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?

What has the Charity Commission's decision and LGBA revising their social media policy in 2021 got to do with Allison being targeted 2 years earlier in 2019? Can SW see into the future?

AH's last question raised the old "do you accept that there are unacceptable ways of expressing your position?" point that they laboured do much in Maya's case - so I wondered whether it was to establish that LGBA's social media use was beyond the pale even by their own admission.

The crux of the matter is that Garden Chambers went for the Stonewall strategic partnership, and presumably revenue stream, and Allison's views did not fit that. So Garden Chambers froze her out because Stonewall didn't like it and actively told them to get rid. Just like a typical capitalist organisation that sells its soul and gets rid of the irritating thorn in its side that doesn't conform. That's what Ben Cooper needs to show, and the cross examination of Liu established that quite well I think.

Not very bright question, but anyway... I didn't sign up for online access to the tribunal because I don't have time to follow it live (though I have been able to follow across the TT posts whenever possible). If I sign up now, will I be too late to get access to the infamous bundle? Or has that ship sailed since I didn't log in from the start and don't have press credentials?

They'll be re-posting the link each day so no you won't have missed your opportunity.

Thanks, Signalbox - I've requested the login pin now.

'So Garden Chambers froze her out because Stonewall didn't like it and actively told them to get rid. Just like a typical capitalist organisation that sells its soul and gets rid of the irritating thorn in its side that doesn't conform. That's what Ben Cooper needs to show, and the cross examination of Liu established that quite well I think.'

Really?

I'm on AB's side and I think Stonewall is essentially a secular cult, but I didn't think Liu's evidence was damning in any way for SW or for GCC. We need to do a lot better than that to win this thing.

Tabby yes really.

What do you think he said that was damning?

Hmmmm I'm still trying to work it out, normally I'd blame my alcohol intake, but its Tuesday soooo eeerrmm menopause?

It’s just a double negative joke. They clearly say they are working to remove ‘mother’ and ‘father’.

I'm finding this case particularly stressful for some reason, I can't even follow it live as I'm too nervous

@PearPickingPorky I was frustrated not to be able to follow live because of work, but reading these updates and comments (for which many thanks to everyone) I think I would have just found it very, very stressful. Unimaginable what it must be like for Allison.

Tha ks everyone for keeping us up to date. It sounds very frustrating!!

It was incredibly frustrating to watch yesterday. I can't imagine what Allison must be feeling. I wanted to bang my head against a wall, it was so annoying to watch all the faffing about with tech issues etc.

Let's hope it runs smoother today.

I did jury service once and was surprised how little time we spent actually in the court room listening to the case. We were often sent out for legal reasons. Not like on the TV at all. But yesterday was ridiculous really, you'd think all this technology had just been invented and I was not convinced by a young man like Stephen Yu (?) faffing around - he's grown up with this stuff. Not like the judge and me.

Honestly, I was losing the will to live.

Does anyone know who's up for questionning today?

It's Mr Lue starting at 9.30am, not sure who is next.

Thanks for the reminder. Forgot they were starting early today.

Tabby Ben Cooper specifically made the point that in one of the documents Stonewall stated they were looking for a strategic partnership with Garden Chambers in relation to the GRA and Liu agreed. That's why I think he has laid the groundwork well for the assertion that Garden Chambers were discriminating against Allison because her legally held views did not align with this strategic partnership.

I see that SW/GCC are trying to show that women are not more likely than men to hold gender-critical views.
I hope that AB's lawyers make the clear point that women are far more likely than men to EXPRESS gender-critical views, because of how vastly disproportionately negatively gender ideology affects women compared to men. Women are losing our spaces, sports, language, etc etc and hence we are far more likely than men to speak out on the subject.

‘Ben Cooper specifically made the point that in one of the documents Stonewall stated they were looking for a strategic partnership with Garden Chambers in relation to the GRA and Liu agreed. That's why I think he has laid the groundwork well for the assertion that Garden Chambers were discriminating against Allison because her legally held views did not align with this strategic partnership.’

I agree, but it still has to be proven.

Yes, there’s a disproportionate affect on women, and it’s a negative one.

Yes, there’s a disproportionate affect on women, and it’s a negative one.

‘Ben Cooper specifically made the point that in one of the documents Stonewall stated they were looking for a strategic partnership with Garden Chambers in relation to the GRA and Liu agreed. That's why I think he has laid the groundwork well for the assertion that Garden Chambers were discriminating against Allison because her legally held views did not align with this strategic partnership.’

I agree, but it still has to be proved. It’s possible that all these things happened and they still didn’t discriminate against her in any tangible way. I’m looking for evidence in the bundle. I found some interesting stuff last night but then my laptop updated and I lost the web link.

‘Ben Cooper specifically made the point that in one of the documents Stonewall stated they were looking for a strategic partnership with Garden Chambers in relation to the GRA and Liu agreed. That's why I think he has laid the groundwork well for the assertion that Garden Chambers were discriminating against Allison because her legally held views did not align with this strategic partnership.’

I agree, but it still has to be proved. It’s possible that all these things happened and they still didn’t discriminate against her in any tangible way. I’m looking for evidence in the bundle. I found some interesting stuff last night but then my laptop updated and I lost the web link.

Sorry - the site was failing me there.

I'm going to look at some more of the bundle today.