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

So KM is happy to risk mis-identifying someone who hasn't specifically claimed that identity? Is this what SW recommends doing?

KM is under oath, right?

Pants on fire.

KM acknowledges that some GC women are offended by the term Terf, but some weren't and so he/they still went on and used it.

"It is falling out of favour now..." 😜

I don't think Kirrin is the sharpest tool in the shed.

It's just so obviously false. Where are these women who are using TERF to describe themselves (apart from ironically).

BC now providing the examples of abuse that KM has been denying. Oh, this is brutal.

Ben Cooper now reading out "choke on my girldick TERF" tweets :D

GO BEN - He is now reading out a list of violent TERF memes.

BC is a god.

Wonder what Mum is thinking now

Obviously if some members of a group of people use a term to describe themselves, that means everyone else can too and there's never a problem with that. I'm sure Stonewall will accept that as a general principle.

So the argument that it's not disrespectful to call women terfs, so if anyone finds out he has, it's not out of a lack of respect.

Jeez. Its toddler talk.

BC is going on and on and on with this. IO is objecting to BC giving examples of abuse.

He's not on Twitter full time

KM: these examples are minorities.

In other words, it (effectively) never happens.

Ben... Cooper... Sir.

That's better.

I really want all this in the film script verbatim

"Ben... Cooper... Sir"

What possessed Kirin to say he didn't think it was frequently used in an abusive context?

Obviously if some members of a group of people use a term to describe themselves, that means everyone else can too and there's never a problem with that. I'm sure Stonewall will accept that as a general principle.

Yes I guess we can adopt the approach to nomenclature that say Debbie Hayton or Fionne Orlander would use to describe their identity? Some trans people are happy with it, so it should be fine.

The SW counsel is really annoying me now - she must know her interruptions just make it look as if her witness can't be trusted.

So when trans people use it it's out of respect but when non trans people use it, it's a slur??

Yes I wonder what KM's mum thinks of this

Not surprised the judge didn't catch all that word salad

Yes, his argument is that it is okay because it is used by a minority.

This reminds me of the time an acquaintance informed me that her sister in law had divorced her brother. Her bother wasn't actually divorced, only the sister in law - as she had sought the divorce.