Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 5

Support olive and a Stonewall umbrella made me snort my wine. Is Sauv Blanc supposed to be flushed though one’s sinuses?

Judge Goodman made an announcement at the start of today's hearing - apparently threats had been made on Twitter, although as you say, the list of witnesses hadn't been made public so it all seems a little odd. Whoever did it needs their head examining, as potential witness tampering/threatening is a pretty serious offence.

LT was very angry when he was asserting his high regard for Allison and frustration at the situation.

I didn't read him as angry, more expressive of some complex emotions for the reasons that you summarise (e.g., a high regard and respect for Allison, some investment in mentoring her in another area of law and some comradeship in being able to help someone who was looking to expand her areas of practice).

He has a remarkable record. LT 's civil rights record, his persistence in pursuing justice for the Hillsborough families, his support for the Grenfell families, he is deeply admirable in many ways and thoroughly merits his awards and plaudits.

None of us can be complacent. This is why we have reflective practice and need to be challenged about believing intrinsically in the true course shown by our moral compass.

I have some compassion for the schisms this has created between AB and LT. They are both inspirational role models with so much in common. Had AB and LT continued their professional mentoring relationship, I'm sure it would have been of great mutual reassurance and benefit.

Not sure of details Tension, but there was a 10 minute break in proceedings where a serious matter was discussed.

It transpired that there had been threats against one of SW's (I think) witnesses. Like you, I wasn't even aware of which witnesses were due to be examined or when, and I think most of us were in the same boat - understandably, witness details etc were kept under wraps.

It seems to be my somewhat cynical comment that one of SWs random supporters may have posted the threat against the witness. I my experience GC feminists don't threaten (or not very often) while TAs do (quite a lot|).

When/where did this happen? I wasn't even aware who the witnesses for next week were when the issue of a threat was commented on. It's clearly serious enough for the court to take it at face value. But I've no idea when/how this happened. Was the info posted in the chat facility today or something?

Loving the name change @SupportOlive

He doesn't work there anymore.

Did someone say Sanjay Sood Smith is giving evidence next week? His page on Stonewall website appears to be blank and his linked in page has disappeared. Think his tweets are protected.

www.stonewall.org.uk/people/sanjay-sood-smith-executive-director-workplace-and-community-programmes-hehim

Stonewall on Monday, eh? ... <eyes calendar>

Schadenfreude - congratulations. Cocktales all round.

It is quite interesting to see how court proceedings are viewed by people outside the tent though. It does make me wonder what would create a better understanding - something like the US concept of a ‘civics’ class in schools? It can’t be good for justice that the courts process is so cut off from society as a whole!

I have zero experience of court proceedings/tribunals etc. Is there a reason why BC doesn’t have a junior counsel, but the other QC’s do? Is it only the defence that get to have a junior?

Yet another annoying aspect of the upgrade - photos of Twitter grabs etc are so small that I can’t read them.

I'm blocked by IW so unable to savour my moment of glory to the full, but I feel world-famous.

Squuueeeeeeeee!

Form an orderly queue for autographs, please.

😁😂😂

What is the logic behind the rule that only the respondent(s) in an ET get to call witnesses?

There is no such rule and it’s strange that people think there is. Each party calls the witnesses it wants to to support its case (you obviously wouldn’t call someone who doesn’t support your case). If Allison (not Ben Cooper, it’s not his case, it’s Allison’s) hasn’t got any other witnesses besides herself, that isn’t because she’s not allowed to.
You can cross-examine whichever witnesses the other party calls to support their own case. I can’t imagine that Allison would have any other potential witnesses that would add much - all her fellow members of chambers are respondents in her claim so I doubt any of them would give evidence for her, plus most things are contained in the emails already and won’t be added to by someone being called to give evidence. SW employees obviously won’t support her case so why would she call them?

When I was at university I was hypnotised into thinking a glass of water was gin or some such, and got quite pissed. Amazing what you can convince yourself of, under the right conditions.

So India W is one of the monitors <waves>

LT was very angry when he was asserting his high regard for Allison and frustration at the situation. It read to me as though he was angry that he'd been her friend/mentor and that he felt that she'd repaid that friendship by not toeing the line and shutting up and going away like a good girl. He was happy to be her mentor and really rate Allison as a professional...but only on his terms. Who needs enemies when you have friends like him.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I came in late during his evidence and was astonished to find out that he was a Head of Chambers. I was not impressed by his evidence given his decades of experience, seniority at the Bar and hugely impressive CV. I would have expected such a senior barrister to know how to put on a more detached and professional performance as 'Head of Chambers' even if they felt personally aggrieved at being asked to explain their part in a debacle which they felt they were involved with in name only.

😂😂😂

... went out the window. Just like that (lost that bit of my post)

Tbh that can be said of any of the 800 organisations that are in the Stonewall schemes. My college has solid safeguarding policies, all based on legislation e.g. the Equality Act, until they joined Stonewall, and safeguarding went out the window. Just like that. In one fell swoop. Crazy.

@SchadenfreudePersonified you’re twitter famous!