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

Not quite the full chain TastefulRainbowUnicorn, part of the case could succeed by proving: GCC acting against AB by restricting the amount and quality of work she received from the clerks in GCC, and this restriction caused her financial detriment. Making out the chain for Stonewall would be more involved because their involvement depends on what GCC did.

Me too. I want the questions.

Unsafe in what way? Physically?

Mentally? How? By not agreeing that a male is a male?

I want to drill down to the very bottom of that shaft of made up emotional blackmail.

The quote was from Pink News! 😂

Ben's Tough TERF Talk with the cat howling in the background is already the highlight of my week to be honest. I wasn't going to log in every day but I've kind of changed my mind. The more people log in to see this shitshow the better.

The unsafety claimed by KM relates to the second of the "two tweets" relating to Morgan Page, employed by Stonewall, on the basis that MP had been targeted by AB which would have put MP at risk.

It is ludicrous to suggest people taking our position on sex are wanting physically to harm others including trans people. We might want to exclude them from a female sex only space but we would not be pointing guns at them or hitting them over the head whilst shoving them out of the space or sending people round to beat them up. It tends to be men (over 90% of the prison population) who go in for most physical violence.

EJ is allowing BC another half an hour to cross-examine KM and reveal more surprising testimony.

Jane Russell had already demanded half an hour afterwards and then IO might need to revisit, so are they sitting late?

This is the tweet by AB that caused the "unsafety":

twitter.com/bluskyeallison/status/1175739790181974017

womaniswomaniswoman

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?

Exactly - it's emotional manipulation and complete bullshit.

It's not hatred to disagree with someone, and if a fully grown adult, a barrister no less, feels unsafe when other people disagree with or question their self image, then that person has problems with their self esteem.

In this context, I read 'unsafe' to really mean unvalidated.

Bit IO has been very keen to establish that most terfs are male. Quite how that fits with the idea that terfs are trans-exclusionary radfems denying access to women's spaces beats me, but we know that logic is not in the TRA armoury.

I suspect MP is big enough to take of themself. They were hardly a secret - the article below is from 2018.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lottery-thousands-pay-for-former-trans-stripper-to-sway-public-opinion-6lw9xbwgr

Crazy how the safety of young female lesbians is not considered, or their feelings.
Only the men who don't feel fully validated by certain truths. Only their safety (feelings)matter.

if a fully grown adult, a barrister no less, feels unsafe when other people disagree with or question their self image, then that person has problems with their self esteem.

Dragged into the workplace in this really quite bogglingly unprofessional way, surely it just plain raises doubts about capacity.

I thought the defendent barrister did quite a good job earlier of undermining the causal link from stonewall's complaint to gcc acting on it. He or she sewed the seeds of doubt by showing that GCC didn't often actually listen to stonewall. They didn't reply to many emails, didn't make the recommended policy changes. They didn't think the relationship was value for money because they didn't get any paid work out of it.

So while the left hand (mainly MB) were v enthusiastically cosying up to SW and then soliciting the complaint against AB, the right hand were hardly responding to them at all.

Oh, it turns out when KM made his complaint to GCC it wasn't about "safety concerns". The complaint were merely about "association with the transphobe AB".

I agree with that Manderleyagain. I think the way forward for this case is going to be the complaint against GCC.

Oh bit of a reach KM

Ohh, KM is moving even further into the realms of fiction in terms of his interpretation of the "hateful and transphobic" tweets.

I m only following here. Looking forward to reading the unrolled tweets for today, sounds interesting.

As TRAs often argue, malicious communication ie offensive tweeting is a crime and can have the hate uplift attached. There is a woman in Portsmouth in court this week for this, and though she appears to have pleaded guilty she didn't agree with the "hate" element. So once again he is misrepresenting the law and how it is used.

I thought the different teams had to say how long they wanted with different witnesses? So how is KM only here for 1 day when the estimates were longer?

Word salad again

Yes, and MP clearly does not consider the feelings of young lesbians, and his support group was unboundaried and dangerous.

4thwavenow.com/2019/01/26/my-trans-youth-group-experience-with-morgan-page/

Well given their performance do you think they'd want them longer?