Allison Bailey v Stonewall

Kirrin was for some time Head of Facilitation at the BBC after the Stonewall gig, but I can't find anything that suggests that's still the case. (It's also, AFAICS, a much less impressive role than the title suggests)

ETA: It's not actually a BBC role - it's NEOM (New Economy Organisers Network) which presumably delivered/delivers training to organisations including the BBC. Kirrin is on LinkedIn.

Doesnt KM have another position now? I am sure she has recently been appointed to some other high profile job. Am I misremembering?

Kirrin Medcalf is female.

She needed her support dog, her mother, her solicitor and I think another support person with her in order to give evidence online to the tribunal.

I have often wondered what was going through her mother's head, as she sat there next to her daughter during that evidence session.

(I have also wondered if KM liked Enid Blyton adventures as a child.)

Afternoon session posts are here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1980607909911253202.html

From TT2

Namely he had his advocacy hat on. What follows from that is what they drew from what he said. In that context I don't think it is right to read 369 as a finding that KM was acting to protest the C's protected belief.
J asks about KM's rol

IO - KM says he can't be associated with this
There is no transcript
J - this is a finding we will have to make of it what we will
IO can't be any more assistance on para 369

[Ends]

From TT2

..can it be read differently?
IO what the ET do is to record what it is KM said.

From TT2

IO - the ET also in para 362 had regard to the case of NHS Dev [quotes this proposition] it is not enough to show in a position to instruct cause there must be evidence.
Para 363 you see that appropriate direction burden of proof and ET r

so the ET spent some time considering this and looking to see what evidence there was, and we see in para 368 their conclusions. What you see is an acknowledgement that KM email can be read in more than one way.
Not the ET that KM explanation not clear about KM email,

he wrote as a protest that SW staff being targeted with transphobic abuse and safety of communities.
[talks about reasons for KM email]
Para 368 KM response and justification for doing what he did in way he did it.

We come then to the view that ET view of KM evidence. C state it was not credible and shouldn't be believed.
ET did not take this view

ET asked KM about email to understand what was going on. Ultimately the ET did not agree with C's characterisation of KM's actions. That the ET preferred KM's evidence.
J - question about 369 commentary on what ET thinks that KM wanted to achieve. Writing to protest her views.

Thank you!

A bit of digging: Kirrin has F on birth certificate, M on passport and driving licence, identifies as non binary and has been known as Kaye.

This article https://eachother.org.uk/it-is-the-right-for-all-people-to-live-their-life-as-themselves/ was accessed from this article from Sex Matters https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/kirrin-medcalf/

Kirrin Medcalf is female.
And yes I do think KM is being made the fall guy by Stonewall.

From TT2

J - you say they were applying test?
J - The ET found an action .....[difficult to catch what question is]
J we are looking for signif influence from protected characteristic
IO in relation to Section 111 para 361 and identify from that if a basic contravention does occur

From TT2

IO I would like you to look at how the ET applied law.What one sees is an unremarkable set of self directions from para 250 to para 259 and those authorities were matters of common ground between parties.

IO it is my submission that these findings are relevant in relation to section 111.
I don't think I overstate the position if I describe ET as being emphatic and material. No evidence SW influenced or followed up and for the avoidance of doubt p180

they make it clear that the claim in relation to SW was not made out.
The ET look at relevant stat provisions and consider in some detail.

The starting point the words of statute para 359 the ET set out how it applies to parties in front of them. Para 360 what test applied - the ET tell you the test they apply the test he invited them to reply and the R did not demur from

I am not very on the ball this afternoon and have missed/failed to understand chunks of what's going on. We haven't seen the skeleton argument for the other side, have we? Has anyone understood what their argument is, at a high level, and could summarise in a few sentences? I'm currently hearing it argued that Stonewall didn't specifically tell GCC how to investigate the complaint, nor follow it up, etc., but Ben did carefully explain why those things weren't required, so I would expect to hear them argue why they are...Did I miss it, is it still to come, something else?

I must be confusing him with the support dog/mum/bundle page turner person.

KM is Kirrin, a man, though he may not know his chromosomes...

From TT2

IO - what prompted KM to review tweets - a message from [missed] and having reviewed tweets he felt a complaint should be made.
What one then sees at para 200 p 136 the ET reject the notion that MB procured complaints from SW.

