Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

[biddyboo]

🤞🤞🤞

Stonewall has made themselves "look bad".

This process has given everyone an insight into just how bad they are.

Garden Court chambers were an ally and this how allies behave.

Similar allies in other sectors are finding their own behaviour to be unacceptable through these cases.

HR generally find out about the shitty behaviour of managers after they have done the damage. Not just in these cases.

"Sloppy process" is what managers do to cause an escalation to HR. The worst cases are when HR also subsequently follow the gormless and incoherent Stonewall slop. You can't run a proper process when all involved are mired in this self righteous discriminatory slop.

We are swamped with objectionable behaviour from Stonewall allies, hence the rise in pushback from the SEEN groups including HR. This isn't going to lead to further suppression of women as the posters upthread believe, it's leading to the removal of the sloppy process guidance promulgated by the prolific number of trans rights organisations.

We've watched incredulously as cross dressing men tell us all about their fetish and how we have to pretend and their pushing of sloppy process to protect their grim behaviour.

That's actually the table that's turning. Get it out of the workplace.

Typically at the time, if Stonewall said “jump”, organisations and businesses would respond “how high?”. Furthermore, if Medcalf had reason to believe anyone influential from GCC was onboard with Stonewalls beliefs, Medcalf would reasonably have expected GCC to do fulfil their wish.

Yes, we know how Stonewalls operate, but it couldn't be shown to have caused the detriments that GCC were found to have inflicted, even though one of them was in response to the Stonewall complaint in and of itself.

If Allison Bailley's aim had just been to make Stonewall "look bad" then she mightily succeeded. They didn't get found guilty of that specific act of discrimination but what came out in court about Stonewall's behaviour and (lack of) professionalism looks terrible for any company considering a working relationship with them.

In this difficult and sensitive area GCC's working relationship with Stonewall did nothing to help GCC avoid illegally discriminating against Allison Bailley. That's not good publicity for an organisation that asks for money in exchange for training and championship on diversity.

Aaargh sorry meant to quote you @FallinUltra

@Hepwo

YY. What she demonstrated is that Stonewall's "Diversity Champions" are very much on the hook, and if you act in a discriminatory way towards GC people, or illegally harass them, they don't care, they aren't likely to be responsible legally and they will wash their hands of you if it comes to court.

Indeed. So many of these 'wins' in court have been down to sloppy process rather

Well yes, that's why most companies get taken to tribunal. They get rid of someone with a protected characteristic, or treat them in a detrimental way and they act illegally to do it. For the company to be liable, rather than just an individual there is a problem somewhere, no?

Men want this destroyed as well of course.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/be-more-seen/

The protection of gender-critical beliefs in the Equality Act means that employers should treat people fairly when they speak up to say that sex matters. But many are still acting according to “Stonewall law”, viewing people who say that sex is real, immutable and important as bigots – to be, at best, barely tolerated.

The SEEN organisers have found widespread support and interest, but also fear of engagement. People are afraid to “out” themselves as gender-critical at work (and some had to ask to be left out of our picture above). This fear is well-founded. The DEFRA chapter of the civil-service SEEN is fighting a legal challenge to its existence, and the launch of SEEN in publishing sparked a hostile response from the Pride networks of the biggest UK publishers.

This rise in objectionable behaviour will coincide with HR departments becoming more savvy of the need to follow proper process.

And they will have to follow that proper process against trans activists who harass their GC colleagues or customers too. Win win, don't you think?

It didn't fail at making Stonewall look bad, it succeeded at that very well. Any HR department with any sense will be seeing that following Stonewall's advice will get you into trouble and you and you alone will carry the can for that.

Absolutely, the coping strategy employed here by posters trying to minimise sloppy process, is that if a meeting had been held at a different time or a letter had been sent by someone the process would be fine and the case would be lost.

"Sloppy process" includes the dreadful policies and procedures from Stonewall and many others which formalise complete capitulation to a fantasy.

Anything goes for employees and managers once they have sucked up that licence to abuse reasonable challenges.

It's all sloppy process. There's no gender identity process that isn't slop. How can there be when it's a wordsmithed fantasy papered over lies and bad behaviour?

"is well worth the donations"

AB spent £1 million for the courts to twice clarify Stonewall have done nothing wrong. I'm sure the LGBT community will be very thankful to her for taking all this time and money to show that Stonewall aren't as bad as many on mumsnet say they are.

Well worth it?

Organisations which penalise people or side-line them due to them understanding the nature of sex and human biology need to be aware that they will always get push back; they will be always subject to legal test and examination. You win some and you lose some...... though in future organisations will perhaps pause before acting so prejudicially, and other organisations and bodies may also pause before becoming too involved with them.

The court has clarified that treating people the way Stonewall WANTS employers to is discrimination.

Exactly.

I think there are important principles here - about manifestation of belief and the influence of lobby groups. We need more clarity because Justice Bourne's decision seems to raise more questions than it answers. I've supported Allison Bailey at every stage and if she and her team decide to take it further, I will support again, all the way to the Supreme Court and beyond.

Stonewall - A charity that WANTS employers to remove the word mother from maternity polices at the same time as promoting men that WANT their families to call them mother.

The term that applies to your post is "quote-mining". You took five words out of my post to attack them outside of their context. I see your dishonest tactics.

Lesbians are women. Bisexual women are women. Those women benefit from legal clarity.

"Quote-mining". Thanks, MaidOfAle. I will try to remember that one.

Isn't it interesting that it takes 24 hours for scolders to turn up, and then several descend at once with the same talking points?

Free Tipp : if you're going to be a day late and copy your homework, always make sure the person you're copying is actually clever. If you can't tell, ask a grown up for help.

Oh yes, of course. Stonewall now look like a gay-friendly, fair and impartial organisation, promoting the rights of lesbians and gay men who know what the word homosexual means and aren't afraid to use it.

People didn't nickname their wrong advice Stonewall Law, they don't have a barrister whose book was wrong before it was even printed, and their reps in court aren't people who need their mum and a comfort dog before they can speak

How could we have missed all that!

It's worth noting that Kirrin Medcalfe, of the support dog, has moved on to working for this outfit:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5125486-seeninjournalism-thread-about-media-consultancy-company-neon

Indeed. I suspect the scolders on this thread haven't actually read any of the judgement(s) (unlike the rest of us) and are simply parroting TRA talking points from Twitter.

And all the Stonewall cheerleaders appear to have also missed the excoriating report in 2021 by the University of Essex into Stonewall's "misleading advice".

Ooh, I missed that one. Got a link to it?