Allison Bailey v Stonewall verdict due in the next week

[biddyboo]

🤞🤞🤞

www.essex.ac.uk/-/media/documents/review/events-review-report-university-of-essex-september-2021.pdf

In particular, a quote from p73 of that report -

'This policy is founded on an erroneous
understanding of the law (see §§225–226 above). The policy is reviewed
annually by Stonewall, and its incorrect summary of the law does not
appear to have been picked up by them. In my view the policy states
the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is.
To that extent the policy is misleading'

Which led to the phrase 'Stonewall Law'

As I said in my PP, I didn't know what Alison Bailey had done that was considered 'objectionable'. As far as I can see, she was clear and open about her objections to 'trans extremism', and that was judged to be OK because it was an expression of protected beliefs.

TWO of her tweets were deemed by a GCC enquiry to be a non-acceptable expression of those beliefs. Two tweets were the 'objectionable manifestation'?

"the inducement was to inflict the detriment on grounds of her protected belief rather than because of an allegedly objectionable manifestation of her belief."
Am I missing something? What else was deemed 'objectionable'?

Am I missing something? What else was deemed 'objectionable'?

The two tweets Stonewall complained about were the one about Morgan Page where she mentions the Cotton Ceiling:

"Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called "overcoming the cotton ceiling" and it is popular".

The other was based on a Sunday Times article:

"On this issue I and many other women are grateful to @thetimes for fairly and accurately reporting on the appalling levels of intimidation, fear and coercion that are driving the @stonewalluk trans self-ID agenda."

Sorry @MarieDeGournay was quoting you in italics but the formatting undid it!

The bold text is what GCC determined was problematic in terms of the Bar Standards Board.

I don't see how GCC can object to a factual description of "Overcoming The Cotton Ceiling".

I don't see how GCC can object to a factual description of "Overcoming The Cotton Ceiling".

The court agreed, as Allison provided a full explanation of why she said what she said which wasn't taken into account during the investigation.

I still don't see what was so 'allegedly objectionable' in her expression of her protected GC views that it negated her legal right to protection for expressing her GC views..

I give up, it's obviously beyond my mental dexterity and knowledge of the law, but I hope Alison appeals, if she believes that's the right thing to do for her. She has already put herself on the line so bravely, and whatever she decides in the future, she has our* thanks and our admiration.

*I hope it's OK to use the 'royal we' here

You need to take into consideration that the emails and investigation happened prior to Maya Forstater's EAT where this protection for gender critical beliefs was confirmed as WORIADS.

They didn't bother to review the evidence she sent them to explain why she wrote what she did about Page and the cotton ceiling, or about how the debate in general was conducted towards gender critical feminists, which the court says should have shown them that the language used was reasonable.

One of the senior people reviewing the report was a trans activist or at least adjacent. She said the investigation report should state that Allison was "likely" to be in breach of the Bar Standards Board code of practice and this is what was given to Allison. Allison was asked to remove the two tweets by the Heads of Chambers, following the investigation. She agreed at first but then told them she disputed that they were a breach of BSB conduct and left them up, especially as she had asked them to delete their public tweet (upheld detriment 2) and they said no because once it was published it was published. The same went for her tweets.

She then started the process of getting evidence for a claim against GCC for victimisation.

News update: Allison is going to the Court of Appeal
https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1829147158370541618?s=46&t=lJm6-66fq4MtGcwwAsK6Kg

Good.

Fantastic!!

Wow

Good news. I do admire her courage and tenacity

She’s asked for permission to appeal. Not to rain on your parade, but before you all get too excited, that’s a hurdle to get through.

Not only will she have to show that there is an important point of law to be tried, she will also need to show a realistic prospect of success.

2nd line of the tweet posted just upthread.

All the best Allison.

You are aware that Alison Bailey is a barrister and will understand that yes? She is unlikely to just be taking a punt at it and will have assessed that she has a good chance of being given leave to appeal.

I am indeed aware of who she is. You’d be surprised at the number of applications for permission to appeal that get rejected. Many people do indeed just ‘take a punt’ as you put it, especially if doing so for ideological reasons.

Just cautioning a little restraint with your excitement that’s all….!

Most people aren't on twitter so pointless posting links or expecting discussion.

It doesn't take long to post the content of a tweet (and the link to verify its source)!

ie

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.

I continue to be represented by Ben Cooper KC, who drafted the grounds and skeleton argument for the appeal, and Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton Solicitors.

Huge thanks, as always, to everyone who has supported me in my fight for justice.

https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1829147158370541618?s=46&t=lJm6-66fq4MtGcwwAsK6Kg

@IwantToRetire sorry I was in the car wash when posting so only had time to do the link. Thanks for adding the text.

@ElleWoods15 good point, I was just please to see Allison has decided to try and appeal. At the time she pointed out the Appeal judge missed several points of law.

@Harassedevictee - no worries, but just a reminder to twix users because I think pre Musk you could.

And I think other FWRers are more polite!

Sorry @IwantToRetire I'm not on X but I could still read the linked tweet. I assumed it would be the case for other posters.