Big update on Rape Crisis legal challenge

[IamSarah]

I know many of you have been waiting for an update so first of all thank you for your patience and the many messages of support.

I am suing Survivors Network, the Sussex Rape Crisis service, as it refused to offer a single sex women’s group in addition to the mixed sex women’s groups. By mixed sex I mean inclusive of any males who identify as women.

I’ve been granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case and it was submitted to Brighton County Court today.

I am being represented by law firm Didlaw and my Barrister is Naomi Cunningham (Chair of Sex Matters). So far they have acted pro bono which I am incredibly grateful for as it has taken a lot of time. The team are confident I have a good case but this is unchartered territory for women’s rights.

Many of you have very kindly offered to be involved and help with gardening. I don’t think I’m allowed to share details on here so please go to my Twitter page http://twitter.com/SarahSurviving/ which has all the info in a pinned post.

Of you’re not on Twitter feel free to send me a DM for more information on how you can help the case. Any publicity you can give the crowd funder would really help.

Thank you everyone.

Sarah x

This. I've just donated again and will continue to do so until the fund closes.

I doubt the Bar Council would be too impressed with a barrister attempting to engage a litigant on the other side of a case on an online forum. Particularly when the litigant is a vulnerable person bringing a case based on her vulnerability and that of other people like her. It's an abuse of the role of an advocate to be on here seeking to insult, humiliate or annoy a witness or any other person. Most people on here are not lawyers, this isn't robing room banter. A barrister coming on a thread initiated by a litigant and designed to support her, in order to harangue her and her supporters, crosses a line IMO.

If RMW had started a thread explaining what a (junior) barrister does and doesn't do in such cases, that would actually be informative and helpful.

To post as above is unhelpful and downright unprofessional IMO.

Sarah; even if you lose this case, it will be there in black and white in the court records; women have fewer rights than men. Then we can work from that (again).

Perhaps all bundle chat could move to the one of the Allison Bailey threads?

I've done some more digging too. Good luck, Sarah, you are a star and so, so brave X

Okey Dokey. There were many many threads at the time of Alison’s tribunal and I didn’t specifically recheck whether it was you who took responsibility for the “Difficulty” of the bundles. Perhaps you feel you’ve been rather shafted by whomever was actually responsible. At least you can acknowledge the bundle was, in layman’s terms, a dogs dinner, or in this case perhaps a duck’s dinner.

Perhaps you even agree with Ben Cooper that there should be financial penalties against those who create the costs associated with shoddy bundles.

I do notice that you have chosen not to comment on the content of the banner, and will make my own inferences as to why that is so.

No.

Those who attended the hearing will remember me ‘translating’ pages all the way through the hearing for all concerned - not a small task.

it’s not my place to attribute blame. Barristers do the best with what we are given.

I’m sure I’m an ignoramus but what do you mean by ‘the banner’, please?

I don't think it's appropriate for you to be here, Robin.

@RobinMoiraWhite

This is a support thread for Sarah.

How apt that you feel entitled to intrude and violate it.

I’m only here to correct an inaccurate comment about me in respect of an unrelated case, and any follow up required - I genuinely don’t understand the ‘banner’ comment - and then I will have no further reason to be here.

Do your own research, or underpay someone to do it for you.

But was that really necessary? I don’t think it would have any impact on your future employment prospects, or realistically, your reputation.

I’m sure as a barrister, you can see how easy it would be to infer other motivations for your contribution and start a conversation that may not help your case. Is that what you really intended?

I’ve been plain about my motivation.

This particular bit of misinformation started on Mumsnet and has been repeated elsewhere. Now that will be difficult for a Mumsnetter to do as:

(1) it’s wrong,

(2) I have said so, and

(3) it’s baseless.

So that should be an end of it.

Folk should, of course, feel free to use the thread in any way they like within Mumsnet’s rules but I reserve the right to correct inaccurate comments.

I did not choose to post inaccurately about myself on the thread.

for Sarah.

Sending you the very best wishes. You don't need this extra stress.

Sarah, if there is anything else we can do to help you (other than digging), please let us know. I was already incensed about this but I'm beyond that now.

I find it utterly chilling and inappropriate that one of the legal team defending this case has come onto the thread at all regardless of whatever point it is they feel they have to make.

Even if the intention wasn't to intimidate and harass that is always going to be a potential impact that could easily have been foreseen in advance.

How completely unprofessional. I highly doubt you informed your seniors that you were going to post on THIS thread to defend your hurty feels over points that were brought up on an entirely different case.

I'm absolutely horrified.

Just sending support to you Sarah, to drown out the other irrelevant noise 💐💐

All of this.

Complete empathy/basic appropriacy fail. Appalling.

All of this

www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/reporting-concerns.html

@RobinMoiraWhite

I would prefer not not have this discussion on here but the 'banner' reference is about Survivors Network's Pride banner which suggests trans inclusive rape crisis groups are sexually exciting.

I am sure your client has already made you aware of this and their reasons for displaying such a banner.

I don't think it's appropriate to engage any further.

This with bloody great brass bells

Whatever "correction" RMW wants to make, it would be better served being done on the Allison Bailey threads (where they are relevant) or on a completely new thread. One could imply that the motive for doing so on this thread is so that RMW can throw their weight around, knowing full well that the vulnerable person they may well be cross examining in the new future will undoubtedly read their posts, this thread being clearly about her and her supporters after all. I'd be very interested to know if the very excellent and decent Anthony White QC knows what his junior is up to?

It doesn't matter why you claim to be posting on this thread.

This is a support thread for a vulnerable litigant who is suing YOUR client for failing to provide single sex support services to female rape survivors and prioritising gender ideology and looking "hot" over actually helping the people they are there to serve.

Do you have any idea how unprofessional you are being?

So some people criticised your team's bundles and you don't think that's fair?

So what?

Put your big girl pants on and go and complain about it somewhere else. Don't come on here and needle the woman who is suing your client.