Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing

[ickky]

The Tribunal will start 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.

I have sent a request but haven't had anything back yet. Hopefully nearer the time.

Does the prohibition of not recording or screenshotting the hearing itself also apply to making a screenshot of part of a page of the bundle?

Always so interesting how the “acts have consequences” mob behave when their own acts, and their justifications for them, might be exposed to public scrutiny.

I think it does. You can't reproduce any part of the bundle (as I understood the ruling).

Given that very senior Stonewall supporters like to continually monitor women on here nauticant I'd ask questions like that elsewhere?

I'm just wonder if you attach, republish or even quote verbatim, can you paraphrase from 'memory'? Therefore the essence of what was stated could be conveyed.

I'm 700 pages in. Can only comment that (whether she wins or not) AB is a legend.

I'm just wondering if you can't attach, republish or even quote verbatim.

I don't know. I find the ruling very opaque.

My brain is starting to hurt from reading the proceedings so the judge must be banging their head on a wall and wishing they'd specialised in a more straightforward and enjoyable area of law, like tax.

Daft question alert: if people have already downloaded the bundle, does that make the ongoing negotiations as to who can/can't have access somewhat redundant?

This is going to be a very interesting hearing indeed. The SW and GCC lawyers can fuck about as much as they like, but eventually Ben Cooper WILL question the witnesses and the press and public WILL know what's in those witness statements and the rest of the bundle(s).

And any parliamentarian can read out or say what they like about these documents in Parliament, let us not forget, with parliamentary privilege, and it goes in Hansard. The British on the whole dislike the suppression of freedom of expression and interference with the freedom of the press to report on matters in the public interest.

I am almost certain that a direction not to screenshot the hearing should be taken to include not screenshotting any part of the bundle.

As a matter of pure tactics and practicality Hochhauser would leap with great enthusiasm on any screenshot published here or on twitter and the next thing we know he’ll be asking for the hearing to be conducted in private, forbidding live tweeting, who know what. His instructions are pretty clearly to minimise reputation damage by resisting as much as possible of this from getting into the public domain. We must not help that.

And, we've only had discussion of the rules about the rules yet. It is real Denton's stuff.

I was thinking about this @Cailleach1and how we might be looking at a court order of surprising breadth. Would the prohibition apply if I were to see an interesting sentence in a witness statement and type it out for use elsewhere?

Anyone else thinking 'weak case' and it's not Allison's side?

I'm keeping an open mind at this stage. It seems obvious from the bundle that there was a positional hostility to AB's activities and her tweets within GCC and Stonewall (quite clearly). What she has to prove is discrimination as a result of it.

Let's not count chickens. They're getting too expensive

@SpindleInTheWind I’m not sure. They may consider that they have a strong case but that even if they win it has the potential
to cause massive reputational damage. Winning the battle but losing the war is often what persuades litigants to settle even if they think they’ll win.

(an interesting feature of both this and Maya’s case seems to be that they either haven’t been advised of this risk - pretty unlikely - or that they have chosen not to listen. My feeling is that they have finally tumbled to this and we’re seeing the consequences of that: “oh shit I wish I’d settled this case a lot earlier even if we think we can win”)

on the other hand their case may be both damaging and shit. Let’s hope so.

Whoops, just logged back in as thought it had started again at 13.30 but had to log out sharpish as it was the case management hearing.

Yes, I agree that it would be prudent (essential even) to keep powder dry until the case is over. Based on what has been currently decided at the behest of the respondents' representatives; possibly due to a wish to keep the public ignorant of their m.o. or 'activities'. That is just my personal speculation, of course.

Just wondering what can happen when the case is over.

Also, Jo Bartosch is applying. Tribunal Tweets tweeted that she'd made an application but linked to the wrong account (an account that's suspended).

Ah, thanks.

Oh blimey. Did you access it? That shouldn't happen.

On the point of the bundle revealing the identities of people who might be subject to hounding or threats, I do think that's true on both sides of this debate. There are names in here that haven't been redacted, including of people not actually witnessing or involved at all with either SW or GCC.

It's frustrating that all this can't be public domain but I do understand why.

The larger bundle is not downloadable.

Yes and heard the words 'Welcome to the case management meeting' and logged out with the same. Didn't want to wait around and see if anyone noticed me!!!