Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

The appeal is on s111(2) ie causation I cited it in a previous post above.

This is from the SC website. The appeal is solely about causation so it’s important we use the right terminology as cause and induce are different concepts in the Act.

Do you think the SC will opine only on causation and not inducement?

I’ve posted a screenshot above of the permissions to appeal decision and I’ll link to it in this post.

It is limited to causation so I assume they will stick to that.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0017

Did Stonewall cause GC Chambers to discriminate, when the result of the complaint was indeed, as found in court, discrimination? Gosh, that's going take some deep investigation.

Can I just say, it's so lovely to read the musings and writings of well informed, educated women (I suspect we're mostly women on GWR) on this - I've had a pig of a day and seeing considered and positive arguments, with none of the usual Internet-related name calling and slurs is always a balm for a sore head.

So thanks all.

I'm better informed and calmer because of this thread this evening! Not everything is a shit show irrespective of the SC outcome.

Does this mean witnesses will be called or will it be just legal arguments? I would love to see Kirrin Metcafe’s support menagerie again.

No witnesses, no. Just barristers.

I expect it will be very difficult indeed to find one single instruction or inducement which is clear cut. However "do the right thing" in the context of a longstanding relationship where GCC was a member of Stonewall's WEI/Champion scheme (?) rather changes things.

The schemes are structured around a series of questions and points are awarded for correct answers. The more points the higher the total score and the higher the organisation ranks on a national scale. From what I can tell loads of organisations wanted to be in the WEI100 completely ignoring the fact that, well, maybe 500 organisations had the same idea... 🤔

That is the sort of relationship where you want to please the person scoring you and avoid upsetting them in case they mark you down.

The scheme is also carefully constructed with a very specific "choice architecture" (cf behavioural economics). So although the schemes are - signed up to voluntarily - choices are somewhat manipulated using behavioural techniques which are difficult to row back on - Cialdini's principles of persuasion.
In this sense, the "nudges" being used by Stonewall and others as part of the choice architecture of the schemes could be considered "inducements". It will need someone cleverer than me to argue it tho!

I watched a film of a young dr who did a presentation on how he "Rainbow Badged " his Trust - he was given time off clinical duties and extra pay to do it. It was fascinating because the way the scheme is constructed, the tick box mentaility, just takes over. He seems like a really lovely and bright chap - but in following this scheme it put blinkers on him and seemed to terminate any critical thought!

Here it is if anyone is interested:

@CornishPorsche I was thinking exactly the same! We are fortunate to have such knowledgeable and generous posters.

What a wonderful corner of the internet this is

Wow - GCC were quite early adopters of the LGBT scheme from 2018. Most people got on the bandwagon much later. It is interesting to note that they were so keen

Law firms were at the forefront of Stonewall adoption. It was about being inclusive of gay and lesbian seniors - in the main over represented in law due to ability to work long hours / not as likely to have family commitments (back in early 2010s). Lawyers wanted to look progressive so the trans addition was seamless.

Thats why so many sensible lawyers give such terrible legal advice. They interpret it to fit their world view rather than truth as it exists.

Due to the power inherent in the Stonewall Champions’ Scheme. It was seen as critical to be part of it for many organisations. It’s a bigger picture than just this case.

I’m not commenting on the strength of the case, I’ve always thought the Stonewall part was a tough sell, I just think the nature of the Stonewall scheme was highly relevant to why they had power to induce the act.

Yes, in this case I really want the Supreme Court not to go narrow but to go wide.

Without the social context, a true reading of Kirin M’s email isn’t possible iykwim.

Fully agree @TheAutumnCrow

"attempting to" would seem to open the door quite wide.

I see the champions scheme as distinct from training. I can see this case may have an impact on organizations that operate allyship and accreditation schemes. The same might be said for an organization undergoing ISO9001 certification, or trying to get the Crystal Mark on their leaflets. Or use an accredited logo indicating their food is organic. They might all be in a position to be “caused” to discriminate unlawfully.

in a sense it’s just a coincidence that the organization doing the “causing” of unlawful discrimination just happened to be a campaign group about … discrimination.

apologies, I'm just catching up to this thread, what does it mean when it says 'the overwhelming majority of applications are refused'? Who from and what?

When is the SC hearing?

Two thirds of applications to the SC for leave to appeal to the SC are refused. Those applications would be from a lower court decision where that lower court itself (such as in this case the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) denied permission to appeal to the SC.

The hearing has not been scheduled yet; my guess would be some time in 2027.

Would Stonewall be able to claim they gave legal advice in good faith? As in, good faith that their interpretation of the law was correct and/or the law was open to interpretation anyway, something supported by the SC needing to issue a clarification via FWS v The Scottish Minsters in 2025?

Of course, this doesn't alter the fact of the 'do the right thing" comment, which is clearly applying pressure and is still open to interpretation (IIRC) as to what the implied consequences for not "doing the right thing" might be. Therin would lie the difference between causation and inducement?

I think even women here in a quick search could bring up the evidence that it was never in good faith, the open plan was to 'get ahead of the law' - basically to push desired practice and then force the law to 'catch up', ie change to what the activists had undemocratically and unethically created.

The plans to target organisations, seats and roles, to capture and 'train', was all explicit, it's never been a secret.

Stonewall isn't regulated by any professional body in it's provision of what might be called "legal advice", so it doesn't have any obligation to do so only in "good faith", whatever that might mean.

Even if they were deliberately and intentionally evil with clear and irrefutable documentation on hand to prove so, I don't see how it would make any difference.

@OpheliaWitchoftheWoods I think Stonewall, was it the very supported Kirrin Medcalf admitted it in court.

It's basically a safeguarding disaster blueprint.

How a lobby group controls and supersedes elected representatives and democracy to enforce something insane on the country. And the elected reps just let them crack on with it, despite that all this renders them basically an expensive waste of time. A question about it was put forward to the minister of safeguarding about this a few years ago on one of the web chats, one of those 'er, had you noticed, you might want to do something about it' little hints, but HQ deleted it on the grounds of being naughty.