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

Sainsbury's can be a bit hit and miss sometimes, but I think that is purely down to who is picking the shopping.

I did love them the time I put a note on, as the shopping was coming on my birthday, asking if their delivery driver would sing Happy Birthday as they delivered my shopping.

The driver didn't sing, but he did hand over flowers, a birthday cake, and a giant it's my birthday badge from to the delivery manager. ❤

I used to have a boss like that who would blether on incomprehensibly, but if you asked him a straight question got flustered and didn't like it. Couldn't be clear for the life of him.

I hate being left wondering what someone actually means. Straight talking wins for me, every time.

That's lovely of Sainsbury's to do that! Makes me want to try them out.

Presumably direct talking is also much more efficient in terms of staff time. This is one of the reasons I like the blunt woman I work with. It's so quick and easy and straightforward.

It's another reason why it's bizarre so many organisations have enthusiastically jumped on board the 'let's change the meaning of frequently used words and make language so difficult to understand no-one can anymore' bus.

I think that I have posted this before.

In my corner of England, the expression "I shouldn't think so" is a hard no. When I used that expression in London, it was regarded as an opening negotiating position. So I changed my response to "No." This was also regarded as a negotiable position. My response now to an ill thought through proposition is "don't be so fucking stupid!".

It avoids a lot of misunderstandings.

Gender Critical beliefs are that it's wrong to stereotype based on sex or gender.

What you're admitting, is that you believe in stereotypes. Your whole dangerous, Mens Rights Supremacist toxic ideology is based on nothing but pseudoscience.

Feminists keep on notching up the wins, COPE and SEETHE, sir. Cope and seethe sir. The good guys are winning. Common sense, science and human decency and compassion are winning.

No one hates 'trans' people, any more than an atheist hates Christians. We hate men such as yourself invading womens safe private boundaries. Your hatred of females and feminists is so great I am sure you would prefer to see the UK turned into Afghanistan.

Men like Bee are so eaten up with hate for feminists and so deeply ensconced in his hateful Mens Rights ideology that he cannot see the forest for the trees.

I'd have to experience Allison's "rudeness" first hand to make a judgement, but like others I think people are mistaking assertiveness and directness for 'rudeness'. So many women ourselves will call a woman rude and 'bossy' when they'd never call a man bossy. So I take her as simply being direct and straightforward assertive and 'rude' with a truckload of salt.

I just presumed that a combination of Allison's training as a barrister and the backbone of steel she must have developed to not only get through but triumph over not only the abuse she suffered in childhood but the racism, sexism and classism she must have come up against on every step of her academic career and pupillage have forged her into someone very unlikely to tolerate any kind of patronage or condescension ever again. Add into this the fact that levels of self assertion that would be perceived as perfectly ordinary coming from a man are experienced as arrogance and rudeness when expressed by a woman and I can see where a bigot might want to put her back in her box. Multiply this by whatever factor of outrage is added in because she is not only a woman, but a black woman, and a lesbian at that, and the badly camouflaged frothing rage that seemed to be the modus operandi at the practice in their dealings with her becomes understandable. Not in any way excusable, but understandable.

Especially when one of the members of staff was supposed to send an email with the dog’s records to another company.
And the employee just didn’t do it.

In Allison’s line of work, if you are expected to send an email, etc, then you are supposed to do it.
You can’t be airy fairy about it and not do it, because you’re busy, or you just forgot.
People were waiting for the information and Allison probably assured them it was going to be sent.

It’s unprofessional, and i can see why she was pissed off, to be honest.

She was not sacked as a client for her gender beliefs, I can't imagine how that would even come up at a vet consultation. She was sacked for being repeatedly rude and threatening to staff. I have that on good authority. People like her are the reason vets and nurses are leaving the industry in their droves. Some practices will pander to abusive clients whilst their staff burnout and leave. Others have decent management and zero tolerance policy.
Vets are private businesses and can sack any client they want anytime they want. I can't see where she thinks this is going.

Hahahaha you might be want to read the whole thread but if you can’t arsed

TLDR Alison won her case

Oh dear. I hope you don't identify as someone who understands the law.

The juvenile and wholly unprofessional notes added to Allison’s notes surprised me.

It felt like the sort of thing that a young and inexperienced colleague would (still unwisely!) write to a colleague on Teams, or WhatsApp.

So many younger colleagues in my own employment just don’t understand how to behave in an adult and professional environment.
One of my son’s teachers writes emails like a teenager, and i feel like he needs extra training.
He frequently makes daft spelling mistakes, his grammar is appalling, he uses loaded terms that grate on the reader, and he uses words like ‘yourselves’ and myself’ incorrectly.

I don’t really have any tips.

