Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

Yes, the CoA appears to be arguing that it’s dependent on what GCC (‘B’) did, not what Stonewall (‘A’) did.

How about this? Though there may be no remedy: the ET decided the facts wrongly, so then???

88.
I agree with Ms Omambala. Mr Cooper’s case that Kirrin Medcalf acted with the intention that action should be taken against Ms Bailey does not get off the ground in the light of the ET’s findings: see para 372 of the ET’s Decision; and see para 38 above. There is, in consequence, no substance to the suggestion that GCC was persuaded to take action against Ms Bailey of the kind intended by Kirrin Medcalf, because Kirrin Medcalf (on the ET’s findings) was not looking for any action. Elements (b) and (c) on Mr Cooper’s list are not made out.

The Explanatory Notes give this example:

• A GP instructs his receptionist not to register anyone with an Asian name. The receptionist would have a claim against the GP if subjected to a detriment for not doing so. A potential patient would also have a claim against the GP if she discovered the instruction had been given and was put off applying to register. The receptionist’s claim against the GP would be brought before the employment tribunal as it relates to employment, while the potential patient’s claim would be brought in the county court as it relates to services.

Well, yes.

If Allison had tweeted in support of BLM and Stonewall was a BNP type organisation and had written to GCC complaining and saying 'Do the right thing', even if GCC did nothing, Stonewall would surely still be inviting discrimination?

But IANAL, clearly...

So as that case would involve someone acting on definite instructions from their manager (or at least, someone at their place of employment in a definitely senior position to them), I can see that it's more clear cut to argue that the GP "caused or induced" the discrimination. Hmm.

That GI beliefs are now officially protected under the EA2010 with no formal analysis of WORIADS. Paragraph 93. Obiter, but nevertheless.

Also, that “just a protest” excuses inducement to discriminate in a “I didn’t really mean it” sense.

Woo, I missed that! (ETA in response to edit of quote, I mean, that GI beliefs are WORIADS by the back door, as it were.)

Having had a quick look, it looks like they decided that Stonewall's actions were not intended to cause GCC to take action against AB - causation has a very precise legal definition.
Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on that.

But I did find the 'scene-setting' a bit off
14 Stonewall is a charity committed to advancing the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people (“LGBT”). In 2015, it turned its attention to transgender issues and campaigned for gender recognition reform, setting up the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group (“STAG”) as an interface between Stonewall and other trans groups. Stonewall campaigned for inclusion for trans people, as well as for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. It devised a Diversity Champions Scheme to promote inclusion for the groups it represented in workplaces.
15 Stonewall’s support of trans rights, and in particular its support for self-identification under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, created tension with some of Stonewall’s traditional supporters, including lesbians such as Ms Bailey, who felt threatened by people with male bodies who identified as women. Some women with gender critical beliefs campaigned for same sex spaces and felt alienated by the accusation that it was transphobic.

This is unsubtle to say the least: Stonewall was not set up to advocate for trans people, as admitted by saying:
In 2015, it turned its attention to transgender issues
and the 'tension' felt by some traditional supporters was a matter of principle about Stonewall's role in representing same-sex-IDed people, not transgender people.

To say that the 'tension' was because, for instance,
'lesbians such as Ms Bailey, who felt threatened by people with male bodies who identified as women.'
is completely missing the point and reduces AB's and others' beliefs to fear of
' people with male bodies who identified as women'.

AB and others were motivated by principle, not by fear.
And the fact that they were 'alienated by the accusation that it was transphobic'
from the very organisation that had been established to defend their rights is a bigger deal than indicated by just one sentence.

I think this section of the judgement shows either an ignorance of the context of the case, or a bias in favour of an established LGB organisation changing its remit to include transgenderism.

The basic problem is the ET’s finding that this was “just a protest”, because the CofA felt it couldn’t go behind that finding of fact. That what GC actually did was a “novus actus interveniens” which broke the chain of causation, even though the ET didn’t put it in that legal terminology.

I actually agree with the CoA that BC’s test for causation is too rigid. I think it could lead to some very unjust outcomes. But I disagree that “just a protest” is a reasonable finding by the ET. I think “I trust you will do the right thing” is unarguably an inducement to do precisely the wrong thing, and it’s perverse to say otherwise.

Arguing Organisation A made Organisation B do something bad/illegal to me, is a very hard argument to make without B's active support.

If B sued A that is a much stronger case. B knows very well where all the bodies are buried. It has front-row/active participant witnesses to be called to the stand. And B can meticulously exhume each and every email and meeting note involving A's poisonous and legally wrong advice.

