Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1979480101474443398?t=Sg3wz-Pq2S7lpQ2rTpJZ2g&s=19

Allison says appeal lost.

https://x.com/bluskyeallison/status/2001603305269547414?s=61

This must be very stressful for Allison. I can certainly imagine her feeling discouraged by this.

But if you are reading Allison, thank you for all your work.

Edited as cross posted with announcement.

Can we hold hands and sing for a while?

https://forwomen.scot/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/For-Womens-Rights.pdf

I'm so sorry Allison. Sending big love.

'Surprising and very concerning '.

I'm no longer surprised by any of this, but it is indeed very concerning.

Poor Allison!

"Surprising and very concerning" being presumably wording agreed with Ben, I guess we're off to the Supreme Court again? Will be very interesting to read the judgement. Could do with a different kind of interesting, though. And yes, what everyone else says - what an ordeal for Allison, and how brave she is.

I suspect it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

I'm out today so can't read the judgment till I get home.

Solidarity!

0h how sad. It will be interesting to see the bits she finds concerning. I hope it's not another Kempish effort but sounds like it might be. Is the judiciary all captured?

Permission to appeal is far from a given.

Bollocks!

I hope it is another Kempish effort. Bring in the sunlight!

I thought this would be a hard won to win. What concerns me is Allison's comments about the judgement. Will be interesting to find out more.

So disappointing, poor Allison. But I'm sure she won't stop there if there are grounds for appeal. If it has to go to the Supreme Court, she'll do it.

I feel sad and angry but not surprised. And angry in a positive, fewer shits to give every day, less inclined to stay quiet way.

I'm up for the crowdfunder if she takes this to the Supreme Court. I'm not going to understand the legal reasoning (until people here explain it in words of one syllable) but I know what a woman is and I know what a bully is and I know what decency looks like.

AFAIK there has been no successful case brought under Section 111 that it's a breach of EA2010 to incite another party to breach EA2010 so perhaps it's unsurprising that Allison may need to go to the Supreme Court to get justice.

It's so important that Stonewall are nailed for the societal chaos for which they are responsible.

For Women Scotland's song works in victory or defeat. This isn't over yet.

"For Women’s Rights (to the tune of Auld Lang Syne)

We stand together side by side, we will defend our rights
We stand together side by side, we’ll not give up this fight

For women’s rights are human rights, we won’t let you forget
For women’s rights are human rights, this isn’t over yet.

Politicians and their friends may think we can be cowed
Our minds and bodies we’ll defend, our NO will ring out loud.

For women’s rights are human rights, we won’t let you forget
For women’s rights are human rights, this isn’t over yet.

So gie’s a hand in sisterhood, our sex won’t be denied
For dignity, reality, we are standing side by side

For women’s rights are human rights, we won’t let you forget
For women’s rights are human rights, this isn’t over yet."

This is really a technical legal argument and if Stonewall are held liable it would, if I understand correctly, have implications very much more broadly. There's lots of scope for unintended consequences, and though IANAL I think it wouldn't be that surprising if the court rejected Ben's arguments and made it very hard to hold an A responsible for B discriminating against C. However, if Allison had lost because of that kind of balanced thinking I am not sure "surprising and very concerning" would be the words used, so...??

It's so important that Stonewall are nailed for the societal chaos for which they are responsible.

Absolutely.

And every day that goes by, more people are waking up to it.

This only goes in one direction. Once you see it, you can't unsee it, as we often say.

I watched the appeal and there was a lot of legal argument about causes and inciting and so on and it did seem complex. But even after all that, I kept thinking surely it comes back to: if that bit of the EA isn't meant to prevent precisely this, then what would it prevent?

A human rights chamber discriminated against a lesbian, black, working class, survivor, female on the advice of a charity who thought it was a good idea.

im amazed garden court didn’t sue stonewall for incompetence, their reputational damage must be huge

https://allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Bailey-v-Stonewall-Judgment-Published.pdf

The judgement

This- is a very good point!

This was my thinking.

Surely the courts should give some sort of hypothetical example of when the clause would apply?

The law isn’t there for no reason, it must apply to something so what is that something?

I feel for Allison, Ben certainly made a good argument based on the law. It is a very nuanced point of law with no case law so I’m not surprised by the outcome. I do wonder if the CoA wanted the SC to decide.

OK legal friends, on your marks, get set, go - what is surprising and very concerning?