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?

oh dear, it looked as though KB coughed, and she isn't muted, but I heard nothing...

ah! Phew.

I can completely grok why Lue didn't want an email in pink font in the public domain.

Setting aside any semiotics, who cares that little for the accessibility of what they write to the recipient that they make such poor colour contrast choices?

I'm fascinated to learn what Stonewall expects from its champions.

Thirty pieces of silver?

Managed to catch up with the threads.

Gosh what a frustrating mess today seems to have been. I know there is a benefit to being online for interested parties to watch along but I get the impression it would be easier and more professional all round if conducted in person.

They've got weeks of this though. If they do that surely the judge will see it for what it is, and tell them to get on with it? I hope so anyway.

I don't think the technical difficulties can realistically be an attempt to draw things out.

Thanks to everyone chipping in here. I'm following tribunal tweets which give what the participants are saying. This adds colour!

The discussion about "members" and "supporters" is irritating because it was such an obvious hostage to fortune that I'm surprised those terms were included in a witness statement by someone as experienced as Kate Barker.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about writing a witness statement for such proceedings and whether one has guidelines or guidance to follow or can pass it by others.

Fear, surprise and a ruthless dedication to the trope

Thanks for the new thread.

This line of questioning is really clutching at straws.

Poorly worded statement = open goal and opportunity to undermine the evidence base and therefore credibility of a witness' statement.

It's legitimate. I think it was plausibly avoidable and I may be wrong about that.

What a difference between the demeanor and responses of Kate Barker and Stephen Lue. KB is giving clear, concise and common sense answers under cross examination. Unlike Mr Lue.

I think EJ Goodman's patience is wearing a bit thin.

Thanks for the new thread

I think I read in the bundle earlier that the witnesses called for Allison could only be called as expert witnesses, and so are being questioned on that basis. Which I think explains why they are taking this line.

One good thing about Kate Barker's evidence is she isn't trying to massage her answers to avoid admitting things that Stonewall and GCC would find helpful. Sometimes it's best to be straightforward.

My impression of Mr Lue from the bundle and the evidence is that he's an arrogant so-and-so and was probably timewasting, but he wasn't lying. His evidence suggests he liked AB and he was responsible for onboarding Stonewall and it seems like that was about it.

Still a lot of delays accessing the correct page on the big bundle.

Thanks for the threads. Just catching up - I'd totally forgotten that the case started on 25/4, but relieved to see I haven't missed too much (although a shame that a lot of this has been because Allison was taken ill, and now a lot of - by the sounds of it - strategic incompetence)

Not sure which one you meant but I think they actually dismantled her evidence very well.

Sadly, I agree.

Barker could have avoided this.

And it was obvious that the Charity Commission ruling would come up and specifically the part about the social media mis-steps in the early days that led to the undertaking that LGBA's social media would be revised in light of the Charity Commission's comments.

Thanks for the new thread and for the commentary, really appreciate it.

Thanks everyone for the commentary.

Listening further, She should have worded it differently and made sure it was watertight.