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?

It would appear you care a lot more than you're trying to pretend, given the research and monitoring you've done into this.

It is quite hilarious to hear ‘no one is reading’, no one cares. People have mentioned Allison’s case to me as well as all the ‘what is a woman’ discussions.

The message is getting out there despite the people who are desperate to believe the opposite.

One of the people who do Tribunal Tweets shared that their tweet impressions last week stood at 7.17million, which I must admit I found astonishing given there are only six of us and our socks. Now learn we are becoming increasingly uninterested it makes it an even more striking achievement. Brava!

A large dose of copium. Administer twice per thread for best imaginary results.

Tiphaine that explains why I'm so bloody exhausted all the time.
Having to change my username 30 times an hour, and as for 7 million impressions on Twitter - well that really took it out of me.

The tribunal definitely resumes tomorrow morning, at 10am iirc. They started once at 9.30 but I don't think that was popular in some quarters.

The tribunal itself cannot cope with the amount of people wanting to witness this first hand. But apparently nobody is interested...

You deserve every penny from that Putin and his chums in America Redshoeblueshoe. A sterling effort

Thanks Tip. I'm going on a luxury world cruise with all my $$$.
I really don't understand all those mugs who terf for free - when it's such an easy way to earn money.
I WFH, I can drink copious amounts of 🍷- in fact I'm probably more amusing when I'm drunk.
I wish I'd thought of doing this years ago

I can’t remember which poster it was, but there was one poster who tried to convince us that there was just 2000 people in the UK who believed gender should not be prioritised in all instances. It was only a year or so ago.

The stuff of absolute muppets and numpties.

Well since we're talking about such a fundamental change to law and policy and the redefinition of half the human race for the better happiness and primacy of the other half, let's have a referendum shall we? Put it to the electorate. Properly fought with open information from both sides, and the ballot box where no lobby groups with a tenuous grip on ethics can fiddle it. Democracy, it's supposed to be a bit of a 'thing' and I think this is at least as serious as whether to stay in the EU.

Let's see if it really is only 2000 silly billy women who don't want to be subordinated and lose their rights.

Can we bump this up to 1000 messages and then start a new and more focussed thread for tomorrow?

I think this case is the point at which the rats really start to leave the sinking Stonewall ship.

It's the beginning of the end for 'Stonewall law'. Win or lose, this case shows that, one way or another, association with Stonewall is a risky business. Businesses really only care about their reputations and their bottom line. They're willing to pay for the Stonewall badge of wokeness only as long it is more likely than not to improve their image and/or bottom line. And, whatever the outcome, after this case that balance has tipped. After this case it's a badge of controversy which comes with side order of potential litigation. I predict the legal firms will leave first and then others will follow as the circle of endorsement starts to break up.

This case is worth every single penny, win or lose. I can't thank Allison enough for being the one to bring it. She's extraordinary.

After this case it's a badge of controversy which comes with side order of potential litigation. I predict the legal firms will leave first and then others will follow as the circle of endorsement starts to break up.

We need the constant use of the qualifier, controversial lobbyists, Stonewall to reflect just what it is that they've done and how much they have engaged in purposeful confusion to the point where it might be considered deceitful were it not made clear to employers and organisations that they're expected to conduct their own due diligence.

Edited for formatting.

After this case it's a badge of controversy which comes with side order of potential litigation. I predict the legal firms will leave first and then others will follow as the circle of endorsement starts to break up.

We need the constant use of the qualifier, controversial lobbyists, Stonewall to reflect just what it is that they've done and how much they have engaged in purposeful confusion to the point where it might be considered deceitful were it not made clear to employers and organisations that they're expected to conduct their own due diligence.

A few more years and the fashion for ID as trans will have moved on again and been replaced with a new fad, hopefully leaving people with genuine gender dismorphia with better access to support.

Just finished reading AB's statement, phew. The thing that stuck me was just how much influence Stonewall has over their DC members.

I don't know of any other organisation that essentially just provides training have such an impact. Normally these training companies would be courting organisations to buy their services. It seems once you sign up, you are in thrall to their ideology and you must provide your expertise to them for free.

I cannot see how AB could lose on the discrimination, it is a clear cut case.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3

Done this now as I will be busy tomorrow morning😪

I'm sure this has been asked a dozen times, but are they still accepting new requests for logins to watch and if so, how do I get one?

The link to the application for a PIN is in the first post on this thread. No idea if they're accepting new applications or not. There have been around 150 people logged in on previous days and the system has been creaking under the strain.

Thanks, I saw that. I'll give it a go anyway and see what happens!

My plans for today have changed so I hope to be able to join - I emailed about five minutes ago to request a pin and have just had a reply.

Two Stonewall witnessed to be interposed in the sequence of witnesses tomorrow: Zainab Al-Farabi and Kirrin Medcalf, the latter is very involved.

That will be interesting.

IO cross-examination of AB finished. Now AH is cross-examining.