Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

[biddyboo]

🤞🤞🤞

Yes, I can read it.
It's only when it's a series of tweets you can't read them as a non-user - unless you use threadreader app but sometimes it asks you to log into TwiX first.

Maybe they cancelled that policy.

I could read it too. I was merely pointing out that she’s not going to the CoA just yet. She’s asking them if she might be allowed to.

Interesting. This seems to be a compromise access that X must have bought in.

as said by PP they now show a screen shot of the individual tweet - not the thread.

Obviously realised they were lossing potential subscribers with their original policy of blocking non users acess to whole thread.

In think you can rest assured that women on here are capable of reading Allison's words. I even read as far as her second sentence:

"I have filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against Stonewall, appealing the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment.

The first stage in the appeal process is to obtain permission to appeal...."

Permission to appeal is different to the appeal itself. Anyone party can apply for permission to appeal @MrsOvertonsWindow . My point is that’s a substantial hurdle.

That used to be the case, but now I also can’t read single tweets that are linked to from here.

Weird.

In think you can rest assured that women on here are capable of reading Allison's words. I even read as far as her second sentence:

It is only recently that they have have changed their policy of stopping none users from viewing tweets.

You seem to have totally missed the point.

I find it very variable, sometimes I can see a single tweet, sometimes the tweet and the one it's replying to, sometimes nothing. Never a full thread.

https://x.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1861044685088624993?t=tv2BkWCwh_91T1u2aZEPsQ&s=19

Screenshot

Ooh, yes - the reasons are interesting!

@impossibletoday thank you.

This is good news.

Section 111

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

(1)A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).

(2)A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(3)A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.

(5)Proceedings for a contravention of this section may be brought—

(a)by B, if B is subjected to a detriment as a result of A's conduct;

(b)by C, if C is subjected to a detriment as a result of A's conduct;

(c)by the Commission.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (5), it does not matter whether—

(a)the basic contravention occurs;

(b)any other proceedings are, or may be, brought in relation to A's conduct.

(7)This section does not apply unless the relationship between A and B is such that A is in a position to commit a basic contravention in relation to B.

(8)A reference in this section to causing or inducing a person to do something includes a reference to attempting to cause or induce the person to do it.

(9)For the purposes of Part 9 (enforcement), a contravention of this section is to be treated as relating—

(a)in a case within subsection (5)(a), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between A and B, A is in a position to contravene in relation to B;

(b)in a case within subsection (5)(b), to the Part of this Act which, because of the relationship between B and C, B is in a position to contravene in relation to C.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

I had never heard of this 111 so looked it up.

Does anyone know if Alison needs any help at her allotment?

Good. Loved this comment:
"Fantastic news - lesbians & gay men will not tolerate gangsters at Stonewall going after us in the workplace for simply believing lesbians don’t have penises. Thanks so much for shining the spotlight on this revolting racket. I continue to stand with you every step of the wayX "

Having looked at her page she seems to have a full garden. However, given this news she may update in a few days as I imaging she needs a lot of 🥕🥕🥕.

Does this mean Garden Court Chambers could also sue Stonewall?

She was funded for the last one by a wealthy supporter. Must’ve really helped to take the stress out of the process. Hopefully that support will continue.

I'll need to dig deep down the sofa, empty money boxes and see if I can sell something.

Does this mean Garden Court Chambers could also sue Stonewall?

I'd like to see this happen. I doubt it will happen as it might cast a bright light on the GCC people who thought Stonewall was a good partner and source of advice. And, iirc, these were senior people in GCC, at least one of whom now has a senior position within the ET service.

.

Go Allison.

Bring it all down

It's got to be JKR 😁👍👍

Allison, dracarys.