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?

I had to go out earlier so I missed the argy-bargy around the cameras, and logged back in to see the new angle solely on IO. Could someone kindly update me (as opaquely as necessary ) as to why?

I think someone predicted earlier that stonewall and GCC would start side eyeing each other ....

Is it going to be cast as GCC's fault for their enthusiastic LGB erasure!?

So part of AB's witness statement is about the proselytising of gender identity ideology at GCC, and there is obviously a significant amount of evidence that this was the case, including highly controversial statements about sex by deception and other matters, made at events and on social media by GCC barristers. Those people were not investigated or challenged. Part of her case, therefore, I think, is that her treatment (the investigation by GCC and lack of support when she was subject to abuse online) was biased by GCC's acceptance of gender identity ideology outside equality law. This supports her victimisation claim, I think.

It might be stronger than her discrimination claim, I'm not sure yet.

AB is defending that proposition very well right now.

Can anyone advise me on accessing this - I am in and can see all the names I expect as fellow watchers but just see a black screen with the message no one is presenting. But I can see from tribunal tweets that it is happening. Advice greatly welcomed!

AB requested that the camera be focused so that she could see her questioner more clearly Zeugma rather than as a small figure in the distance. There was some chat about how to get RW into the picture but that apparently wasn't practical.

When you enter don't use the dropdown box to cross out the video as you won't get the video feed.

Thank you @SpindleInTheWind

But surely the pictures of these events is 'hard data' - you can see it's mostly women.
Were the photos presented as evidence? Are they in the bundle? I agree it would be possible to amass enough info to demonstrate that gc feminists are women. I was just going on the witnesses. It might turn out to be a moot point if she can't prove the detriment or the cause of the detriment.

Allison Bailey requested that the barrister (Omambala) could be more clearly seen, rather than in a distant way with Robin Moira White also on screen. Hence the change in camera angle.

I love the reminder in her witness statement that very little revenue-generating work was ever brought in as a direct or indirect result of the Stonewall partnership,. Instead, GCC were being expected to do pro bono work.

www.filia.org.uk/

It started off as Feminism in London but they hold the conferences all over the UK now.

That happened to me today (not before) & I solved it by logging out & accessing through the 'guest link' page,

Thanks JulesRimet!

I understand now from AB's witness statement that both the person who was appointed to 'investigate' her 'transphobia' and the clerk who was appointed to work with her were members of the GCC Trans Rights Working Group.

IO and AH resisting an earlier start so rather than EJ's suggested 9.30, tomorrow resumes at 10.00.

Only caught up on this morning so far (via threadreader) - S Lue has repeatedly said 'he was learning (then) and still is now' - is this acceptable, to claim that you simply don't know very much about it all (so don't ask me) ? He's dismissing anything he may have done wrong, or will say wrong, as because 'he is still learning'.

Now adjourned until 10am tomorrow.

That was inaccurate: the clerk working with AB was not a member of the TRWG but was effectively 'their' clerk as well. That arrangement came into play in early 2019, after the tweets.

I suppose if you can claim to not know how headphones work, it's not a leap.

@PrelateChuckles it seems pretty preposterous, doesn't it. He's an intelligent man, pretending to be ignorant of obvious facts. I've no idea what view the court takes on that sort of thing.

Wonder how long one could get away with giving those type of answers.

'I don't know what was in my mind at that moment,' 'I can't really remember'. And, 'I'm just learning things as I go along in life, continually trying to process and learn.'

Can't tell nobody nothin', 'bout anything!

Earmuffs, @dworky. Earmuffs.

Thanks for the elucidation nauticant and YomTov.

Can anyone remember what year SW actually changed 'same-sex attraction' to 'same-gender attraction' on their website and in their materials? I've googled it and can't see. Can it be evidenced to have been as early as 2018?

GCC are going to have to explain the income shortfall that AB experienced immediately after her protected acts. The witness statement is very informative, and if these figures are shown to be accurate without a better explanation than I've seen so far, then I'd say her chances look better than I thought.