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
2fallsfromSSA · 13/05/2022 11:29

Sorrynotsorryyeah · 13/05/2022 11:28

Also, RMW will NOT have been responsible for producing any bundles. That will have been the job of the solicitor (or most likely, some poor underpaid trainee or paralegal). A junior barrister is not the admin dogsbody.

Surely you would check them though?

DifficultBloodyWoman · 13/05/2022 11:28

Sorrynotsorryyeah · 13/05/2022 11:24

A person cannot speak to their legal team when under oath giving evidence. AB’s evidence has been going on for several days so she won’t have been able to speak to her lawyers during this time.

Show quote history

Thank you. I see. I had thought that clients could speak about the case but witnesses could not. I hadn’t considered the client as also being the same as a witness.

IcakethereforeIam · 13/05/2022 11:28

'Interpretive dance' Grin

Yay, Allison.

Sorrynotsorryyeah · 13/05/2022 11:28

Also, RMW will NOT have been responsible for producing any bundles. That will have been the job of the solicitor (or most likely, some poor underpaid trainee or paralegal). A junior barrister is not the admin dogsbody.

IDidntKnowItWasAParty · 13/05/2022 11:26

Sorrynotsorry you already demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about employment tribunals etc 😂

FlibbertyGiblets · 13/05/2022 11:26

Thank you Ickky for the new thread.

DomesticatedZombie · 13/05/2022 11:26

Artichokeleaves · 13/05/2022 11:24

Possibly he could just give her a competently made bundle. At this point that would be quite a novelty.

Grin
Sorrynotsorryyeah · 13/05/2022 11:24

DifficultBloodyWoman · 13/05/2022 11:19

A question for those with legal knowledge:

Allison said she had ‘been embargoed for two weeks’ and asked if she might have 10-15 mins with her legal team.

What does that mean? Does that mean she hasn’t been able to speak to her legal team for two weeks in any capacity? In a limited capacity? In relation to the cross examination?

My legal knowledge is basically LA Law and Ally McBeal so that seems quite wrong to me.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed light on this.

A person cannot speak to their legal team when under oath giving evidence. AB’s evidence has been going on for several days so she won’t have been able to speak to her lawyers during this time.

Pyjamagame · 13/05/2022 11:24

Sorrynotsorryyeah you alright hun?

Artichokeleaves · 13/05/2022 11:24

Possibly he could just give her a competently made bundle. At this point that would be quite a novelty.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 13/05/2022 11:23

Manicsfan · 13/05/2022 11:14

Quite. I could envisage such a book being so badly put together that some passages were repeated verbatim in different chapters!
The legal world is small, gossipy and reputation is everything. Whoever is responsible for the bundles has damaged their reputation quite significantly.

Show quote history

And when not repeated verbatim, absolute contradictions from one chapter to the next.

Actually, that describes the Labour Party manifesto for the 1982, 1987 and probably 1992 General Elections (I am quite serious). It took New Labour to make it coherent and then they started winning. Perhaps the current party members should have a history lesson.

Sorrynotsorryyeah · 13/05/2022 11:21

MsFogi · 12/05/2022 18:42

I sincerely hope that once this tribunal is over the fabulous BC will consider using the fantabulous AB as his junior in future cases about GC beliefs and women's rights. And if she doesn't already have one, I hope BC will give AB a red bag after this tribunal is over (she deserves one!!).

She’s his client so why on Earth would he give her a red bag? That’s for a junior in a case, even if the client happens to be a lawyer too.
also, of course he won’t use her as a junior, seeing as they practice in totally different areas of law.
honestly, some stuff on here smh. Especially the hero-worshipping of her lawyer when he could just as well be acting for the employer, as lawyers don’t do cases based on whether they agree with their clients.

Clymene · 13/05/2022 11:21

God this quoting function uselessness is getting on my tits. That was very funny @SpindleInTheWind

TastefulRainbowUnicorn · 13/05/2022 11:21

AB has an absolutely fantastic voice. Very pleasant to listen to but commanding and authoritative at the same time.

I also saw AH's big grin at "It's been a pleasure." I don't love his tactics, but it was very nice to see that there was a lot of respect under the dismissive and condescending persona.

Clymene · 13/05/2022 11:21

SpindleInTheWind · 13/05/2022 11:04

Imagine if the person responsible for those shambolic bundles wrote a book on, say, an area of the law. I expect it would be a very shit book indeed.

GrinGrinGrinGrin

IDidntKnowItWasAParty · 13/05/2022 11:21

They are the Judith Butler of bundles

Manicsfan · 13/05/2022 11:19

Allison, you are a class act. Such fortitude, stamina, fierce intellect, passion.
She's had to fight all her life, for her health, her career, to overcome childhood trauma. I cannot thank her enough.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 13/05/2022 11:19

A question for those with legal knowledge:

Allison said she had ‘been embargoed for two weeks’ and asked if she might have 10-15 mins with her legal team.

What does that mean? Does that mean she hasn’t been able to speak to her legal team for two weeks in any capacity? In a limited capacity? In relation to the cross examination?

My legal knowledge is basically LA Law and Ally McBeal so that seems quite wrong to me.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed light on this.

OvaHere · 13/05/2022 11:17

Pyjamagame · 13/05/2022 11:15

The bundle(s) have been well and truly 'queered'

Deconstructing essentialist bundles for a more progressive society.

IloveHolby · 13/05/2022 11:15

Allison is so cool, calm and collected. I think her explanation for the use of Terfy McTerf-face as a reclaiming of the word in defiance in contrary to its use as an insult from Stonewall was excellent.

Pyjamagame · 13/05/2022 11:15

The bundle(s) have been well and truly 'queered'

Manicsfan · 13/05/2022 11:14

SpindleInTheWind · 13/05/2022 11:04

Imagine if the person responsible for those shambolic bundles wrote a book on, say, an area of the law. I expect it would be a very shit book indeed.

Quite. I could envisage such a book being so badly put together that some passages were repeated verbatim in different chapters!
The legal world is small, gossipy and reputation is everything. Whoever is responsible for the bundles has damaged their reputation quite significantly.

OvaHere · 13/05/2022 11:14

SpindleInTheWind · 13/05/2022 11:04

Imagine if the person responsible for those shambolic bundles wrote a book on, say, an area of the law. I expect it would be a very shit book indeed.

😂

CuntAmongstThePigeons · 13/05/2022 11:13

Also clocked the smile from AB and AH. It made me a little emosh. There's a real sense of solidarity there.

Allison is done!

Congratulations Allison and thank you so bloody much. I have the biggest crush, she really is awe inspiring. What an intense couple of days, I sincerely hope she has fizz and chocolates ready to go!

Am really looking forward to watching Ben question the upcoming witnesses.

nauticant · 13/05/2022 11:13

Break till 11.30

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.