substack.com/p/fact-checking-oz-katerji

@CheddarGorgeous

Does anyone know where I could send a card to Allison? If I sent it to her chambers would she get it?

I don't know - I would like to know too. I suppose it doesn't hurt for the staff to see them arrive?

Judge seems to be hoping the solution will appear, because there has to be one. I wonder if he is concerned that if he grants a disclosure, that there will be kick back, but I'm not sure what that would be, except the Information Commissioner saying they cannot disclose but I can't think of the grounds. Might be wrong but I don't think you can class these people as private citizens and public interests is paramount??? probably crap but no worse than is being put forward

Am feeling very nervous that this catch 22 will sink the case

I suppose they can’t take a punt and guess who it was to get the full disclosure rolling? They must have a fair idea. Too risky though I expect.

Maddening.

I said exactly the same on the use of the reflexive pronoun yesterday, potholes it’s always the worst jobsworths using it. Poor old pronouns, the abuse they get in the 21st century, and what did they ever do to anyone?

Am feeling very nervous that this catch 22 will sink the case

Me too. Doesn't feel anywhere near the fair access to justice we should expect from this process.

I wonder how Ben Hunte, that well known fair-minded chap is reporting this case?

Oh, by doing a tiktok video for Stonewall. OK.

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1360175102667747332

If we look at all the underhand things that have happened, we really shouldn't be surprised. Still keeping my fingers crossed

@highame

Judge seems to be hoping the solution will appear, because there has to be one. I wonder if he is concerned that if he grants a disclosure, that there will be kick back, but I'm not sure what that would be, except the Information Commissioner saying they cannot disclose but I can't think of the grounds. Might be wrong but I don't think you can class these people as private citizens and public interests is paramount??? probably crap but no worse than is being put forward

I'm sure the judge (I think they are a she) spoke yesterday about there being a public interest. I think it was in reference to the Stonewall trans advisors being named. The catch is the judge ruling this would only be in the case of a full hearing and not this, the preliminary stage.

The judge is a woman BTW. Lgba tweet that she will give judgement today. (presumably that means judgement on whether it falls here or goes to full hearing).

The thing is, this is not going away. The press will pick it up, Stonewall's card is marked now, so they are under massive scrutiny. And I don't know the legal process, but I'm sure Allison won't stop there.

There has to be a way through this, even if it takes a fresh application and renewed support for AB on her resources front?

It seems to come up in every such case: the desire to access the law, but being far too vulnerable to be named. Most judges so far have had no truck with it, Yaniv's judge included.

It is going to have to be confronted. People's access to justice cannot be affected by this. No sacred castes.

Am feeling very nervous that this catch 22 will sink the case

Is it really that easy to defeat employment legislation?

"Sorry, we can't do anything about our organisation's unfair treatment of you, because you can't find out exactly who made the decision - because we will hand over discussions as ordered but not the senders' names that you need to take action".

I can see a few possibilities

a) This happens routinely, and judges accept it, so no-one ever gets justice.
b) This is a stunning undefeatable legal strategy that no-one has thought of before until Stonewall and the judge will be forced to accept it, and employment protection will in future be greatly diluted as other companies learn employ the Stonewall Defence.
c) Only a few organisations like Stonewall would be dumb enough to think this works, and it really pisses judges off when they try it.

Been trying to follow this and not having any legal experience I can't wrap my head round it, seems nuts! How is someone supposed to fight her corner with both hands tied behind her back?

@NecessaryScene1, oh that's interesting and thoughtful (and thought-provoking).

I know an organisation I worked for favoured
d) settle before court with a non-disclosure agreement

Shocking waste of public money.

AB has done brilliantly to stand firm and shine light on these practices.

It seems that the argument is (and I'm not totally sure which way the judge is leaning in agreeing with it) that if Allison is being discriminated against in her organisation then she should have no issue naming the individuals responsible. If she can't name them then obviously it didn't happen/wasn't that bad/paranoia.

I have zero legal experience, but I think the judge will let this go forward. Fingers crossed for 1.45

From SSA live tweet:
Judge Stout: If Mr Cooper, Mr Johnston, and Ms White could liaise with each other about disclosure to avoid further hearings. Back at 1.45.

Does this suggest that something will be carried forwards? If it was going to be thrown out why need disclosures?

LGB Alliance
@ALLIANCELGB
Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Judge Stout reconvenes hearing. She is going to give judgment in this preliminary hearing. The respondents have sought “strike out” because they maintain the case is weak.