Crowdjustice and Mumsnet 😁

[lcakethereforeIam]

This is the 3rd time I've tried to create this thread. So apologies if it's a glitch and they suddenly all show up.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/05/jk-rowling-bankrolls-legal-fight-workplace-gender-police/

https://archive.ph/1Y0Ll help you over the garden wall

The headline imo is a bit clickbaity misleading but, hopefully, it'll help some non-gardeners find the allotments.

this is really pissing you off isn't it?

Really the AB appeal case was a win either way. Either Stonewall accountable for lying about the law or it being made crystal clear to employers that if they follow stonewall's dodgy advice they're on their own and will be accountable if they discriminate / bully as a result.

Not that you care though eh?

Was Allison Bailey’s case the one with the support animal? And Ben Cooper QC? Worth every penny.

Hopefully that people need to be very careful commenting, as issues regardig contempt of court apply.

If the scolding is encouraging anyone else to garden Pilgrim Tucker could use a few more seeds

2x £50,000 mystery donations were dropped on the final day of her initial appeal and a 'dear friend' bankrolled the 2nd failure.

Garden Chambers had to payout £20k because of a tweet they made on their own accord (see the thread about it for details). This is nothing to do whatsoever with Stonewall.

It has been shown twice now Stonewall have not discriminated or caused anyone else to discriminate against AB. The cases show if employers follow Stonewall's law they will be in the clear. The courts have ruled there is no lying/discrimination/bullying going on by Stonewall as AB has helpfully shown us not once but twice.

AB has spent ~£1M in a case and an appeal and failed to sue Stonewall. But if you think you know better think anything has been missed out then by all means start a crowdfunder and try to sue Stonewall yourself?

Garden Chambers had to payout £20k because of a tweet they made on their own accord (see the thread about it for details). This is nothing to do whatsoever with Stonewall.

Please stop misrepresenting this case, I'm going to correct it every time. It wasn't just one tweet they made.

Garden Court Chambers (at least try and make it look like you have any idea about it) were found to have discriminated on the grounds of Allison's gender critical feminist beliefs on two separate detriments, the comms team tweet you mention saying that Allison was under investigation, but also the disciplinary investigation they carried out which was in direct response to the Stonewall complaint, among a couple of others.

So yes it was to do with Stonewall, it just wasn't found that GCC's discriminatory investigation was caused by Stonewall's complaint.

They were also separately found to have victimised her by carrying out the discriminatory investigation due to a protected act (her tweet about Stonewall)

The cases show if employers follow Stonewall's law they will be in the clear.

This simply isn't true, because the client relationship with Stonewall is not the same relationship and duty of care that an employer has with its employees.

It's just bluster. We see employers falling foul of the law on this time and time again.

The support dog (who was praised by the judge); also the support person, support mother, and support lawyer (who were not).

It was better TV viewing (if you had the opportunity to watch) than any Netflix blockbuster.

Does anyone have the address for submitting my expenditure approval form?

I want to buy a loaf of bread and some apple juice tomorrow, and donate to the local post-riot rebuilding fund, but I need to know if that's OK with christineapple before my bank will unlock my card.

As fun as it would be to see Naomi Campbell in full swing in a GC tribunal, Naomi Cunningham already has these cases covered. 😉

Oh that evokes some memories. 😂

Bundle bundle bundle

🤐

is it like Candyman?

It has been in the past! At school everyone used to shout "buuuuundle" when there was a fight in the playground.

Bundlejuice.

Thanks for the archive link, that was an interesting read

If anyone wants to read, here is the first Bailey judgment. She was upheld on detriments 2 and 4.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bailey-judgment.pdf

Why does what and how women spend their money on make some people so salty?
I regard my donations as excellent value for money. Seeing organisations who discriminate against mainly women,get their arses spanked is very rewarding. Add in the entertainment value of support dogs,humans,mums ect,the absolute decimation of some witnesses,and the frankly bonkers views that some supposedly intelligent people come out with in the witness box,and it is worth every penny.

Maybe they think we are wasting our HUSBAND’S MONEY?

🤣🤣🤣

Oh bollocks, forgot to ask his permission before I donated

Oops! My apologies to both of them.

You called?