Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 5

1005 replies

ickky · 12/05/2022 15:53

The Tribunal started on 25th April at 10am. If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access as early as possible.

Send an email to

[email protected]

The subject heading of the email request should read

“MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – Case number 2202172/2020 - Ms A Bailey – 25th April 2022.

Then ask for the pin for the online access.

You will be contacted with instructions on how to observe the hearing.

When joining the live tribunal please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Thread 1 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 13/05/2022 20:51

Trying out a name change.

twistingmylemon · 13/05/2022 20:39

JulesRimetStillGleaming · 13/05/2022 16:59

I don't know why and I think it is my biases at play but I'm from a working class background where people are naturally a lot more emotionally expressive and I find middle class buttoned-upness very difficult to operate within.

I very often am perceived as 'emotional' in a professional environment whereas I tone my natural communication style right back and yet I'm still further along a spectrum than most others who are less expressive.

I think he has expressed anger and frustration and defensiveness but then so did Allison. None of it has been inappropriate or uncontrolled to my eyes.

I think I know exactly what you mean here....I grew up with w/c parents and was raised in NE England, my entire extended family are Welsh and very emotionally expressive.

I assimilated accent wise when I move to the SE in my teens but my emotional range and expression is the same as what I've grown up around, laughing very loudly, speaking quickly and animatedly. Add to that my ADHD and I have a very expressive vocal range and am frequently shamed by people in the SE who police my tone by telling me I am dramatic, over the top, calm down etc when I am simply being as animated as the adults in the cultures I grew up with are.

littlbrowndog · 13/05/2022 20:37

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/05/2022 18:03

I think 'The Stone Wall' cocktail might just be orange squash but if you shout at and belittle people enough when they say that it's squash you can convince people to say it's a gin cocktail and then some vulnerable people will then actually believe that and start to do the shouting and belittling for you.

🤣👏

SelfPortraitWithFoxInSmokingJacket · 13/05/2022 20:31

SupportOlive - nice. I was considering it but you got there first. 😀

SupportOlive · 13/05/2022 20:26

I've got to go to the office on Monday and will sadly miss the SW witnesses.

Iknowitisheresomewhere · 13/05/2022 20:18

Re witnesses:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032803/consolidated-rules-october-2021.pdf

here are the employment tribunal rules (neatly proving my point above that I try to find these things out!)

The Tribunal can compel a witness to give evidence. In practice I think that is rarely used because they could, if they wanted to, just stand there and say ‘I don’t remember’.

dianebrewster · 13/05/2022 19:59

RocketPanda · 13/05/2022 17:26

I have come up with a new cocktail called The Bundle. You just chuck whatever is in the drinks cabinet into a bucket in whatever quantities and scowl at people who can't name what they are tasting.

Brilliant 🤣🤣🍷🍷🍸🍷🍸🍷

HatefulHaberdashery · 13/05/2022 19:52

TheBiologyStupid · 13/05/2022 18:55

Yes. I missed the start of his evidence and had no idea who he was - I was shocked to then gather as he spoke that he had been one of the HoCs during the whole sorry saga. He seems to have paid little attention to details or shown the proper level of curiosity before making crucially important decisions, and his excuse of travelling/being busy doesn't cut it for me.

Show quote history

All of this. He didn't pay attention to detail (astonishing in a barrister, really) and thought Allison would just accept their stitch up like a good little girl. And even now, knowing a bit more about the case, lacks the self awareness to truly acknowledge that he, and all his fellow HoC's, erred Allison massively.

Zero grace, and a shame for someone who obviously likes to think of himself as a do gooder.

Motorina · 13/05/2022 19:43

Sorry, that should read 'the claimant sort of has to...' It's been a long day.

Motorina · 13/05/2022 19:42

Ultimately you can only call witnesses who are willing to turn up. The respondent sort of has to, and the defendent has to if they want to defend their case. Anyone else? Basically voluntary.

If you're suing Stonewall, why would a Stonewall employee agree to give evidence on your behalf? An ex-employee, disgruntled, with bridges burned, maybe. But I'm betting, in most cases, most of your former coworkers are either firmly keeping their heads down or actively defending your claim.

Manicsfan · 13/05/2022 19:41

LT's autobiography "Do Right and Fear No-one" was published less than a month ago. He has dedicated his career to fighting injustice and representing people with cases against the police and the state.
It's a real shame for whatever reason, he was unable to see the injustice Allison was enduring at GCC at the time.

emsyj37 · 13/05/2022 19:30

I think the issue is that you can't cross-examine your own witnesses. So it may not be that helpful to call Stonewall employees for AB's side, as BC wouldn't be able to cross examine them.

