What this case tells us about the use of #LawFare in the battle against the assumed supremacy of gender identity ideology; its limitations, its consequences and its impact beyond the court room.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Would a case against AA themselves have been possible instead? (Just thinking about future battles!) Will certainly contribute again if needed, such bravery must be supported and this is about all of us.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
I hadn’t realised until reading this that the uni had actually taken disciplinary action against AA. Whether it was done in a timely manner is subjective of course, but if there was a time lag it left Raquel unsupported on campus. The fact that proceedings were dropped because of concerns about AA’s mental health makes me seethe if this was manipulated. Having a son who did actually attempt suicide and is permanently brain injured and needs 24 hr nursing care, I know the risk of suicide is a terrible thing, but I can’t help feel that some people use it as a weapon. If AA has in fact been enabled to carry on with their behaviour it will not help them in the long run.
I feel that even though they won against Raquel, the reputational damage will be substantial. I understand that Raquel is not the only student who has been left unsupported by Bristol Uni. She can certainly hold her head up high. I can only hope that AAs identity is revealed and he faces the consequences of his actions.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
Did this brave and resourceful young woman not receive early advice that indicated the probable weak aspect of her claim, namely that the college owed her no duty in respect of the behaviour of AA and the Union?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but reading this I wonder if Raquel was well advised to take her case forward, given that the Uni is not legally responsible for the actions of the students union as an entity. It leaves a loophole that the SU can act maliciously posting inflammatory stuff on social media, which others then amplify, and hide behind its anonymity. It would have to go pretty far presumably for a case to be taken against the officers.
I hope Bristol University will not chase her for costs - end result feels like management consultancy on how best to deal with issues caused by the likes of Stonewall. Maybe other universities can chip in
If the judge accepted it as a novel case, for which no precedent existed nor analogous case law from which the law could incrementally develop, surely the judge erred by not resorting to Caparo on test for duty. This was confirmed in Robinson as the correct approach.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Would a case against AA themselves have been possible instead? (Just thinking about future battles!) Will certainly contribute again if needed, such bravery must be supported and this is about all of us.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
I hadn’t realised until reading this that the uni had actually taken disciplinary action against AA. Whether it was done in a timely manner is subjective of course, but if there was a time lag it left Raquel unsupported on campus. The fact that proceedings were dropped because of concerns about AA’s mental health makes me seethe if this was manipulated. Having a son who did actually attempt suicide and is permanently brain injured and needs 24 hr nursing care, I know the risk of suicide is a terrible thing, but I can’t help feel that some people use it as a weapon. If AA has in fact been enabled to carry on with their behaviour it will not help them in the long run.
I feel that even though they won against Raquel, the reputational damage will be substantial. I understand that Raquel is not the only student who has been left unsupported by Bristol Uni. She can certainly hold her head up high. I can only hope that AAs identity is revealed and he faces the consequences of his actions.
Is it a given that she will have to pay the defendant’s costs? Does the judge have some discretion here, particularly given the late disclosures and the protracted nature of the case as a result?
Did this brave and resourceful young woman not receive early advice that indicated the probable weak aspect of her claim, namely that the college owed her no duty in respect of the behaviour of AA and the Union?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but reading this I wonder if Raquel was well advised to take her case forward, given that the Uni is not legally responsible for the actions of the students union as an entity. It leaves a loophole that the SU can act maliciously posting inflammatory stuff on social media, which others then amplify, and hide behind its anonymity. It would have to go pretty far presumably for a case to be taken against the officers.
I hope Bristol University will not chase her for costs - end result feels like management consultancy on how best to deal with issues caused by the likes of Stonewall. Maybe other universities can chip in
If the judge accepted it as a novel case, for which no precedent existed nor analogous case law from which the law could incrementally develop, surely the judge erred by not resorting to Caparo on test for duty. This was confirmed in Robinson as the correct approach.