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.

actually just joined mumsnet to hear this case...been lurking for years on this amazing board.

Placemarking

They should have learned from other proceedings that they need to announce about the chat and everything else at the start.

They need a separate facilitator to handle all of the tech issues such as muting random mics, stopping feedback etc.

Thanks to Georgia Weston for getting 'sex is observed not assigned' into the chat box.

Someone in the Chat facility (supposed only to be used for court-related issues and not for commentary) has posted ' "assigned female at birth". Sex is observed and recorded, not assigned.'

I hope the judge will now go away and do some homework. Legal people: wouldn't a judge involved in a case as big as this be expected to have done quite a lot of background work in advance? Either she's unprepared or it would appear she has already taken a position.

Currently running at close to 100 observers. There might be hundreds when this gets going properly, ie show-stopping witness testimony.

Adjourned to 10am on Wednesday.

Adjourned until Wednesday at 10am.

You should be able to connect using the same log ins as today.

Just so I'm clear, was the Judge suggesting that Allison be referred to as 'not a transwoman', rather than simply 'woman'?

Thank God for Maya's appeal judgement!

No. More that when a distinction needs to be made between a trans woman and a woman if AB objects to cis then what language should be used.

But they've agreed that anyone can say cis if they want to but must try to remember not to refer to AB as cis.

I think the judge was suggesting Allison be referred to as a 'non transwoman' only if a distinction needed to be drawn between women and TW. The other side's counsel said she wasn't planning to need to make that distinction.

So: see you all 10am on Wednesday then.

Ok. Thank you, Jules - that has been troubling me for the last 20 minutes.

It was still a ridiculous suggestion, though.

Woman has sufficed up until 5 minutes ago. 🤔

What was the outcome of Maya’s FOI request about judicial training from Gendered Intelligence? I know there was a hearing last year but I never saw a decision.

Does anyone know when the bundle will be made available to the public?

Yeah, this is what I was getting at upthread.

Gendered Intelligence train(ed) judges.

Gendered Intelligence trained Stonewall, aka Respondant 1, during the period circa 2015-16 when it attached the TQ+ to the LGB.

Personally I think there's a conflict of interest but how do you prove it? How would Allison's side even ask?

Twitter

If there are any lawyers here, I wonder if they could clarify on the issue of the evidence that Stonewall want excluded? As I understood it, BC wants it included as it indicates the way that Stonewall thinks and acts if pesky women question what's going on: by trying to discredit/ shut down etc. And also that if that evidence is allowed BC will be able to request other evidence that BC hopes will back up AB's claim.

Stonewall want it excluded because there's already a massive amount of paperwork and there's no need for any more: because it happened in Ireland: because none of those affected in the Irish situation are being called as witnesses. I'm presuming, Hateful Bigot and Cynic that I am, that Stonewall's concern is that it would open a whole massive can of worms that they want to keep out of sight.

How does it al work? How, if the judge allows the one piece of evidence about the Irish therapists and Stonewall's response to them, would that enable BC to ask for access to more?

Try again

thanks for the access info - I have been sent link & code but now I am just getting "Waiting for the conference host to join" audio message.

Is anyone currently in the session or have they finishjed for the day (Its the same message I got at Maya's trial when the sessions weren't active.

It's finished for today. Adjourned until 10am Wednesday.

On Tribunal Tweets it just looks like the judge is allowing everyone to use their preferred terminology but with compromise to respect the other side. I wouldn't expect a completely Stonewalled judge to ban the use of "cis" with reference to Alison and allow referring to transwomen with male pronouns. And isn't "non transwoman" just for SW's goons to refer to AB's actual woman status? It's not like they're going to say "actual woman."

It seems fair enough based on Twitter. It wouldn't be easy to agree language that is acceptable to all parties! But maybe it came off much worse live?

Thank you @JulesRimetStillGleaming

I am struggling with the new format of MN too - no "refresh" button!! why would they get rid of that?

I watched most of Maya's trial & the viewers increased every day, quite dramatially towards the end. We can expect to see the numbers rise dramatically after any reporting too.

The judge will be mindful of how it might look if she insisted on compelled speech. The Maria McLachlan situation, in which MM was required by the judge on pain of being in contempt of court (IIRC) didn't do the judiciary any favours. Forcing a mature woman to call a young, smirking male 'she' sparked many a Gergen conversion.

That should be Terven. Bloody autocarrot.