Para 202 one sees the ET findings in relation to Tweet number 10. In fact 10 was a string of tweet concerned SW posted 2 Nov and it was these tweets that the ET led comment to head of chambers that AB should not be maligning SW
One sees how GCC progress complaint...

That was a decision made by investigator on the face of having read complaint. In terms of chronology that the investigator wrote to AB and sought her representations on tweets. In writing to AB she ID'd comment on tweets and you will see the Morgan Page (?) tweet.

IO - you will see AB response. What is clear p141 is that the C is saying that in turn her rights to freedom of expression were being interfered with by reason of SW complaint and she made it clear in ET that in the C view the tone of SW complaint was attempt to harass her

IO - the ET tribunal response to C rebuttal. She notes language highly provocative and acuse GCC of harassment for accepting complaint. Faced with SW complaint and C front footed rebuttal. GCC decided to refer to Bar Council Ethics Committee

The response of the heads of chambers and Ms Harrison who were pleased with provisional report and that as a result that one of heads decided no more advice required no more action required in terms of reg reporting

The report was not distrib within chambers and KM only became aware of outcome during these proceedings. The outcome of the GCC internal investigation was to conclude 2 tweets likely to breach bar standards and she was asked to delete them.

AB replied on 20 Dec that she was not minded to delete and she did not, and that was the end of it. So when one looks at the chronology and one ID the points at which SW involved in a meaningful sense you see email on 31 Oct and nothing more

I think KM knew exactly what she was doing when she sent that snotty email.
She was new to the company and should’ve been a lot more circumspect about sending emails like that.

Burn the witch…and GCC - you’ve seen how we behave when we don’t get our own way…

Do you think. Stonewall deliberately got KM to make the complaint to give them. over? He's a newbie, wasn't on that project, didn't know much about GCC etc?

She is a complete buffoon, My Lord. If you ever met her, you’d agree with me.

From TT2

IO - one sees at p129 the judgement and reasons set out the sequence of events of investigation.
There was the initial conclusion that there was nothing to investigate.
Events directly relating to SW where KM complaint email is found by ET to be drafted on 28 Oct and sent

31 October.
Para 190 - what KM did and said
Para 191 - this is material the ET record that it was the C case that Ms Brewer colluded with SW in the submission of complaint and/or invited them to submit that complaint.

Para 199...the ET made some material findings in my submssion around the KM complaint how it was put forward. KM didn't know Ms Brewer. KM only joined SW a few weeks before meeting and unaware of GCC being a member of Diversity Champion. ET say that was plausible

From TT2

Having looked at the way in which the case was put I want to just if I may take some time to look at ET decision itself.
It is helpful to note at P94 an indication of structure ET imposed on this decision and you will see that at the top of the para 33 - the findings of fact para

IO - in the intervening paras there are findings which impact on the claims against SW and other matters relevant to this appeal. In relation to that broader context and the way C made case,

think it's right court sees ET conclustion about the interaction between SW and GCC pursant to Diversity Cham Scheme. It is clear in my submission that the contact is minimal which is relevant when it comes to inducement.

KM acknowledges the soft power in the SW relationship
Regarding tweets - the internal decision making how complaints generates generated by AB tweets ought to be dealt with internally and what one sees there is before any intervention by KM is a view within GCC that the tweets

were damaging and effecting GCC business.
Refers to GCC constitution and damaging reputation. Well before arrival of KM or anyone else in SW.

KM’s supposed ignorance of Stonewall’s own diversity scheme is doing a lot of heavy lifting for IO / Respondents. I’ve never really understood the degree to which it was accepted by the ET and EAT that KM was somehow not the same entity as Stonewall itself.

It's just copying and pasting. Not much thought involved.

And the surgery was to remove any infected tissue and stitch up a wound. Not a very big wound. It was cancelled four times last week.

I should be sent home soon with 12 weeks of oral antibiotics.

Oh is RMW not representing them? Sad times

If she’s this sharp after having surgery this morning??

From TT2

5th that KM conduct was consistent with wanting to exert influence. Consistent with SW seeking to silence GC views. Specific finding the ET could and should make in upholding her case against SW the other element was the extent of the challenge to SW

[more here about KMs motivation apols missed some here]
These were all claims C made in submissions this is in part the reason we have the decision we do have

IO the contention from the C that SW intervened with how scheme members and did so routinely and had done so in the case of this claim. That is the context of the complaint Ms Bailey brought. Those were the matters on which she sought specific findings.