Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 4

‘We shouldn't be sanctioned for refusing to uphold a fiction.’

I would tend to agree. If someone asked me, in a situation where I felt that replying would be useful and pertinent, the question (you know the one I mean) I would not lie and I would resist any attempt to sanction me. But same if someone asked me was such and such a person fat, or stupid: I should be able to answer that question truthfully, but it doesn’t mean I should be able to do what was done in this particular situation. It upsets me to think of RMW just sitting there doing their job and realising everyone could see it. It’s humiliating and it was meant to be.

I'd have said Ray Winstone. Bob Hoskins would have been perfect but alas, unavailable for the foreseeable....

Bob Hoskins about 20 years ago would've done a good Martin Reuby.

To be fair. They weren't wrong as far as legal practice goes. A "junior" is just a barrister who is not a silk. They could still have decades of experience and be junior counsel on a case.

However, barristers are not above being total knobheads with zero common sense in the real world either.

Sorry. Barrister pedant.

Yes, I know where you're coming from. My point is we have reached this artificial situation, based on artificial offence, in my opinion.

The entire thing is based on artifice. And correct sexing someone being thought wrong, is part of it. We've all been indoctrinated, to a certain extent, to uphold the fiction.

We shouldn't be sanctioned for refusing to uphold a fiction.

I believe the people for whom this is really a question of gender dysphoria are rare. And even then, upholding the fiction is colluding with sexism or homophobia.

And, at the very least, it's outrageous that quoting somebody on a board that is entirely based on the premise in question, and is completely separate to the legal proceedings, should be subject to censorship.

Think Janine from Eastenders could pull off a Nancy Kelley

Hugh Grant as AH?

hard agree @tabbycatstripy

Fantasy cast?
Got Elliot Page for KM
Juliette Stevenson for EJ
Damien Lewis for BC
...

To be clear about why I think the Starmer comment was out of order, there’s a difference between saying something because it’s true, and saying something because you want to be cruel. There are people I regard as overpaid, useless idiots - I don’t say it to them in their workplace, where they have no choice but to be and can’t punch me in the face.

We need Glinner involved. It can be his comeback hit.

I've just realised what I wrote to @Mollyollydollywas wrong and I should have written that AH estimated cross-examination of AB would take two days of this week taking us to the end of tomorrow.

I don't know if Friday is a sitting day. If it is, that might see the start of some significant witness testimony from GCC.

I wonder whether we should be thinking seriously about a movie, of a fictionalised version of the case, win or lose? We raised half a million pounds for this case: how much does it cost to get far enough with a movie proposal to get it off the ground? In the UK #nodebate is dead enough that an indie studio might do it? And a good, compelling movie might have more impact than a court case, especially if the latter is lost for silly technical reasons: I'd certainly contribute if that had a realistic chance of helping. Any mnetters knowledgeable about the film industry?

My question whenever a male person takes offence at being identified as male is always “why do you hate men so much that you take it as an insult?”

”Man” is not a value judgement, it’s a biological descriptor of an adult human male.

I actually have some sympathy for the judge in (not) dealing with the awful verbal comment. She had no realistic hope of confirming who it was. She’d have been relying on the person owning up, which they clearly weren’t willing to do.

Yes that would be good.

Chat box is necessary. It's for posting links to documents and for people to ask for documents or for tech issues.

Surely all conference software has the ability to set all participants to “allow chat messages to me only”? That way the facilitator can decide what (if any) questions need to be posted to the chat box, and provide links to relevant documents.

Look how the mocking of threats to a woman is batted away, whilst correctly identifying the sex of somebody, is treated far more seriously. Why? It's wrong and biased.

I agree, though I did think it was a deliberately goady comment. But it was a random observer. Who knows why they are there. The attitude to Allison was far worse and they should have been made to apologise as she asked.

I see Martin Shaw when I think of Martin Reuby

Hi Datun, it's good to read your posts on the Allison Bailey threads.

Can't wait. That's when I intend to join the online observers. Unless idiots abusing the chat facility stops that.

Quite. It would really suit Stonewall and GCC if we all get chucked out just at the point that AB's team get to cross examine the defence witnesses.

There are two more weeks to go after this one, IIRC, and only then will BC be let loose on the GCC and Stonewall witnesses. Things will start to fall into place.

Can't wait. That's when I intend to join the online observers. Unless idiots abusing the chat facility stops that.

Accurately sexing someone should not result in censure. How have we got to this.

Of course it shouldn't and neither should misgendering, there is NO Law against misgendering, there is no Law that says we have to force ourselves to lie about what our eyes see but we are living in a world of forced speech and thought and Stonewall Law.

I nominate Timothy Spall.

I've not had the fortune to be present for an intervention by Martyn/Martin Reuby. I've been imagining a cross between Rory Kinnear and Phil Davis.