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.

Bring it fucking on.

Safe Schools Alliance
@SafeSchools_UK
·
1m
Replying to
@SafeSchools_UK
#AllisonBailey

Judge Stout setting dates for disclosures, other papers and hearings.

Safe Schools Alliance
@SafeSchools_UK
·
16s
#AllisonBailey

Discussion on whether Judge Stout will try case again or whether it will be someone else

Ben Cooper QC has been excellent.

LGB Alliance
@ALLIANCELGB
Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Now all the dates. First hearing on disclosure then bundle then witness statements. Trial begins on 1 June. Witness statements needed by 4 May says White. Bundle by 14 April. Disclosure preliminary hearing 26 March.

Disclosure preliminary hearing 26 March

Key date.

Still reading the thread but just wanted to say thank you Ova for the updates. Much appreciated!

Safe Schools Alliance
@SafeSchools_UK
·
45s
#AllisonBailey

RMW: there will be very little disclosure from Stonewall, this is for Mr Johnston

yessssss :D

the endless endless sunlight....

Sorry to be thick. Does this mean Allison will be given unredacted information/disclosures so she can name names?

Its an interesting dilema. If, for example, someone in GCC expressed homophobic views publicly about lesbians and Stonewall said that either GCC deal with that person or they would not be able to reference Stonewall recognition of their diversity and inclusion, would AB support her colleague's right to attack her sexuality in the workplace or expect her company to protect her?

Equally, isn't it up to GCC to decide whether that person has broken any terms of their employment enough to deserve disciplinary action or whether they would rather lose the Stonewall accreditation and leave the homophobe in place?

I can see why the case has gone to trial but now the onus is to prove damages by the claimant. Their reference to losing over 50% of earnings last year is irrelevant when most QCs lost income as court cases were delayed due to Covid. Reputational damage will be difficult when she is a founder of a group that HM opposition has labelled a hate group.

I hope no one settles.

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Amended responses: between now and 26 March need disclosure, further particularisation and amended responses. White thinks little or no further disclosure is needed from SW. White thinks pressure of time with this schedule is problematic. Cooper suggests 12 March for disclosure.

Thank you Ova.
I'm a little bit lost but taking it all as good news, and polishing my shovel in case I need to dig more!

Their reference to losing over 50% of earnings last year is irrelevant when most QCs lost income as court cases were delayed due to Covid.

Not irrelevant. The judge recognised there was an issue here with her clerks being changed and suddenly given cases more suited to a junior barrister.

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Discussion continues about dates for disclosure and particularisation
1
2

LGB Alliance
@ALLIANCELGB
·
29s
Particularisation is essential to know which witnesses must be called. White suggests it may be too tight a timetable. Cooper pushes back on that.

This is fantastic news and congratulations to Alison and her legal team.

Even if this hadn't been allowed to go forward, making it public that Stonewall threatened the chambers with cutting ties if it didn't discipline Alison would still have been a win, I think.

If, for example

Lets play shit analogies shall we?

"Let's imagine Stonewall is a nicest fluffiest kitten in the world and ...."

35s
Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Cooper very much wants to keep to June date for hearing.

Its an interesting dilema. If, for example, someone in GCC expressed homophobic views publicly about lesbians and Stonewall said that either GCC deal with that person or they would not be able to reference Stonewall recognition of their diversity and inclusion, would AB support her colleague's right to attack her sexuality in the workplace or expect her company to protect her?

Equally, isn't it up to GCC to decide whether that person has broken any terms of their employment enough to deserve disciplinary action or whether they would rather lose the Stonewall accreditation and leave the homophobe in place?

Not sure why you think this fascinating thought experiment is in any way relevant to Allison's case.

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
White has received instruction from solicitors that timetable is too tight. Johnston wants to preserve June date.

Their reference to losing over 50% of earnings last year is irrelevant when most QCs lost income as court cases were delayed due to Covid.

This relates to a period pre-covid

Replying to
@SafeSchools_UK
#AllisonBailey

RMW: causing pain need to prep witnesses for April

That's because for some reason you don't see believing that people can't change sex is pretty much the same thing as hating gay people Ereshkigalangcleg. You people and your so-called facts!

Brilliant work OvaHere, thanks for doing this

Forget the what what ifs and whatabouteries

This is actually happening.

Replying to
@ALLIANCELGB
Judge froze and then vanished. Now back. White worried about time for witness statements. Cooper urges judge to stipulate that evidence establishing PCPs doesnt need to be presented at the early hearing.