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?

The thing that made my jaw drop in the witness statement was the male barrister who shared her office, apparently on good terms with her, over-hearing conversations she had on the phone. He reporting on them to seniors in Chambers because he didnt approve of the subjects she spoke about. While saying nothing to her about it. Like an informant in the DDR.
She only found out in disclosure.

That was a jaw dropping moment for me too, Manderley. Allison must be utterly devastated that people she had thought were friends were secretly betraying her.

It's like 1930s Germany. Informers and everyone needing to be scared and alert all the time that some self righteous bigot doesn't report you for breathing wrong.

And yet we are the Nazis.

I missed this bit, is anyone allowed to say the initials of the barrister who did this?

It’s very similar to how people behaved under both fascist and communist regimes: certain (perfectly ordinary) things are suddenly designated as unacceptable, and some people buy into that and they inform on other people.

It's in the public domain

Looks like Mumsnet has compressed the images but it's David Renton

@twistingmylemon his initials are DR. They shared an office. I don't see why I shouldn't name him properly as AB's witness statement is in the public domain. But I still feel nervous about doing so

Oh the irony.

Source Wikipedia

"David Renton (born 1972) is a British barrister, and has represented clients in a number of high-profile cases, especially concerning trade union rights and the protection of free speech. He was for many years a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). He has published over twenty books on fascism, anti-fascism, and the politics of the left."

Eton and Oxford and then the Socialist Workers Party. That well worn pathway.

‘Eton and Oxford and then the Socialist Workers Party. That well worn pathway.’

😂

Protection of free speech. Now how exactly does that square with reporting your room mate's phone conversations to management 🤔?

You've got to hand it to GCC - they are really on the ball with diversity. Admittedly, Renton is Eton & Oxford but that sideline with the SWP must have made all the difference. He probably claims to be working class. While Allison's only a black working class lesbian who struggled through state school, then had several jobs to support herself while she studied to become a barrister. And who's the one they want rid of?

Never changes, does it?

Oh my god the irony. I don't know what to say.

I've seen this a lot in recent years. It stands to reason that in a true meritocracy there will be less room at the top for men from very privileged backgrounds. There's a raft of middle-aged men (including some notable - well, at least on Twitter - barristers) who aim to survive the cull by either claiming to have some kind of (completely unverifiable) special identity, or by claiming (through the most specious arguments imaginable) that their upbringing was in some way deprived, or they become the most massive pain-in-the-arse messianic social justice warrior going. (Look, I feel the pain of the little people, so for god's sake don't make me have to be one of them.) Some do a combination of the three. Denouncing people seems to be the surest way of camouflaging one's privilege in identity culture.

Please be careful, this is an ongoing case and there was a lot of discussion about redacting names etc. to prevent individuals receiving unpleasant targeting on SM etc.

My concern is that this could adversely impact Alison’s case because of inappropriate SM posts by her supporters.

I think this is the exact point Allison was making when she had an exchange with a white male Oxford educated barrister about the high value fraud cases in GC going to, well, oxbridge educated males.

Sorry, posted too soon, as in they talk the talk at GC but scratch of the flimsy veneer of social justice and it’s the same as it ever was in these professions.

Ah, yes. Eton and Oxford and 20 books on anti-fascism and then he takes down a black lesbian because he doesn't like what she has to say. He and Stephen Lue both betrayed her shockingly.

It's not on the same level, but I have lesbian friends going back decades who've turned against me over this issue. It shouldn't hurt as much as it does — after all, they've turned to the wrong side of history and revealed themselves as people who didn't deserve my friendship in the first place — but it does.

Following this tribunal has reinforced the cultish idelogy GCs have. Bailey has just kept repeating how Stonewall have tried toget her fired with absolutely no evidence other than paranoid rants. I think someone should intervene soon because this is not going well for her.

You're sounding a wee bit desperate (and a bit adolescent) there, Disgusted. But come on, show us your evidence. What reason do you have for thinking it's all going badly for Allison?

As far as I'm concerned just getting those witness statements out there, evidencing how ideologically fixated and prejudiced these clever people are, is a huge win. I imagine lots of companies and soliticitors will be giving GCC a swerve for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, Disgusting is quite right.

All those men talking behind her back, all those women having one conversation to her face and another via email, the Wall etc.

Not one of them is in anyway connected to any other organisation anywhere. No overlaps in friendships, committees, paid for or pro bono work, no work, Wall or private communications, no payments, no projects, nothing. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all.

Except for a bundle of papers, that still doesn't fully comply with the law and has been so badly paginated by a shit hot expert on trans issues it is nigh on useless.

The last thing AB has is any evidence whatsoever that being GC caused any ructions in her place of work ever. Or that anyone anywhere ever thought I'll of her. Even the bloke who shared an office thought she was a jolly good sort.

FFS! Even for you @Disgusting that's really lame.

Ha! You wish.

I think she's peaking many more people and making people like me brave enough to speak out. Enough is enough now and your time has come.

What reason do you have for thinking it's all going badly for Allison?

Reason not the need for DoM's assertions, if I can be allowed to misuse Shakespeare for the moment.

The value of documents in the public domain is that they can be leveraged by people contacting their HR. HR and company legal might pause to consider just how captured they are and just how the general public might perceive their lack of due diligence.

The public might not perceive AB's colleagues as brave Social Justice Warriors striking a blow against the privilege of black lesbian feminists with a background of surviving CSA, they might have a very different view. Mr Justice Julian Knowles (of Harry Miller v College of Policing) expressed it in a way that still stands for something for so many of the public:

“In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

Especially in the case of AB's roommate, I think that the public might wonder why the restrictions on sneaking and tale-telling that had doubtless been drummed into DR from an early age, as he moved from Eton and Oxford into the Bar, somehow fell away, when the object of it was AB rather than somebody who more resembled himself in type and life history.

@Crazylazydayz his name is in the public domain. Everything I've posted is in the public domain already.