This case was still - from a helicopter view - well worth taking forward as it even further reduced Stonewall's standing with the public. Their brand value is now zero; no-one serious wants to be associated with the Stonewall logo anymore.

But it must have come at a very large personal and financial cost to Allison which is extremely sad.

I know this is an unpopular view with many on Mumsnet. But, I would always support bravely and firmly resisting TRA nonsense AND understand/encourage stepping back at the point where you risk losing something very important. Whether that's your hardwon career, financial stability, feeling safe at home or your marriage (to someone very nice) is beginning to breakdown irrevocably.

We shouldn't expect one person to make so many sacrifices. They've already done so much for the cause, and now deserve to prioritise their own happiness.

"This update marks the end of my first year as lead judge for diversity and inclusion, leadership development and wellbeing. By combining these important areas of work into a single role, we can focus on embedding and normalising our diversity and inclusion work across all that we do as judicial office holders"

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Diversity__Inclusion_Update_2024.pdf

What leverage do Stonewall have, though, other than withholding its accreditation? Section 111 seems to be directed more at legal relationships such as employer/employee, contractor/subcontractor, or client/service provider.

Unfortunately it's the latest in a long line of spineless judges who would rather kick it down the appeals road and not have to be the ones to stand up and tell the gender lobby NO. Cowards the lot of them.

And no one wants to tell the big and mighty Stonewall no, they'd rather pass the buck to someone else. Think of the press, the furore, the screaming tantrums it would bring to their door. They don't want any of it. And in some judges cases coughkempcough so scared about the fallout they would rather cobble together a document peppered with so many mistakes, my 7 year old could do better.

Feck

Isn’t that aspect addressed in paragraph 10 of the judgment? I think it was common ground that Stonewall could have induced GC to discriminate, it’s just that they didn’t, and didn’t intend to.

It seems a bit innocent? naive? 'I see no ships' to claim that a complaint from somebody at Stonewall is not a complaint from Stonewall, and that a complaint from Stonewall does not - or did not at the time - carry huge weight when sent to one of their Diversity Champions.

At that time they were pretty much unchallenged in their role as parallel legislators😒

So we’re always going to be stuck with ETs’ ‘findings of fact’ in appeals, even when they are palpably flawed?

It was just a complete coincidence about what happened to Allison afterwards right?

It’s a basic principle of the legal system, not just ETs. The court of first instance gets to say what the facts are, and nobody can gainsay that unless they, in specific legal terminology, fuck up completely.

Same for county court, crown court (criminal actions) etc. Appeals only focus on what the law means, not on what actually happened. That’s set in stone.

ETA @MyAmpleSheep because quote fail

Stonewall were the service provider: it would have made more sense the other way around eg client of recruitment agency demands agency only forwards applications from certain classes of candidates.

They were giving quasi-legal advice to actual lawyers 🙄. If gcc had just been a n other employer who had abused an employee's rights whilst relying on advice from their lawyers, could they get redress from their lawyers? Could the employee? (Genuine questions)

I'd love to see Stonewall pilloried and ruined, but this wasn't the case to do it, not least because gcc are in effect shielding them.

I wouldn't blame Allison one bit if she decided she'd had enough. I hope that she is able to continue this one if it's sensible to do so as it doesn't directly involve her participation any more - but it must be hugely stressful regardless and I know full well that I wouldn't even be able to cope with a little ET, so hats off to her. Strategically I think we do have to be careful what we focus on; if the very clever legal people involved decide it's sensible to let this one go I trust them, similarly if they don't. I'd like to get it established that extreme GI beliefs are not WORIADS, because of the way they attempt to coerce others, but if the behaviour continues so will the opportunities for challenging that. I could easily believe that what constitutes causing and inducing was one to leave to others.

However, my gardening budget is now recurring and growing, and I have a Euromillions ticket for tomorrow in the hope of being able to extend it further than will otherwise be possible. And there are a lot of us. So TRAs crowing about how Allison's cases have cost a million and she's lost again, meh.

No, it wasn’t a coincidence, but the connection wasn’t strong enough.

'Lovely motor you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it, right?'
And then it got its windscreen smashed in.
"But I only said 'it'd be a shame IF anything happened to it', you can't prove causation, guv.."

Not a good analogy.

More like: I tell you “Allison’s a meanie, I trust you’ll do the right thing” then you go and break Allison’s car windows.

did I tell you to break her windows? Did I mean you to break her windows? Am I to blame that you broke her windows?