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

I'm not feeling a whole lot of plain speaking from this witness - lots of perhaps and 'I'm a woman and I didn't mind'

Tribunal Tweets aren’t reproducing the interruptions

what sort of things are IO and AH objecting to?

Not buying that this witness was completely oblivious to the gender critical position.

Article in the Telegraph today

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/10/lesbian-barrister-allison-bailey-claims-employer-crushed-spirit/

It is liberating to hear someone representating Stonewall being put on the spot and being asked to explain Stonewall's policies and to comment on how they might have real world impacts on women.

Suggesting that he isn't clear about dates mostly. Also that he was introducing an email not addressed to the witness despite them both introducing material not addressed to AB in their cross examination.

When ZA said that she/he/furry didn't feel like that 'themselves' (don't know how they 'feel' about what they are), it pushes this stuff into feelings again. Sex is a biological fact. However you 'feel' about it.

Do people just 'feel' someone is a man or a woman?

Could someone repost the bundle in the tribunal chat? My link is not working now

Thanks @JulesRimetStillGleaming

Thanks!

There was also an interruption when he was asking a general question about Stonewall trans policy and IM said he had to relate it to a specific document. That's when he appealed to the judge to be allowed to ask legitimate questions in the way he chose without interruptions.

IO

Not buying that this witness was completely oblivious to the gender critical position.

Me neither.

ZA: I would haven called it [Gender Identity] a PC

but it isn’t!

I know we all know that people are paying Stonewall to be told stuff that’s just plain wrong, but it’s still flabbergasting to hear it

There's all sorts of sophistry that will get you to this position though, Bernard.

Symbolic that RW is far more highly visible than IO with the screen setup.🙄

Bernard I think she said "wouldn't" - suspect that's a typo. * *

Tribunal tweets correct this to 'I would not call it a pc'.

Being taken through example after example of Stonewall seeking to get their clients to remove words like "mother" from their policies, and particularly those related to maternity, a protected characteristic of course, is a grim experience.

I was just looking at that trying to work out if it is just an unfortunate camera angle or if IO is tiny and RMW is 3 times her size. 😆

I imagine RW declining all suggestions of swapping places to allow lead counsel to be the most visible person in the room.

Baystard - is it intentional?? It's bloody ridiculous if it is...

I know there's a phrase about not attributing malice to stupidity, mind you.

Another interruption from IO.

Cannot believe that ZAF is legally trained 😳

IO gets further and further away from the camera 😂

Did SW warn their clients if they were taking them beyond the law ? Of the possible legal consequences?

Hypothetically, could an employer who loses a tribunal such as this after following ‘Stonewall law’ then sue Stonewall for Costs / damages?