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 don't know RW but from what I have seen I find myself entirely unsurprised that they haven't suggested that it's unnecessary for the camera to show them or, if it does, for IO to sit where the camera displays her most prominently...

ZAF was a solicitor. She now works for the Teenage Cancer Trust and lists integrity as one of her core values

When IO was cross examining witnesses she agreed on request to have the camera closer and RW was cut out of the picture due to the seating arrangements.

ZAF did leave Mishcon de Reya at the time of her qualification so her experience of practice is limited.

IO: "The cameras are fixed and cannot be changed"

Come on, she must think we're all idiots! She is a tiny dot in the distance! with her 'assistant' taking up all the foreground!

😂
Its ridiculous, you can barely see her. They should just swap seats.

I'm not sure where BC is going with this. It seems a bit drifty as a line of questioning. First time I've heard him asking things he doesn't seem to know the answers to.

Is BC trying to build a case that ZAF served as a conduit for some of Kirrin Medcalf's views to be fed through to GCC? I have a suspicion that KM might claim a degree of distance between themself and GCC.

We know that she can show her face closer up as she did it earlier in the tribunal.

I see what he's after: how exactly did ZAF know about the LGBA etc if she wasn't particularly aware of the gender critical position?

Exactly. Eresh...BC requested it, on Allison's behalf. Said with 'no disrespect', of course. 😉

I'm only going on this thread and Tribunal Tweets, I think Ben is trying to show that they are all involved, or that they are all stupid.

I see what he's after: how exactly did ZAF know about the LGBA etc if she wasn't particularly aware of the gender critical position?

Well, that's actually quite possible - to a lot over there the "LGB Alliance" is just a "hate group" filled with "gender critical" people. Who cares what they think, they're Bad People and Not Like Us.

Basic bigotry, really. Deciding some people are contemptible, or just agreeing with your peers that they are, without really knowing anything about them.

I love that admission. That according to this witness, there was no discussion about condemning this kind of abuse.

No... I suspect there never is. I always ask the questions to posters who come on these boards and never do we get any assertion that SW condemns the abuse even if it is lesbians or gay men being abused by this other group that cannot do any wrong.

Phew!

This evidence includes a comment from Stonewall in November 2019 that the story around LGB Alliance is "running out of steam".

The defence approach here seems to be that there was an atomised group of people in Stonewall and GCC who independently did paralllel but unconnected things without reference to each other rather than Stonewall staff talking with each other, and as a result engaging in communication with GCC.

She didn't give much that was useful.

I'd say blandness of the witness won that cross-examination for Stonewall. Stonewall embedded in the policy of clients to go above or beyond the law, but the matter in issue was what was Stonewall saying to GCC about the controversies, and I don't think BC conclusively found anything.

AH: 'Was there any obligation on Garden Court Chambers to do anything, in return for the two and a half thousand that they paid.'

Eh?

Objection!

She never said it was a criminal protection racket.

No, AH QC, AB did not describe it as a criminal protection racket, she said it was like a criminal protection racket.

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation, but she likened it, she didn't make a claim of criminal activity.

AB said iirc for want of better analogy as I am a Criminal Barrister, it is like a criminal protection racket.

Now Kirrin Medcalf as witness for Stonewall.

I think she was trying to explain how a conspiracy works and it can be as subtle as a look or a gesture. It doesn't need to be clear written instructions of how to act.

I can't remember the specific protection racket bit but she never suggested it was criminal.