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 see Robert Galbraith is in the chat.

'I mean, this morning I was called a supporter of genocide because I said it's better for women to have single sex spaces.'

Do you know, I'd rather be accused of 'genocide' (because it's obviously so bloody ludicrous) than have to listen to the 'So-called feminists not wanting to include ALL women' nonsense bollocks-speak brigade again.

I spotted two Joanna Cherrys this morning. Half these names are probably fake.

"IO: Re Mr Drummond -
AB: Is it Miss Drummond?
IO: Ms Drummond perhaps"

What is it about these tribunals & T side's QCs not being able to avoid 'misgendering'? This happened in Maya's case too, didn't it?

It's almost as though the forced message hasn't sunk in for some.

Struggling to understand how they can argue that someone (Alex Drummond) who appears on the Stonewall website as a member of the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group, which Stonewall says will shape its work with and for trans communities, is nothing to do with Stonewall...

www.stonewall.org.uk/trans-advisory-group

Very few people can avoid misgendering all the time. Remember when Mermaids misgendered Owen H? It turned into a lovely little 'apologise and move on' teachable moment.

Allison speaking about Alex Drummond ..

'The complaints were designed to remove me from a profession I have gained. A heterosexual man (identifying as a woman and a lesbian) saying for me to be removed from Chambers. I cannot think of any clearer instructions'

The Stonewall Trans Advisory Group is very clearly affiliated to Stonewall and I don't think you can argue they have nothing to do with SW's activities.

From the SW website: 'MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WERE APPOINTED FOLLOWING AN EXTENSIVE APPLICATION AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS.'

They may be unpaid (?) but they still work for Stonewall.

NoTa is Graham Lineham apparently.

Back at 2pm.

Breaking for lunch.

IC refers to Mr Drummond!!!
AB I think its Miss
its all a silly shitshow isnt it?

NoTa is Graham Lineham apparently.

I doubt it but if it is, Graham, grow up and stop it. (I write this as someone who's shared a few drinks and a plate of chips with Graham)

Do the tribunal not have the power to throw people off if they are taking the piss re pronouns etc?

Are people so used to trolling, or being adversarial, they think they can do it in any situation?

It should be one strike and you're out. Which ever side you're on.

Missed a bit when I went to hang washing out - is an argument emerging that each person (Knan, Brewer, Drummond at al) was acting independently, and therefore their actions are not the responsibility of Stonewall/GCC?

As I understood it NoImAVeronica that was a secondary issue with the primary issue being that Stonewall people moaning about AB on the Stonewall intranet was not an instruction to GCC to act in a certain way, and if AB wanted to claim it was, she would need to have presented evidence showing a relationship between the Stonewall intranet and GCC.

flipping heck at mis-gendering Alex Drummond, tut tut IO.

I hope GL isn't doing the stupid pronouns thing.

Keep going, Allison, we are cheering you on.

Funny that now anyone signing in with neo pronouns will probably get told off for being silly but it could genuinely be a trans person with silly pronouns.

I know!

😂

Fielded beautifully by Allison

Wow, it seems like it's on every legal case checklist - The TRA side must include at least one instance of misgendering.

Indeed - I hadn't thought of it like that.

I don't watch live because I have hearing issues and I don't think I'd be able to follow. But the Twitter feed gives an unusually clear impression of what the arguments might be. I have the impression that AB is several steps ahead and attempts to trip her up are failing, to the point that IO looks silly.
Is that borne out by watching live?

that is the impression I'm getting from watching live. IO seems particularly ineffective.

I too found this to be rather bewildering. So Alex Drummond is nothing to do with Stonewall at all it seems. So they should take Alex Drummond off their website.

You cannot have it both ways.

TastefulRainbowUnicorn

Partly. I do think it's easy to think it's all going brilliantly, or all going badly, when in reality there are strengths and weaknesses in the evidence on either side. AB is brilliant and holding up under pressure. But it's also true (I think anyway) that the discussion on 'The Wall' can't reasonably be regarded as a direct instruction. The problem when people communicate through a sort of web of social pressure is that it can be very difficult to see exactly where the decisions are being made, and where the pressure is coming from. GCC have an argument that there needs to be a clear demonstration that they were influenced by, rather than merely listened to, the complaints about AB. They also have an argument that they didn't necessarily place as much weight on Stonewall's opinions as people are saying they did.

We'll have to see how well that holds up under BC's examination.

But I do think people have a view of Stonewall that is perhaps too Machiavellian, too competent, compared to what they really seem to be: a membership organisation that gets by on upselling and bumming pro bono assistance to drive forward their legal and social agenda. Organisations join them (I think) when there is a small core of motivated people who understand the agenda, and the rest of the people (who typically don't) don't care enough to say no. It's also not a huge initial investment (only £2,500 to 'join' the Diversity Champions scheme), which isn't huge.

So then when it all goes wrong because of some horrible way someone was treated, the senior people say, 'I don't know anything about Stonewall' when actually (and without them necessarily knowing) Stonewall's policies are embedded all the way through their company.