Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 3

[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

On the first page underneath where you put your screen name, select the video and mic that are not crossed out (top option), 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)

Thread 1
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4529887-Allison-Bailey-v-Stonewall-Employment-Tribunal-hearing?

Thread 2

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4542466-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-2

Not so many years of corporate law practice before she moved over into the charity sector.

Just to quickly say that I thought AH was being a bit of a ar•e, over and above that. Towards the end, when AB asked where the thing he was stating about time off was, he wasn't decent enough to state it; just said he was 'summarising'. And, trying to get her to respond to something without her being able to look at the timetable. Then EJ had to interject to say that the witness was entitled to see the source AH was referring to.

BC questioning ZAF on SW's aims to embed and push its agenda through its diversity champions. That was part of her job. Establishing that SW doesn't just work with Stonewall Champs on the employment front, but keeps a close eye over them and seeks to intervene in order to obtain desired outcomes.

That light behind Ben's head is horrible. It's really distracting me.

Also noticeable how much more often the QC's for the respondents are interrupting the cross examination compared to BC while claimant's witnesses were being cross examined. Another tactic?

This probably isn't very helpful for AB, but Stonewall comes out of this as a very mundane sales organisation. They're upselling on the basis of 'consultancy work', but they're not experts in equality law and the whole thing looks like a grift. 'Best practice' my arse.

BC pointing to Stonewall embedding in clients the replacement of "gender reassignment" by "gender identity" with Stonewall explicitly stating this as "Going above and beyond the law". (page 4442 of the non-downloadable bundle).

Ooh are they going to start turning on each other? Delicious!

This is jaw dropping

My impression so far is that ZAF is being straightforward in her evidence, possibly because she doesn't have much to hide, and not much to protect being as she's now involved in the charity sector for a non-LGBT-focused organisation.

Did you notice BC's pause after ZAF said she hadn't considered how Stonewall's misrepresentation of the law could operate to the detriment of those with gender critical views?

Go Ben!

Is ZAF being purposely dim?

I think she is being straightforward in her evidence except for her lack of understanding of gender critical opinion.

BC: did you realise that people with gc views would be treated as transphobes under this policy?
ZA: i hadn't considered it
BC: In SW policies you refer to all pregnant staff rather than women and pregnant person?
ZA: yes
BC: did you consider that women might find this offensive

because they’re a trans rights org, and don’t give any consideration to the rights of others

it’s like being scored by the Vatican on how welcoming you make your company for hard line Catholics

’do you fire women who have had an abortion?’

’yes your holiness’

She obviously doesn't see any issue with pushing a position beyond the law to the point that it is no longer legal.

Again, BC pointing to Stonewall embedding in clients the replacement of "gender reassignment" by "gender identity" with Stonewall "going above and beyond the law". (page 4464 of the non-downloadable bundle).

I've joined late - is this witness continually asking for questions to be repeated?

BC - STOP INTERRUPTING!

BC insists that he is not interrupted as much as he has been.

Yes. Many times.

He's a master of the pregnant person pause.

Yes, I noticed too that ZAF fades into vagueness when asked to consider consequences of gender identity replacing other protected characteristics tabbycatstripy.

Things have moved so fast in this debate (on the gender ideological side) it must be hard to remember what you "believed" or thought at a certain time.

I suspect ZAF has nothing much to lose here and is deploying the 'I didn't think about it' strategy as the least risky option. The witness is being babysat fairly assiduously by the other side: they are trying to disrupt BC's chain of thought and progression, but he's managing to shine the light on Stonewall's policies very clearly — that they ignored and silenced women, that they gave advice that went beyond the law and ignored others' rights.