Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

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

Junior in that he wasn’t the lead and isn’t a KC. QC then I think.

Ah. Gotcha. So if he becomes a KC could we have the legal pairing of him and FT? That would be the dream team 🤣🤣🤣🤣

RMW has only been a barrister for about 15 years. He had a previous career in the rail industry.

Might be quicker to read TT threads.

Part one https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bailey-vs-stonewall-and-garden?s=w

Part two https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bailey-vs-stonewall-and-garden-baa

FT identifies as a lawyer, a term which has no legal or professional meaning in the UK. Anyone can call themselves a lawyer. He represents himself in court as a ‘litigant in person’, which anyone can do. I believe he has a law degree so therefore some legal knowledge, but he’s certainly not a solicitor or barrister.

edited for clarity

😏

Is this photo a "Where's Wally" with RMW hidden in there somewhere?

Those tweets from NC are the funniest things I’ve read in months. Sick burn, as my children still sometimes say.

Ooooh interesting. From what I’d read of him I assumed he was a proper. (If totally incompetent) solicitor. Makes him look even more pathetic then.

The quote 'I'd challenge you to an intellectual argument but I see you are unarmed' sprang to mind. Can't think why.

Nope, he just likes to pretend he is something he isn't (in more than one way). The lying flawyer has a hard time telling the truth.

I don't think you can practice as a solicitor with criminal convictions or something...

If you’d like some background, Matthew Heath aka Legal Gengar has some background here https://grift.watch

It’s quite a read.

Quicker but probably not so funny 😁

She's already failed twice. What's she going to say this time she hasn't already tried?

Well they must think she has something or the appeal wouldn't have been allowed. Hardly any are.

It is not a question of her saying anything new. The SC thinks there’s something about the way the CA interpreted the law that needs fixing or changing.

There may be nothing new apart from that, that she needs to say to win.

If a health and safety advisor told companies to breach H&S law
then washed its hands of them
when they were sued after work accidents
should that be allowed ?

This is the exact equivalent and deserves to be tested to the point of finality.
The Supreme Court rules on such things every week.

Or maybe they like receiving money? Would I be wrong in guessing a certain rich children's author is funding all these appeals?

Not how the appeal process works.

It's so tedious the way these 'new' TRAs turn up wearing different hats but with absolutely no idea of the process.

Who likes money? The Supreme Court judges?

The idiocy levels are quite something. There would be no appeal if there were not grounds for an appeal. It may not win, but it has been decided that there are grounds to have another look.

The judges aren't getting JKR funded brown envelopes out of this.

Oh dearie me.

Quite. Reminds me of that saying about better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.

You think the supreme court is being paid to hear this case?