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

Surely the dog was identifying as a cat...

I was struggling to think of what it reminded me of and is this

One man went to speak, went to speak at trail
one man and his support person went to speak at trial
one man and his support person and his dog (woof) went to speak at trial

Just so this bit is clear, BC is asking KM about the redaction of a key part of the email sent by KM (page 700 of the non-downloadable bundle), particularly the largest paragraph in which KM writing on behalf of SW threatens GCC with adverse consequences over what AB is doing. BC wants to know whether KM had discussed such a redaction with anyone, and KM has said a couple of times that he involved no one else.

One would think that KM who needs two ESPs, a solicitor/IT coordinator, and a support dog to enable him to give evidence might not have been acting completely without anyone else's input.

Or seen to be signalling/ suggesting answers?

Why is she called his mother and not his birthing parent?

Indeed.

This needs a David Tennant style narration. 'Meanwhile, back in Kirrin's living room, the Mother of the Head of Trans Inclusion has become increasingly aware that she is not simply sitting in on an ordinary zoom call.'

If AB loses, does she have to pay the other sides' costs?

It requires something quite unusual for there to be a costs award in an ET.

But @nauticant i guess they might need all these people to help them keep a narrative that keeps their job w/o incrimentating themselves

Thanks for this thread. I'm using it to keep up with the trial. God when when when will the rest of the uk wake up to what SW are up to?

Does KM have his Mum and his emotional support person plus dog with him every day at work?

Or seen to be signalling/ suggesting answers?

Oh, now I'm wondering whether the "emotional support person" is actually the solicitor, who wasn't mentioned the first time (or the second time!) as a member of Kirin's entourage. Or could there be yet another person off-camera?

Yes I think the person visible who isn't his mum is the solicitor.

And why did "setting up the room" for this witness take so long anyway?

I guess because they needed to get everyone in and cameras placed?

Yes I think the person visible who isn't his mum is the solicitor.

Yes, I meant that at first it wasn't acknowledged he had a solicitor with him, and even the second time when they mentioned his mum and dog too. But then once it was requested the ESP appear on screen, they vanished from the scene, and suddenly there was a solicitor.

Sorry, I'm not keeping up so not contemporaneous comment :

Why is she called his mother and not his birthing parent? 🤔

Was KM one of the people demanding all references to the words Mother be removed from maternity policies?

There might be more to unpick here 🤔

But clearly he has a need for which this is thought necessary and has been accepted as such.

I think the point is that the need hadn't been communicated in the customary manner and therefore it hasn't technically been established that there is a need. Regardless of the need it feels like slightly cheeky practice not to have disclosed the fact that there were (originally) two additional people in the room with him other than the tech person.

😂😂😂😂

Indeed. One of the subjects we're discussing over our sandwiches is how far this case will set back the cause of those with disabilities.

'Regardless of the need it feels like slightly cheeky practice not to have disclosed the fact that there were (originally) two additional people in the room with him other than the tech person.'

It's outrageous behaviour and it undermines his evidence. He was all prepared to start with a room full of people the ET didn't even know were there.

Was it explained how they know what was actually in the redacted email?

This latest cast of thousands around one person being examined and the lack of the Stonewall side informing the Court and BC is yet another example of Stonewall playing fast and loose with the Law and their belief the Law doesn't apply to them. We have the lack of providing documents, late provision, etc., the lead Barrister not being viewable and the 'Carry On=esque' drama with this current witness.

This is a Court, the Stonewall Team know the rules that apply in Court the fact that IO, who I assume is a respected Barrister within the profession, is going along with this attempt to make a mockery of the Court is shocking and shows a damning level of unprofessionalism, it's painting Stonewall and those acting on their behalf in a very dim light.

Sorry to be dim, but please could someone explain to me in words of one syllable what was redacted (in message from who to whom?) and what the potential significance might be? I was present for the discussion of the support dog and the loud tea-making, but wasn't able to be paying attention for the actual questioning. thank you

I missed the discussion but it's likely there will have been another application for disclosure which will have involved lawyers who will have made sure that disclosure to AB was properly done by handing over a key document in an unredacted form.

Yes, yes — this is the way the whole story needs to be told. By a disinterested observer. High-angle camera. Genius. I can see it: KM and mum and dog all turning up at the solicitors' offices, queuing in the waiting room while ZAF gives evidence. Cut to IO and RMW exchanging make-up tips, then back to KM et al trying to work out where to put the dog...

I believe (but can't recall where I read it, probably AB statement) that AB's lawyers were allowed to "inspect" the unredacted documents but not to make copies.