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

KM is really making things up now

I didn't know Stonewall think that sex and gender identity is the same thing. I thought even they recognise that sex and gender identity are different.

Didn't Nancy Kelley make this point in her interview with Emma Barnett?

This is from a few years ago but Ben Wishaw with long hair might do it but not quite

www.stonewall.org.uk/how-lgbtq-inclusive-sport-can-change-lives

People use it for themselves in the sense of reclaiming a slur, it doesn't mean that it isn't a slur.

There's now a 'gender critical umbrella', apparently. So we wouldn't all be regarded as 'terfs', only if we want to be called terfs. Otherwise we will all be respected as people with different opinions.

KM: I don't follow these debates on social media.

I was thinking of Damien Lewis for Ben - and I think I said it before 😎

Otherwise we will all be respected as people with different opinions.

Oh, naturally. So much respect from SW.

KM agrees that a person's sex matches whatever gender they identify as. And says he thinks that's Stonewall's position.

KM understands GC views with regard to gender and sex.

KM states that when he and others used the term Terf in 2019 they are respecting the term GC people use about themselves.

BC: One thing that answer reveals is that you're well up on this debate and follow it closely, and that includes following these debates on social media.

KM: Agrees it was part of his professional remit to be aware of all this, but denies being much involved on social media.

They call us TERFS as a mark of respect to us, it seems. We call ourselves it, so it'd be rude not to follow our example. Ffs

I was thinking of Damien Lewis for Ben

Yes I think he would be good, I meant Ben Whishaw could play KM.

Has AB ever referred to herself as a 'terf'? I don't think she has.

Ahh, KM now trying to disavow his previous position and views about TERFs. It's clear why the SW strategy has been to set him apart, and setting him as a servant on a frolic of his own.

Yep, they're after him taking the fall.

If TERF not a slur, I'm sure he can come up with a sentence where it is used respectfully in that case

And he seems to be making it easy for them!

Funny that.

Michael Cera maybe

Of course. The same way white people call black people the N word. It's a term of endearment really - they should be pleased.

Can SW actually disown responsibility for the actions of someone who is still employed by them and was using company e-mail and his SW title?

If that works, couldn't any organisation use that excuse to get away with anything?

Surely this is undermining all his evidence as it's so blatantly fabricated.

Can KM explain the use of cis, too? Especially when person A says don't call me cis & person B laughs & continues to call them cis. What's SW's position on that one?

Can SW actually disown responsibility for the actions of someone who is still employed by them and was using company e-mail and his SW title?

If that works, couldn't any organisation use that excuse to get away with anything?

I'd like to know where the line is usually drawn too, there must be case law in other circumstances because this scenario must be fairly common in tribunals and other cases.

I can't believe Kirrin believes any of this nonsense he's spouting.

In the bundle somewhere there's a recruitment mind map for recruiting people to STAG. It says "no terfs" - it is clearly an exclusionary, generalising term.