F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[BoldonLad]

I haven't followed the Bailey case in detail but it does seem clear, in my opinion, that Stonewall applied pressure on her Chambers because of personal views Bailey had expressed on Twitter - all pretty mainstream views. It seems clear in the email that Stonewall's Kirren Medcalf sent her bosses, which said that Garden Court Chambers continuing to associate with Allison Bailey put Stonewall 'in a difficult position', that they were seeking to have her superiors take action against her.

One thing I've realised though is that the procedure for allocating cases to barristers, running the cases, and charging for them, is really quite complicated. There are so many factors involved it would seem quite difficult to prove that any given factor, even bosses withholding work, led to serious professional and financial detriment as so many other things contribute to case management and earnings.

Stonewall were definitely trying to silence her by contacting her bosses but it's an employment tribunal, not a moral court. Judgement could go either way.

How would you guys feel if someone contacted your employers over an opinion you expressed on Cyclechat?

Censorship is no problem... provided you control the Censor, and only views you disagree with are suppressed....






Clearly, that is not an opinion I hold

 

[Julia9054]

How would you guys feel if someone contacted your employers over an opinion you expressed on Cyclechat?

Most workers have a bringing the company/profession into disrepute type clause in their employment contract.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Most workers have a bringing the company/profession into disrepute type clause in their employment contract.

Unless the views expressed affect how you do your job, are illegal, a safeguarding issue, or incite law breaking, it's really no business of your employer what you say in a private capacity on social media though is it?

The Allison Bailey case, among others, shows how entrenched Stonewall's influence is in certain sectors. Fairly mainstream views demanded to be investigated 'or there'll be consequences'. No wonder women are scared to speak out.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Unless the views expressed affect how you do your job, are illegal, a safeguarding issue, or incite law breaking, it's really no business of your employer what you say in a private capacity on social media though is it?

Recruitment processes sometimes include searches of social media at the short-listing for interview stage, depending on criteria companies use for selection.

 

[AuroraSaab]

They do, and I think that's fair as employers often look for people who are an all round 'good fit', but once they are employed, and presumably competant, to investigate someone on the basis of a difference of opinion on Twitter or FB is wrong. It doesn't matter if the allegations are groundless - the process is the punishment.

 

[Rusty Nails]

They do, and I think that's fair as employers often look for people who are an all round 'good fit', but once they are employed, and presumably competant, to investigate someone on the basis of a difference of opinion on Twitter or FB is wrong. It doesn't matter if the allegations are groundless - the process is the punishment.

That would depend on the role and the seriousness of what was reportedly said on social media. Clearly, just as one example, reports of a senior person, the public face of an organisation, or one in a role dealing with equal opportunites, making possibly racist remarks on social media needs investigation.

There is not a one size fits all solution to this problem.

 

[Bromptonaut]

They do, and I think that's fair as employers often look for people who are an all round 'good fit', but once they are employed, and presumably competant, to investigate someone on the basis of a difference of opinion on Twitter or FB is wrong. It doesn't matter if the allegations are groundless - the process is the punishment.

Posting pseudonymously on a site like this with a limited audience is one thing.

As a member of a Barrister's Chambers with a particular public image Allison Bailey will, inevitably, have her posts linked to her Chambers and its reputation. If she's posting on controversial stuff it's not just a difference of opinion, or even a spat, in Twitter/FB.

 

[Julia9054]

Unless the views expressed affect how you do your job, are illegal, a safeguarding issue, or incite law breaking, it's really no business of your employer what you say in a private capacity on social media though is it?

The Allison Bailey case, among others, shows how entrenched Stonewall's influence is in certain sectors. Fairly mainstream views demanded to be investigated 'or there'll be consequences'. No wonder women are scared to speak out.

Like it or not, there is no such thing as private when it comes to social media. Everything you say and do is in the public domain and forms a permanent digital picture of you. As a teacher, there are lots of things I could say or be photographed doing on social media that don't fit into any of the categories you describe that could get me into trouble with my employer.

 

[Ian H]

One of the huge advantages of being retired is that I can be as misogynistic or racist as I like and no-one can fire me. Where should I start?

 

[AuroraSaab]

She removed the name of her Chambers from her profile so it was clear she was tweeting in a private capacity. Bailey's views on sex and gender are fairly mainstream as far as I can see. There are many other lawyers, including transwomen lawyers, who endlessly tweet on trans issues and as far as I know noone has ever called for them to be investigated. Only gender critical views provoke that demand it seems.

As a teacher, there are lots of things I could say or be photographed doing on social media that don't fit into any of the categories you describe that could get me into trouble with my employer.

Of course. There are lots of things that it might be considered inappropriate for a teacher to be doing, even in their own time, if their main job is looking after children.

Do you think saying 'There are only 2 sexes' is one of those things?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Do you think saying 'There are only 2 sexes' is one of those things?

That is not really the point, important as it is.

It is clearly a contentious subject, and with social media once the genie is out of the bottle it is visible to everyone and cannot be put back in.

 

[AuroraSaab]

True, but I think it's important to note that the threshold for what some people think you should be sacked for having said on Facebook is now so low that it encompasses things that have been established science for a thousand years. Should people not be able to discuss subjects on social media because certain groups demand 'No Debate'?

 

[Rusty Nails]

True, but I think it's important to note that the threshold for what some people think you should be sacked for having said on Facebook is now so low that it encompasses things that have been established science for a thousand years. Should people not be able to discuss subjects on social media because certain groups demand 'No Debate'?

There should be freedom to discuss any subject. It may not be right or fair that they should be criticised for honestly held views but the world is becoming increasingly less tolerant of opposing views, fuelled by social media pile-ons.

It is what it is and discussing contentious subjects online is fraught with danger, and should come with a health warning.

 

[Unkraut]

The God of the Gospels is a God of love; it's plain as day. If the Church had seen fit to stick to just the teaching in the Gospels ...

Pitting the OT and Paul against the gospels won't work. For example John's gospel:

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

The doctrine of hell is found essentially only in the gospels, and the words of Jesus himself. The sermon on the mount a good example. He will also separate the sheep from the goats (not terribly inclusive!), and fake charismatics (think: American TV evangelists) will be told 'depart from me you cursed I never knew you'. A case of much needed discrimination.

A God who was never angry at the evil men do to each other, and who would never enter into judgement with them and put such injustice right one day would not be loving.

This you, @Unkraut ?

No it isn't, but I can understand your quoted republican's anger up to a point. I saw a while ago pictures of teenage American girls after having their breasts removed. (I don't wish to see it again.) The scarring was awful, it was vile. The tragedy is those who incited them to do this show little interest in what happens if they grow out of this later, as is usually the case. The damage is done, it can never be repaired. It's evil.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well as a Jew Jesus would have absorbed the same traditional teaching on God's punishment as everyone else in 1st century Judea. Not surprising it emerges a little in his ministry. I still think it's fair to say his teaching is a departure from the OT notion of a vengeful God to a God who 'so loved the world he gave up His only son'.