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?

Yes, I'm uncomfortable with Honorary Man. Reminds me of going backpacking in Greece back in the 70s and staying in peoples' homes when touring the islands. I and the woman I was travelling with would be invited to sit with the men while the women brought us coffee and bowed and scraped. I can remember beckoning a couple of the women over to sit with us and them looking very alarmed and going into the kitchen to hide. It was explained afterwards that the women don't sit with the men.

It's not about sex, it's about power and status. We had money, we were men.

I read it too. What struck me was how childish, unquestioning and ripe for cultish indoctrination some of her colleagues are. It's shocking that people of that mental calibre are working as barristers.

It looks to me like a need to be seen as the good guys. I wonder if chambers that do more prosecutions are less gullible?

Re female only spaces - I read a while ago that when the men come in, the women leave. And that is exactly what has happened. Cases like Allison and Maya are shining light on this. It is not over and never will be. Men have made the mistake of thinking we are a push over - if they ever gave it a thought at all - but, not being women, they don't recognise how long women have been negotiating the patriarchy and have no idea how much strength we have. Allison is magnificent - calmly, with ferocious intelligence, she is there, in plain sight, telling it how it is.

Men have made the mistake of thinking we are a push over - if they ever gave it a thought at all

I really think this probably nails it- that there is no real thought.

There's a belief of primacy of entitlement. If male people want it they should have it and female people should give it to them

There's the terra nullis belief - anything female people do that isn't relevant to or benefitting male people is a waste of time and space. It's no use to anyone. And so is available to be taken over and put to better use.

Underpinning it is exactly the attitude Pluvia describes. That females aren't real people, their needs aren't as important as male people's needs, that them wanting to have things for themselves, talk amongst themselves - at best it's a bit tedious and pointless, at worst its selfish exclusion and hoarding of resources that by rights should be being used by males.

And females drawing attention to this is threatening and unpleasant behaviour. Talk about male violence for example, about women in DV need, about anything that is an exclusive female issue and you're instantly reminded that this affects male people too, it's mean not to include them, and they probably have it worst. If you do a lot of lipservice to how much you care about male people you may be allowed to briefly talk about female needs and challenges without being shouted down and dismissed.

It has taken me five decades to understand what a very, very serious problem females have in the UK and how deep and severe this unconscious sexism is.

I was just thinking this. Why should the LB women lose their group? Surely they can meet each other without the TW in private homes? It's not ideal but better than no group at all or one dominated by an entitled male.

I'm thinking I need me one of these beauties to thrown open to my sisters

Several people seem to have got this person's number. He/she's just been accused of doing all this on Stonewall's payroll.

Just perfect.

Would surf and turf snacks be served to the terven?

Oh hell yeah.

Code words: 'I'm expecting an Iceland delivery'; 'put another sod on the fire, love and open the Icelandic vodka'.

I have a legal question. It appears that GC and SW did not disclose all of the documents they should have, both in response to the subject access request and during court disclosure. Is there going to be any consequence of this? Is it just that it looks bad and damages their case or could they be, I don't know, in contempt of court or something for deliberately not disclosing what they should have?

Only a short way into this but fuck me, this woman is amazing. What she has been through and what she has achieved, her strength.....I'm blown away.

Well, when you are ahead of the law, you have no reason to comply.

It does make me wonder what the point of a subject access request is if there is nobody there to take action if they are not properly responded to. It all makes a mockery of the system.

Yes, about disclosing documents. They didn't seem (to a layperson) to be very forthcoming with the handing over of documents. One could be cynical about this and think that if you didn't know about it, they weren't going to enlighten you or flag it's existence.

And, these people promote themselves as good and decent!

I've made a start in reading Allison Bailey's witness statement and I am just bowled over by what an amazing woman she is. The challenges she has faced with resilience and resolve put most of us to shame. She is truly an awesome human being. The fact that the community which, in her words, saved her life, has turned on her must be utterly devastating.

Despite being insanely long the statement statement very readable and fascinating. Allison should write a memoir when all this is over.

But self-ID ing as good and decent doesn't mean you are really good and decent.

As the suffragettes would say 'deeds not words'.

The deeds definitely paint a very different (one might argue opposite) picture to the words.

I'm part way through Allison's witness statement too. She is magnificent and if I could donate again I would.

I will buy her book once this is over too. I hope she writes one.

It's at times like this that I wish my household were organised enough to cope with eBay selling or similar. I have books to donate to a charity shop. I'd happily sell them via something to raise money for AB until I can make another donation.

In reality, I'm horribly alarmed at all the bad experiences of eBay and Amazon sellers so I'm too much of a wimp to cope with that and my disorganised household. I could sell them via Magpie etc. but that seems to be approx. 50p a book (although easy to do).

Have you looked at WOB (World of Books) Embarrassing? They buy and sell used books. I usually charity shop mine but I might try and sell some to raise money for a good cause like this.

In fact, there are numerous examples where information magically appears having previously not been handed over...

It's not the community that have turned on her. The "community" as represented by what was its leading champion, has been infiltrated by heterosexual males. The original community then left and started their own communities (much of it on Mumsnet). Many LGB people are squarely behind her and cheering her on.

I'm aware of that, but all of my gay and lesbian real life friends are squarely 'lgb with the t' and very anti-gc so it's not true that it's just heterosexual males.

Yes, unfortunately I agree with this. From my experience, gay and lesbian people I know in real life are very much pro T.
I tend to think it is them sympathising with another minority group that they feel an affinity with, so it's coming from a place of good faith. I just can't get my head around why any lesbian would be supporting of something that is clearly trying to erase them.

I was pro T until that meant that gender trumps sex and Stonewall started being blatantly homophobic. I still maintain that's because heterosexual males have infiltrated Stonewall and pushed their agenda and not all LGB people have realised the implications of that yet.

"Heterosexual males" - you mean "Stonewall-approved lesbians", surely?!