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

Yes. One of a whole list around this entire mess, starting from the writing of the bloody awful GRA law in the first place.

Thanks for all the analysis everyone, much appreciated!

I know its very unfair to focus on a person's appearance, apologies, but is KM's solicitor-friend gender non-conforming too?

I feel strangely sad and angry that there is no clever, charismatic, academically credible person who can represent the trans view rationally and eloquently and consistently, and that it would appear that Crispin Blunt, Caroline Nokes, Maria Miller, Keir Starter, the NHS and the army and MoD and MI5 and every ruddy hospital and school and university in the land has been enlisted to stage the largest organised assault on women's rights by people like this.

You and me both.

Whoever thought that intelligent, credible, logical and reasoned thinking people were in charge of these institutions can now see that that is not the case.

I would say so.

This performance by KM might actually help SW's and GCC's cases, that KM was so clueless, was such a loose cannon, that the mischief they were up to involved no one else.

Has support mum taken the support dog out for a wee?

I had to take a phone call and missed quite a bit.

It's utterly shocking that gullible, ideologically driven and highly sexist people like this, can have such an influence.

Just thinking of all the people who are responsible for KM sitting there, revealing to the world his complete inadequacy (to put it mildly). Stephen Whittle, Helen Belcher, Ruth Hunt, where are you? Are you on a beach somewhere while the puppets are being sacrificed?

I feel sad too. It is such a toxic mess.

Yes it's the universities that upset me most - they should be capable of critical thinking but they have just rolled over and accepted all this without checking it

I feel really sad about the Stonewallisation of workplaces. It's ruined employment, and made working life unnecessarily combative and divisive, and political. Certainly it's diverted the focus from any work!

They throwing him under the bus.

Suddenly KM is saying that he was very aware of what was happening on twitter.

Whittle certainly has demonstrated quite staggering lack of knowledge and lack of self awareness of optics on MN. I don't think they or Hunt would come over much better on the stand, although perhaps the rather startling views would be more coherently expressed.

More interruptions

When the shit hits the fan, responsibility devolves downwards. Kirrin's future may not be with Stonewall.

Panicking

AB's case is that bad things went on and that they were causally linked. The main weakness I see this is causal linkages, ie Stonewall instructed GCC to act against AB, this made them to decide to do so, they did so by restricting the amount and quality of work she received from the clerks in GCC, and this restriction caused her financial detriment.

OK I think I get it - I was thinking the SW part of the case was made, as KM doesn't seem to have been a lone wolf. GCC are much more slippery. But she needs to prove the full causal chain even though SW wasn't involved in most of it? I guess that makes some sense as the "instructions" they gave GCC were vague, albeit sinister.

Kirrin's future may not be with Stonewall.

Is he still employed by them?

Surely KM is a key witness why are they only here for 1 day? That's not Ben's problem is it

If KM had shown any empathy for women I'd be feeling pretty sorry for him now - he is totally being set up by stonewall to be the fall guy

Another interruption

He's saying Allison wants to physically harm trans people?

A highly respected barrister? Where the fuck do they get this guff?

I really, really want to see this issue of 'safety' bottomed out.

The SW party line seems to be that trans people are inherently unsafe whenever they come into contact with people who endorse sex not gender.

Unsafe in what way exactly? Physically? Mentally?

If they are allowed to fling about this notion that gender critical people make trans people unsafe, I want them forced to explain themselves.

I've never made anyone unsafe in my life, and yet I live very close to where Katie (ahem) Dolatowski grabbed a 10 year old girl by the face, shoved her into a toilet cubicle and tried to force her to take her trousers off.

It makes me so fucking angry that this unsafe victim narrative is allowed to be out there unchallenged. That's exactly they terf is a slur, so we can be closed down from challenging this horsehit.

Sorry. Don't want to derail this excellent thread. It just overwhelms sometimes!

really, really want to see this issue of 'safety' bottomed out.

The SW party line seems to be that trans people are inherently unsafe whenever they come into contact with people who endorse sex not gender.

Unsafe in what way exactly? Physically? Mentally?

If they are allowed to fling about this notion that gender critical people make trans people unsafe, I want them forced to explain themselves.

This. It's borderline defamatory.