Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 2

[ickky]

The Tribunal started 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.

When joining the live tribunal
select the video and mic that are not crossed out, this is the courts vid and mic.
On the next page select NONE on the drop down windows for vid and mic, these are your own video and mic.

You must be muted so as to not disturb the hearing.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:
AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB
SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH
RM= Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GC except AB)
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 1 👇

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Is YouGov the best they have got?

These tech difficulties are excruciating.

Mortifying...

Aren't they? All together now: "FOR FUCK'S SAKE!" 😀

'I thought the letter from Stonewall to GCC detailing AB's "crimes", basically threatening to cut ties with them (and hence inflicting reputational damage) and saying in closing "I trust you'll do what's right", was fairly damning.'

I would agree IF there was evidence either that GCC had solicited that letter, or if there was evidence that they acted on that letter. Otherwise I don't understand what detriment - other than possible reputational damage - occurred.

The claim seems to rest on the reduced income. The issue with that is that AB has to prove it was directly related to different treatment she received from GCC as a result of the SW complaint. I think.

So far, looking through the correspondence between AB and the clerks (who were responsible for giving her work) I can see a lot of evidence that she was offered more junior work than before and she wasn't happy about it, but I can't yet see evidence that this was deliberate.

I also agree that the Stonewall complaint was aimed at losing AB her tenancy, but she didn't lose it.

Darn I missed a few minutes. Are we at lunch?

Yes. Technical difficulties for IO so EJ has broken for lunch. Back at 2pm

Stonewall's counsel lost connection then came back but we could hear them and they couldn't hear the tribunal so judge has adjourned for lunch until 2pm.

Tribunal tweets link twitter.com/tribunaltweets?t=NoQjkoS-8_5_ndUclUAUUQ&s=09

Ok I've just realised IO (and RMW) are representing SW and AH is GCC. The confusion over random page numbers had occupied my mind too much!

I was cringing in case they said something thinking we all couldn't hear them but luckily they didn't.

Although that would've been highly amusing. FFS indeed.

No wonder the respondents (via their reps) don't want any record of their words or actions being attached or republished.

From the tweeting it sounds like the filia woman is doing well given the questions. This was a good point
IO: but the ppl who happen to come...
LT: nobody "happens" to come to our conference, they have to run the gauntlet of abuse to come.

Of course these groups share their gc position, when it's brave to attend a meeting or even retweet them. They wouldn't do it otherwise.

I hope the judge can just decide that even though there isn't hard data, the impressions of those involved are instructive and it is likely that a movement for women's rights based on sex is populated by women.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to infer that the movement for women's rights is populated by women!

And that it will impact most on women.

But surely the pictures of these events is 'hard data' - you can see it's mostly women. Or are we pretending that humans can't accurately sex each other on sight?

It's a wonder that babies get made!

I think cases of a single 'smoking gun' piece of evidence are very rare. And they tend not to be the ones that get as far as a contested final hearing.

The 'smoking gun' proof is more often a jigsaw picture pieced together of acquisition of gun, motive to use gun, finger on trigger of gun, the smoke from gun, the spent cartridge, the bullet hole, etc etc.

Hopefully all those jigsaw pieces are in the 6000 pages of documents. But they may not be immediately apparent.

The goal of SW and GCC is to undermine this from paragraph 25(b) of AB's Further Revised Amended Particulars of Claim from the Core Bundle:

The PCPs cause substantial disadvantage to women, and to lesbians, because women, and lesbians in particular, are more likely to have gender critical beliefs, and are therefore more likely to be treated as bigoted or otherwise to have complaints upheld against them

I’ve just got a swirling arrow thing in the screen but can see people being added and muted and the Chat. Does that mean I’m in?

I would agree IF there was evidence either that GCC had solicited that letter, or if there was evidence that they acted on that letter. Otherwise I don't understand what detriment - other than possible reputational damage - occurred.

Doesn't Para 3.3 of AB's witness statement deal with this? There was a complaint by SW followed by an investigation that was partially upheld in relation to two tweets. AB's case is that it should not have been upheld and that it was a flawed and unfair procedure.

'Hopefully all those jigsaw pieces are in the 6000 pages of documents. But they may not be immediately apparent.'

I've only had a cursory look and I'm not finished. I might be wrong.

Martin Reuby has created some valuable space there for Lisa-Marie Taylor to expand on what's actually been going on in her experience.