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

Read the whole thread. This is explained in detail.

I agree that based on the article it all seems very thin but then the articles covering Sandie Peggie’s case were initially similar. Lots of important details missed or skewed. Theyre only part way through the evidence so let’s see.

Has anyone got a timeline? She was a client for many years and not a public figure, then she’s in the news for her case against Stonewall. If they can show a strong link to that, and the vets haven’t sent staff to give evidence about how awful they think she is then that does seem worth digging into… but not easy to prove unless she’s got something in writing

I mean I'm sure there are captured people everywhere, but it's very unlikely that vets would either be aware or care what a client thinks on that subject, and very likely indeed that they would react badly to a client who is regularly rude and confrontational.

I couldn't tell you the GC views of any of our clients, but I could certainly tell you some I dread dealing with.

If they do please report back here!

Not directly relevant to this thread, but a client once tried to sue us for discrimination against his cat for being gay - not the man being gay - the cat! A solicitor actually wrote a threatening letter to us and the RCVS had to have hearings to consider the allegation ....

Ah, the General Public.
Can’t work with them, can’t shoot them.

🤣

I thought I remembered reading about this at the time. Wasn’t there a trans receptionist and a misgendering? Wasn’t the ‘appalling rudeness’ a refusal to apologise about an accidental misgendering?

Don’t take it as gospel, as my memory is unreliable.

Haven't heard that but it will be interesting to see if there is something like that. They must have something to have brought this claim but I'm struggling to see it at the moment

There was an incident with Kellie Jay Keene getting deregistered from her GP practice which involved a receptionist so it's possible that this is what you read about.

I wonder if the vets not sending key staff as live witnesses may be related to the shifted burden of proof. So they're claiming without either documentary evidence or key witness available to be cross examined that Bailey was unpleasant to staff?

It does seem a little far fetched that Bailey would lose her temper over a small matter of poor service from a vet surgery when she managed to keep it through all the crap of the original court case.

Though there is also the general misogynist trope that women, particularly middle-aged women, who complain about anything are shrieking, shouting, whining, "entitled", "Karens". However right they are about whatever they're trying to get fixed. There are many people who wouldn't draw much distance between 'she reasonably complained about a data protection breach and our staff were upset about being in trouble about it' and 'she shouted at our staff and upset them'.

I imagine though Bailey must have a reason to think it's GC beliefs not sex discrimination.

Bring back the 🤣 so the grown ups can play nicely!

Hehe I know! Why did they take it away?

KJK was abusive to a receptionist, abusive to the manager in a phone call afterwards and recorded the phone call without notifying them (this is illegal), then doxxed her surgery online causing it to receive abuse from others. The day after their phone lines were flooded from GC people and their patients weren't able to get through.

This was over a receptionist wearing a pride pin or something like that?

Jeez @Christinapple i should have known KJKs biggest fan would know the answer. You’re like her walking wiki page. Gentle hint though, the fangirling is starting to look a leeeetle bit stalkerish. Maybe tone it down a little. Just a little nudge from one doll to another 😋

You'd think so, but Jo had no issue helping contribute towards the £1 million for AB's 2 failed cases against Stonewall. Jo also paid for KJK's flight tickets to give anti-trans talks in LGBT supportive NZ (we know how that went).

JKR is stinking rich and doesn't care about losing a few million here or there, and the money keeps rolling in because of movies and merchandise from a badly written children's book series that became too popular for its own good.

I have a feeling she is giving her money away to invite people take up court cases against LGBT-supportive orgs knowing most or all will end in failure just to cause harassment. Fighting a court case is very stressful, time consuming and costs money. Even if an org defeats an attempt to sue them they could be left exhausted by the end.

It may be helpful to remember that Allison won her tribunal case against her employers and has a real prospect of winning against stonewall on appeal

In granting permission, Rt Hon Lord Justice Singh found that the grounds of appeal lodged on Ms Bailey’s behalf:

“have a real prospect of success but, in any event, raise issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal.”

It may be helpful to remember that Allison won her tribunal case against her employers and has a real prospect of winning against stonewall on appeal

Yes, it is proved that she was discriminated against, and accepted that Stonewall encouraged it, the only thing that didn't get accepted and is now being appealed is whether stonewall can legally be held to account in the nature of their relationship with employers.

It was still the beginning of the end for Stonewall's employer schemes, probably worse if Allison loses her appeal actually - then employers will have no assurance that Stonewall will give correct advice in future seeing that they're not even held to account when doing what they ask leads to discrimination.

It's an interesting appeal as section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it an offence to encourage a 3rd-party to breach the Equality Act 2010. AFAIK Allison Bailey's case is the first time that section 111 has been tested in court.

Section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for a person to instruct, cause, or induce another person to discriminate against, harass, or victimize a third person.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/8/4

365.However, the section only applies where the person giving the instruction is in a relationship with the recipient of the instruction in which discrimination, harassment or victimisation is prohibited.

I think that this is the specific clause that is being examined as the tribunal ruled that Stonewall didn't have a relationship with GCC

Hilarious. Never change, Chris.

People laughing cruelly at confused posters, rather than mirthfully with entertaining posters.

I think Chris is trying to play ‘the process is the punishment’ card, as that’s a go to tactic from the TRA handbook.