Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing Thread 19

It's all I have

Someone in the meeting should let you in soon - that's what I have.

Mic off and speaker on

Unsure as to which audio option to choose.

I want to hear but I don't want you to hear me!

Yes. I'm oddly nervous

Will be following here!

Yes I am too. Nervous about the tech working. Fingers crossed.

Yes I am 👋

Anyone else waiting to be let in?

I have known for other hearings some posters, post the names of well known people who were observing and used their real names. Where does this sit under the courts rules?

Thinking back to the comparison with in person viewing. There doesn’t seem to be any restriction on naming people you identify? The press do it sometimes (eg often identifying family members of the accused or victim in the gallery in criminal cases)

Just to add to the GDPR debate.

I know some posters have said differently but I have always used my real name in previous hearings. I have also followed on both here and TT.

I have known for other hearings some posters, post the names of well known people who were observing and used their real names. Where does this sit under the courts rules?

I feel quite sad about how nasty and sneery some people are being towards me, tonight. When i was only trying to help to the best of my knowledge

Apologies for yawning Karensalright. I was tired and a bit worried and your posts came across as abrupt and patronising but I can see now that you meant to be helpful and I shouldn’t have yawned at you so sorry about that.

Ah, yes. "Be kind". That doesn't hold too much sway around here, especially on the fast moving threads following hearings. The content and style of your posts are not of the same quality of other posters who claim legal knowledge. They have established credibility in previous threads; as yet you have not. A variety of opinions is welcome and it's perfectly fine to ask daft questions, but patronising and contradictory posts will not get a warm and fuzzy response. Neither will emotional flounces.

If you go back and read the links ickky posted up thread, they take you to the instructions on applying for remote observation. These clearly state that in this court, remote observation access is granted by order of the judge. So no, Stonewall is not "behind the order" because this is standard procedure, and anyway there could be plenty of Stonewall supporters in the listed names, we just don't know. The order contains no rationale for why any personal information is included other than our names, which is why those of us who have seen the order are debating it here. Out in the open, not on PM.

We'll presumably find out tomorrow (later today, bastard insomnia) if Tribunal Tweets can do their thing.

@CriticalCondition yes i agree on that

i thought i had a political home, not so tonight.

I think it's bedtime.

The DPA and the GDPR exceptions apply to all courts equally. Obviously the data sharing issue all be it limited to observers is upsetting.

I wonder if Stonewall are behind this order.

Will tribunal tweets be allowed?

The only people who know the rational for the data releases are those in receipt of the order and cannot,I assume, tell us here.

I hope you all PM each other and figure out what to do about it.

I feel quite sad about how nasty and sneery some people are being towards me, tonight. When i was only trying to help to the best of my knowledge.

I am not an enemy, and it’s has been very personal

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Interesting the number of people that aren’t qualified lawyers but hold first class law degrees and yet post on all sorts of weird corners of the internet

My thought too.

Caveat - I do only have a Desmond of a law degree!

The Gov.uk site makes clear you can make a complaint to the ICO. Definitely would appear reasonable to do so given what appears to be a monumental fuck up by court staff here!

I'm wondering if @Karensalright may be thinking of DPA exceptions that apply to courts in criminal cases?

The DPA / GDPR applies to civil tribunals but one is expected to raise issues first with the court setting in question, and work through the process.

I have previously however simultaneously issued a 'stop processing notice' to an organisation with quasi-judicial functions and it had a remarkably rapid effect. The subsequent re-write of a document - that did understandably take time - was significantly different; but Version #1 was pulled meanwhile.

If that hadn't worked then I'd have been contacting the office of the ICO immediately.

No worries, I realised after posting that’s probably what you meant but it’s late here too.

Interesting the number of people that aren’t qualified lawyers but hold first class law degrees and yet post on all sorts of weird corners of the internet

Sorry, @MyLadyDisdainlsYetLiving . That wasn't aimed at you but at Karensalright. Apologies for not being clear. It's late and I'm fed up with being told how to suck eggs by someone waving a law degree. A first no less.

Was that aimed at me CC - Do you think I’ve revealed something I shouldn’t? (Genuine question not sarcasm)

Whoever people need to complain to, sharing sensitive data like this is highly concerning. I don't think one needs a law degree to understand why that might be.