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.

Use of language and the Equal Treatment Bench Book now being discussed. BC requesting that AB not to be referred to as cis. The judge just asked whether "not a transwoman" might be a better term for AB than "woman". Uh-oh.

Uh-oh indeed, @nauticant

Already I'm glad I'm not the judge.

I entirely agree, Spindle.

The judge just asked whether "not a transwoman" might be a better term for AB than "woman". Uh-oh.

Wow. 😲 Just when you think you've heard it all.

Rather bizarre discussion in which IO for SW was saying that if AB wants to give evidence according to her beliefs then other witnesses can do the same, implying they can refer to AB as "cis".

Maybe Judge Goodman could channel a bit of Martin Goodman and call Allison 'a female'

Judge is fully Stonewalled up

🤦‍♀️ That worries me.

Judge 'women assigned female gender at birth'. Oh horrors.

The judge has just used the phrase 'women assigned female at birth' without irony as if it's a matter of fact that babies are assigned their sex at birth.

My heart sinks.

Is the judge fully on board the good ship stonewall, or just about 2 years behind on this issue?

Either way, it's not a good sign.

Placemarking

How can she possibly be objective if she casually uses language like that??

I think we need to start collecting money for an appeal now. This judge has been Stonewalled.

IO for SW makes clear she wasn't intending to use "cis" in any case.

To be clear, when I said about EJ suggesting use of "not a transwoman" my impression was not that "woman" couldn't be used, but that sometimes "not a transwoman" might be the better term. Still a bloody awful thing to suggest.

I was also wondering this. 😢

Actually I think the Judge might not be doing SW and GCC any favours if he does let them spout their ideological language, given all this is going out live in front of a tonne of journalists, and SW and GCC will look partisan, in collusion with an ideology, and unhinged.

It will kind of prove part of Allison's point.

If anyone is Jackie Holyoake, you have something over your camera so all we can see is an orange blob, but your camera's on.

Haha. Who was that asking Alexa?

Abuse of the chat box has come up. That's sensible, it's a bunfight waiting to happen.

I wonder if the Judge has had training from an organisation closely associated with Respondant 1?

How can anyone claim to be impartial if they are willing to refer to the entire female sex as "not men who think they're women".

Argh, why are they not muting people as soon as they join?!

I agree @SpindleInTheWind re RMW. They have focused post transition on trans-related employment law, but have I think shown an unfortunate inability to disentangle what the law is from what they would like it to be. RMW’s had a good run of being counsel of choice in cases like this but I think the penny might have dropped that their unique perspective is not resulting in disinterested advice.