Leading from that, a few of us wrote to the RCVS about their links to Stonewall, which were finally cut around a year later, albeit very quietly. A journalist from the Vet Record was quietly pursuing it, which is the only reason I know. The statement in the screenshot appeared in the Vet Record at the time.

If something comes up at work and affects me negatively, I will act, but I am in something of a precarious position, so I haven’t done anything otherwise, other than pointing out during a corporate induction that gender was not a protected characteristic, which was obviously news to the woman giving the talk, but was accepted without fuss. She clearly didn’t know that me pointing it out would be considered contentious by some, which suggests not all DEI people are actively captured. Some (somehow) remain blissfully unaware!

I am a member of SEEN within my (large) organisation. I’m not in any way hiding my views, but nor am I involved in any active campaigning.

I haven’t checked it recently, but I don’t suppose the RCVS social media policy has been deStonewalled. It’s a travesty, but now the RCVS have left Stonewall, I no longer fear a complaint would immediately be referred to them for handling advice (a la Allison Bailey) so I am, to an extent, “out” on social media. Not famous or particularly popular anywhere and haven’t been reported to my employer, as yet, though I recognize it may happen and I will deal with any fall out as and when I need to.

I am interested to know which veterinary social media bans GC views, if you can tell me that. I’m honestly saddened that there are so many in our profession that have swallowed this nonsense and don’t even have the courage to discuss their views, but ban discussion, thus preventing us from making obviously rational arguments that they find hard to rebut.

[edited by MNHQ at poster's request]

@Misspotterer

Well, your ‘good authority’ means fuck all, actually; and ‘i can’t see where she thinks this is going’ is a pretty moot point now, don’t you think??

The judgment is out. Allison won, remember?

Bless. Thanks for that remarkable insight. We'll have to see how it goes, won't we?
Maybe some actual facts might be released. 😀

The notes on the record were so unprofessional they basically sealed the case from the off.

I can totally believe Alison was not a pleasant client. Her complaint about the records was something 99.9% of people wouldn't have bothered about.

But I haven't seen notes like that in a medical record since the early 2000s. If someone is rude to me I write their direct speech in the notes eg x said I was 'a fucking useless bitch' or whatever. Not waffle about them being loud and leaning over a desk and my feelings.

She was sacked for being repeatedly rude and threatening to staff. I have that on good authority

All evidence relating to the "sacking" (odd term for what it was) is referred to in the judgment. Are you referring to something different, or are you talking about the information in the judgment that is available to everyone?

Sacking is the standard term when a vet practice tells a client they will no longer be provided with veterinary services.

It's also a mystery why the practice felt they had to 'sack' her. She'd already made it clear she was going to another practice.

The only sensible response to an annoying client leaving is a quiet behind the scenes round of celebration. Don't go and make it worse for yourself.

Have you actually read the judgment and all the information it contains about what led up to the case? If not, you should do so. You might learn something.

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

I deal with healthcare complaints.

AB comes across as a standard person who expects an organisation to do what they say they will do e.g pursue insurance companies, transfer vaccination records etc and communicate any significant changes in policy well e.g changing the anti-worming treatments they stock.

Sounds to me like the customer facing staff need a bit of training, and asked to think through situations from the client side.

I suspect I also come across like this. I've written a vast number of complaints to financial institutions recently about their handling of a Power of Attorney. I'm not remotely aggressive but I am assertive. The "branch manager" who told me last week that "policy" prevented him doing something I'd been advised in writing he could do by the central team in his institution had better have been able to find the policy. As my complaint is incoming.

In my workplace I often see accusations that more junior staff are treated badly and senior staff not. I actually think it's because as senior staff we manage expectations better. If things are going wrong in theatre and there will be a delay to the next case I often ring the ward and ask the staff there to explain the situation to the patient and offer a drink. In such situations no-one from theatre can leave as we tend to be busy. Quite often there is a refusal to do this as the patient will be upset ... but the end result if I don't find anyone willing to do this the patients get upset and then kick off because they were told their operation would be around 11am and it's now 2pm and no one has told them anything.

Whereas in my experience if you are honest with people and keep them informed (or even simply tell them you can't estimate when their operation will be due to the ongoing situation) they deal with it better and appreciate the candidness. I saw it with one of my friends. Her Dad was having cataract surgery and still hadn't gone down at 4pm. She was beside herself as she thought he would be cancelled. If someone had simply explained that the operating list was running until 8pm and he was last she would have relaxed.

@PriOn1thank you for your reply - we have communicated before, I had a different user name.
May I pm you?

WRT the censorship of this topic within veterinary circles, I think that’s why I’m concerned. As wiser women have pointed out, once this ideology gets into an organisation, it paralyses it from within, preventing sensible discussion. It’s the very fact of that ‘take over’ that bothers me rather than gender woo per se. What another wise woman (can’t remember who) calls ‘An affront to reason’.