Manderleyagain · 13/05/2022 19:24

GrinitchSpinach · 13/05/2022 18:26

I appreciate that it's Friday and UK women are tucking in to a nice Gender-on-the-Beach or similar, but quick question from an American:

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

I don't really understand why, having passed the threshold that Allison's case is good enough to be heard in court, BC can't call whichever witnesses he deems necessary.

Good question, I would like to know too. In maya's and this tribunal the claimant called expert witnesses from outside, but they obviously couldn't call anyone from the defendent organisation. The fact that maya's employer did not call someone who was quite key (a woman in the American office) was interesting, and maybe looked bad, but maya didn't have the option of calling her instead.

IDidntKnowItWasAParty · 13/05/2022 19:16

And coming across as defensive, petulant, and aggressive in the process. I find it surprising given his legal background - it's as though his outraged self-importance has eclipsed any professional instinct to manage how he presents himself
Yes - you have articulated exactly the feeling I got whilst watching him testify

IDidntKnowItWasAParty · 13/05/2022 19:14

RocketPanda · 13/05/2022 18:46

The Bundle with a support Olive, therapy stir stick and a little Stonewall umbrella.

Sorted. One sip of this kool aid and you won't know if you're a man woman or moon rock.

Stonewall umbrella - perfection

SchadenfreudePersonified · 13/05/2022 19:11

IDidntKnowItWasAParty · 13/05/2022 17:52

I have come up with a new cocktail called The Bundle.

Then once everyone's started drinking it, you add loads of extra ingredients, and shout at them for starting before you were finished making it.

Then you add different proportions of different spirits and liqueurs to different glasses, and snap at people if they can't taste the flavour which is predominant in yours.

TheBiologyStupid · 13/05/2022 19:01

Chrysanthemum5 · 13/05/2022 17:04

Oh Mr Knan on Monday can't wait

Bring it on! BC will have him for breakfast.

TheBiologyStupid · 13/05/2022 18:55

SelfPortraitWithFoxInSmokingJacket · 13/05/2022 16:41

Leslie is trying very very hard to personally distance himself from the mess

And coming across as defensive, petulant, and aggressive in the process. I find it surprising given his legal background - it's as though his outraged self-importance has eclipsed any professional instinct to manage how he presents himself.

Yes. I missed the start of his evidence and had no idea who he was - I was shocked to then gather as he spoke that he had been one of the HoCs during the whole sorry saga. He seems to have paid little attention to details or shown the proper level of curiosity before making crucially important decisions, and his excuse of travelling/being busy doesn't cut it for me.

SchadenfreudePersonified · 13/05/2022 18:54

ifIwerenotanandroid · 13/05/2022 17:12

I keep expecting BC to announce his next witness will be Noggin the Nog. I'm old. But what a lovely voice.

Oh? Is he Oliver Postgatey. Thank you. That's lovely!

Now when I read the tweets I'll be able give him OPs gentle reassuring voice.

RocketPanda · 13/05/2022 18:46

The Bundle with a support Olive, therapy stir stick and a little Stonewall umbrella.

Sorted. One sip of this kool aid and you won't know if you're a man woman or moon rock.

oviraptor21 · 13/05/2022 18:36

ifIwerenotanandroid · 13/05/2022 17:38

What is it that EJ kept mentioning - if indeed it was always the same thing? Once it seemed to be a skeleton something or other, then at the end she mentioned Sex Matters & TT but I can't remember which TT it was. Something seemed to be needed but mislaid.

TT - Tribunal Tweets I think is what was said

GrinitchSpinach · 13/05/2022 18:26

I appreciate that it's Friday and UK women are tucking in to a nice Gender-on-the-Beach or similar, but quick question from an American:

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

I don't really understand why, having passed the threshold that Allison's case is good enough to be heard in court, BC can't call whichever witnesses he deems necessary.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/05/2022 18:26

Yeah. Just found him too. Sanjay Sood-Smith.

Sorry, missed this, thank you!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/05/2022 18:24

So Knan and someone else, a Mr ...., for Stonewall on Monday, I didn't quite catch the name, did anyone else?

SpindleInTheWind · 13/05/2022 18:12

The ‘Stonewall Sling’ definitely has one part bitters.

Or is that the ‘Long Slow Uncomfortable Screw-You Courtesy Of Stonewall’?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.