Allison Bailey sues TRA vets

[messybundles]

Looks like Allison was kicked out of her vets due to her gender critical beliefs, she's suing them with financial support from JKR using the EHRC's Akua Reindor KC.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14828079/JK-Rowling-friend-banned-vet-gender-beliefs-dog-fat.html

And they haven't yet noticed that their own belief that humans can change sex hasn't been Grainger-WORIADS tested.

https://allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Bailey-v.-Linnaeus-Veterinary-Ltd-judgment-04.07.25.pdf

44 pages, which I read with my lunch.

'It was bluebell time in Kent'.

The entire judgement makes it clear that the judge accepts there was plenty of anecdotal evidence that numerous staff had found AB unpleasant and difficult to deal with over many years.

Indeed one of the members of staff who actually agreed with her GC views it seems still found her very difficult to deal with and warned other staff about interactions with her.

But ABs personality flaws aren't what is on trial though it's whether the vets took action against her as a result of her GC views and the judgement shows that the balance of probability is that it was her GC views that caused an essentially spiteful letter to be written to her by an aggrieved employee, rather than just her rudeness to staff.

Being rude isn't against the law. Discriminating against someone because of their beliefs is. You can be both rude and legally correct which AB is here.

I come across plenty of barristers in my working life and find many of them arrogant, rude, argumentative and unpleasant. They are also tenacious, clever, astute and unbeatable in their legal knowledge and arguments.

I don't think AB is wrong, I'm just acknowledging that she is both right and also appears to not to give a shit about upsetting people and being quite difficult to deal with.

Like another poster I also suspect race and gender discrimination has as much of a part to play as beliefs. People didn't like her and because she was black, female and 'a bigot' her rudeness wasn't tolerated when itbwoudl have been if demonstrated by a white wellspoken man.

From the judgement

'154. The inference from primary facts is in my view established. I accept that there is
evidence that Ms Bailey could be difficult and aggressive with staff. However,
the absence of current warnings, the non-application of the zero tolerance policy,
the way in which the decision was taken, the denial of knowledge of Ms Bailey’s
gender critical beliefs when on balance they were aware of them, Ms Cook’s
evidence about the signing of termination letters being something the clinical
director did when that is not what happened on the two previous occasions, when
added to the evidence of the extensive discussion of Ms Bailey’s gender critical
beliefs within the practice and denial of that by the Defendant’s witnesses is more
than sufficient to pass the first stage'

Yes I couldn't help but snigger at Bee/Butter's take on the judgement. It must be appealed he says. For what reason other than he doesn't like the outcome! Gender ideololgy strategy was to turn all existing laws upside down and ensure trans rights trumped all others, using bullying, threatening, shaming and guilt tripping tactics. They sure did a spectacular job of infiltrating organisations and baffling the legal world.

It is with thanks to the determination of brave women like Allison who could see right through the bullshit and fight back clawing through the nonsense knowing it was all just plain wrong. Thank you Allison for continuing to put yourself in the firing line to uphold the rights that were hard won over the centuries.

Honestly Bee take a step back. The days of trans activists demanding the unsustainable and downright weird demands is over. The house of cards has fallen and let's hope will never return. Trans people are entitled to the same rights and respect as everybody else. No more no less.

Brava to Allison 💐

Somebody need to send him today's judgment as bedtime reading. A salutary tale. 😁

I think Wicks' ceo did the same. Dp works in construction and willingly accepted me barring him from there. As he is a Terf in man form and proud of it.

And Halifax bloody Blank. Any customers who objected to forced pronoun badges for example were bluntly told to take their business elsewhere. How ridiculous.

I hope all these companies who wasted so much money pushing the lgbtq+ rainbow DEI down people's throats have found more worthy causes to donate to.

Unfortunately I suspect that like Bee/Butters, they're so embedded in the madness that they double and triple down regardless of the fact that the law says they are wrong.

Indeed one of the members of staff who actually agreed with her GC views it seems still found her very difficult to deal with and warned other staff about interactions with her.

This member of staff provided no witness statement and didn't give evidence in court.

I would like to advise the TRA monitors and TRA lurkers on here as a matter of Marxist analysis, that they need to review their agitation and propaganda strategy without further ado.

I respectfully suggest that they expand their repertoire of chants to include “bogs not shops, bogs not shops”

i think it has a nice ring to it.

I remember the discussion about that on here and that someone's husband (I'm hopeless with names and getting worse with age) would no longer get his building supplies from Wickes. Kudos to you both!

I think she goes to a different school. No-one really knows her. You wouldn’t know her.

Correct.

Which is exactly what most cowards would do if they had been nice to someone's face and agreed with them in person and then stabbed them in the back behind the scenes.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying.

