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

No that was debunked on here earlier, it was the child next door that threw a Wisps bar into her garden

I agree that the article doesn't give that key information. I don't know if that's bc Ms Reindorf KC didn't provide it or bc the author left it out.

I still think that she must feel like Bailey has a reasonably good case. You aren't supposed to file a case unless you think it has merit. I don't think she'd file a frivolous claim. If Reindorf thought it was without merit, my guess is that Bailey would then decide not to bring the case.

That doesn't mean Bailey will win but, to me, it means that it's very likely that both feel like the case is reasonably robust

I just want to know where her thinking is coming from! I don't get it and sadly it sounds like she's been very rude to staff and that is the reason

Correct. The internet had a good laugh over that one.

Can we also talk about this thread's title? Seems inaccurate and possibly derogatory to call the vet surgery "TRA" without any evidence just because AB wants to sue them (and to date doesn't have a good credible track record or success rate).

Hmm well I'm not so sure but I'm ready to be surprised.

"probably" is the relevant standard of proof.

The criminal standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" or "certain so that you are sure."

The civil standard of proof is the "balance of probabilities" or "is it more likely than not."

So if the judge agrees that it was "probably" prompted then that meets the test and is sufficiently robust.

I know, I must say I thought the title labelling a vets practice as :TRA'S rather funny!!

If they're calling Allison 'absolutely vile' then they're TRAs, she's very good friends with JKR who would never be friends with someone who is 'absolutely vile'.

We don't know the real reason for this. One theory is AB was allegedly rude to them regarding a comment over her dog's weight (which would have been part of doing their job if so). Vets and other practices have a zero tolerance policy towards abuse of employees so if this were the case banning her would be legally justified and yes they can describe her as vile in their report if that's how they felt.

"she's very good friends with JKR"

What does this mean. Is it a "Do you know who I am friends with?" instead of "do you know who I am?" since the general public probably won't know who she is unless they happened to hear about her Wispa incident or blowing a million pounds failing to sue Stonewall twice.

You can't surmise that at all! How do we know what she's like in her own time? She could be rude and vile for all we know, you can't blame everything on the TRA'S, that's going a bit far

Agree. I've seen Reindorf speak a few times, including in person, and she is extremely impressive. Neither her, nor Rowling (who is also no idiot) would have taken on this case if they did not have a very strong chance of winning. I don't think it's possible to get to the bottom of it with what is being reported, so it will be interesting to see the detail when it does come out.

While I am loving the unprecedented faith in the legal profession on this board, I should point out that the cab rank rule means that barristers take on cases regardless of merit, as long as they are not so unmeritorious as to be abusive. If a lay client is on legal aid then you have to apply a slightly higher standard because you can't waste public funds, but you absolutely do not have to be sure that the case will win or have a strong chance of doing so.

What described in the DM and the Telegraph doesn't exactly sound like an open and shut case. Presumably she will have something more convincing to come out in the evidence still to be heard.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/a41b22a49d7cb71d

'It is surprising the allegation has ever been made in circumstances in which there is no documentary evidence to support the assertion the claimant makes.'

From the Telegraph article.

This is a ridiculous line of thinking.

The article says Allison has been rude to staff, and that more than one person has had problems with her.

Many people are disagreeable. The lord knows there are many people, even in the GC side, who I would not want to share a glass of wine with

Calling someone absolutely vile does seem strong, and is likely hyperbole, but it does not mean they are TRAs.

If I have an argument with someone on the park because my staffie has yapped at someone, and they call me a horrible name, it doesn't mean they are a TRA because they fell out with me, because my GC views had nothing to do with it...

Apparently the vets in question is actually owned by the Linnaeus group, who are themselves owned by Mars.

Allison might have bitten off more than she can chew with this case, and the legal bills could end up being significant

That's fairly common in discrimination cases. Few businesses are naive enough to write something like "that uppity black GC bitch should learn her place." There are other ways to show discrimination. I'm sure Ms Reindorf KC feels like they can show a prima facie case of discrmination or she wouldn't have said the burden of proof shifted to the defendants.

from the site I linked earlier

A GP practice refuses to register you because you’re an Irish Traveller. This is direct discrimination because of race. For your case to succeed, you must be able to show that the practice refused to register you and that the reason they refused is because you're an Irish Traveller. This means you would have to show you've been treated differently and worse than someone else in a similar situation to you who's not an Irish Traveller.

To do this you could produce evidence that the surgery is advertising as taking on new patients and that other people who aren’t Irish Travellers have been able to register. The behaviour of the staff could also be useful evidence, if - for example, they were rude or unpleasant towards you. There may have been witnesses to this. You might also be able to show that other Travellers have been treated unfairly as well by the practice.

Taken together these facts would suggest that the reason you were unable to register is because you’re an Irish Traveller.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/cymraeg/Y-Gyfraith-a-Llysoedd/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/what-do-you-need-to-show-the-court-in-a-discrimination-claim/

I’ve got a definite foot in both camps thing here.
if Alison has a genuine case then fair do - it appears that individual discrimination cases are a significant part of chipping away at the gender madness. They cause distress to the injured party and I admire women’s tenacity in these cases.
However, aggressive and entitled clients make our lives unpleasant in practice and they’re not uncommon. Working lives for vets, RVN’s and reception staff are already emotionally challenging. There’s a reason why vets frequently commit suicide. If Alison has an unreasonable axe to grind, I hope she backs off.

Yet when recorded telephone conversations were reviewed there was no indication of rudeness from Alison Bailey.

If JKR's fighting fund is taking this on, lawyers or a board will have assessed the prospect of success before agreeing to foot the bill. I would have thought.

I can totally believe that!

This is quite an assumption though - her case was big news in GC circles but could easily have been missed by most people not tuned into the debate.

I faced some nasty stuff at work for my GC views a few years ago and it took me ages to realise that most people didnt know or care about what had happened. For a while I interpreted everything as a response to being GC- if someone was a bit off with me in a meeting I would assume it was because they thought I was a terrible bigot and not the more likely explanation that they were tired or something unrelated. It must be even harder to keep that perspective if you’ve had the level of scrutiny, vitriol, and praise that someone like Allison has had.

Yes but surely that's bollocks. That's just not how the law works. Just because the KC for the claimant said that, it doesn't make it true.

Our staff are verbally abused daily and have also been punched, kicked and spat at. We occasionally ban clients, but infrequently as then their animals would get no treatment as we are a very low cost charity practice and literally the only option for many people. The idea that anyone would care a jot about a client's GC views seems laughable, but of course they would not want to deal with a regularly rude and confrontational client.

I would be fascinated to read the outcome of this. I hope Vet Times will cover it in depth.

I would like to believe in the professionalism of fellow vets and nurses - but when it comes to the gender madness I’m not so sure it can be relied on.
Look how many doctors are involved in transitioning children - absolutely ignoring ‘First do no harm’.