It is possible for AB to be an absolute nightmare customer as well as being legally in the right.

I can applaud the outcome as someone who is absolutely GC whilst simultaneously feeling that it would be a bit crass for AB to benefit financially from it when it sounds like she was a bit of a dick too, just a legally correct dick!

An awful lot of what happened that resulted in GCC ending up being thrashed in court makes sense now. Alison is allegedly unlikeable and doesn't perform to gender/race/social stereotypes and is discriminated against as a reult. They wouldn't have treated an unpleasant man in the same way as they did AB, which is why she won.

The last sentence of Paragraph 84 of the judgment states clearly: "Dr Hampson has not been called to give evidence on this, or indeed any other, issue."

So no cowardice or backing out. He wasn't called to do so. No-one can just rock up to a hearing and give evidence without being asked to do so.

You would have thought that the practice would call him if what he has been stated to have said was true

My guess (as a non-legal professional) is that he was known to share, or at least sympathise with, Allison's views and the practice couldn't risk him going off-message while being cross-questioned by her barrister and undermining their case.

• *From the judgment

Dr Hampson was not called to dispute this
account. He could have provided relevant evidence on several matters, including
Ms Bailey’s behaviour, his own comments about her beliefs and litigation, and
how widely known these were within the practice. It is evident that Dr Hampson
had important evidence to offer in response to Ms Bailey’s claims. His
unexplained absence allows for a reasonable inference to be drawn. I accept Ms
Bailey’s evidence that Dr Hampson showed interest in her litigation, that it was
discussed within the practice, and that while he supported her, others did not.

So he wasn't called - by either side - for whatever reasons. In the end it doesn't matter why he wasn't called, since Allison won her case.

Well I've read it. There's an awful lot of 'Dr H said' this or that by people interested in not losing the case, without him being there to be asked directly. His absence reeks to high heaven!

I don't think if Allison was a white, male, posh (i.e. from an upper class background) barrister her directness and expectation of high levels of service (no doubt at a cost) would have been considered 'aggressive' or 'rude'. In my experience, women get called 'aggressive' for things that would be entirely unremarked upon in a man.

Still, I can see she probably wasn't the easiest customer, but they managed the relationship in a positive way for years and then suddenly when she's involved in a prominent case about her GC views THEN it becomes a problem? And it's nothing at all to do with her views? Yep, pull the other one.

And the stuff they discussed in a staff meeting was pretty extreme activist material. Apparently the need to not be 'rude' doesn't count when it comes to demanding that everyone else comply with your belief system and demand for pronouns that break normal rules of English thus are very difficult. Seems pretty rude to me to demand everyone else with comply with what you want regardless of their beliefs, their feelings or their mental capacity to do so.

I’m a vet and long term terf. I don’t think I ever peaked as such, because well reality innit.
This story has rattled me as I feel I can no longer leave the madness spoken by some of my profession gainsaid. Which means speaking out and I’m sure many of you are familiar with the repercussions of doing that. It angers me that I must stay silent while the manics get to speak freely. @PriOn1do you have some tips?

One veterinary social media site is run by believers and discussion of this topic is not allowed. To see the authoritarianism in real time is chilling. Another site I have more hope for. It remains to be seen how this story will be covered by official media - the VetRecord and VetTimes and what comments we get from our august bodies, RCVS, BVA, BSAVA - all captured.

What a rollercoaster these last couple of years have been - a hard one victory then a crashing realisation there is so much more to do (and a sense of guilt I am not more active myself). I find it distressing that so many people - WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER, vets, medics, scientists - believe in this ideology. If they can get us to believe (or say we believe) that 2+2=5, what else can they get us to believe?

It’s pure projection.

That comment about Middle Earth is the most male trans comment ever. LOL.

The double standards are always what amaze me. They're so egregious. On the one hand AB is not allowed to be direct and assertive, particularly when it comes to treating HER dogs who she loves. On the other, the ridiculous and extremely rude and truly aggressive ask of 'preferred' non grammatical, sex deceptive compelled speech pronouns is something we're all just supposed to roll over about. A woman being assertive = not ok; introducing a whole load of anti-science authoritarian vocab in a team meeting (at a vets ffs) = fine.

Increasingly I think gender ideology is just a license for people to be bullies.

Allison Bailey is such a shero for standing up to bullies.

There are a few (male) CEOs of big companies who have made statements about gender-critical people not being welcome. They've discussed this a few times on the this isn't working podcast. Apart from anything else, it doesn't make a lot of business sense to alienate a substantial portion of your customers because they hold lawful opinions you don't agree with.

Id recommend the latest episode of the this isn't working podcast, by the way. It's got Helen Joyce and a really wonderful HR director on it.