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

AH now saying there will be no room for AB to cross-examined tomorrow, her cross-examination by AH will resume on Wednesday and will take 2 days.

Tomorrow is a Stonewall day.

And what a mess for Judge Goodman to sort out. Interesting (but not surprising) that the objections to applications from journalists were all from the Respondents.

It's going to be the interests of both respondents for the Stonewall witnesses to play down the relationship between the parties as well. I'd expect them to say as little as they possibly can.

AB finished for today and back on Wednesday. Two other witnesses will be tomorrow at 10am.

So two stonewall witnesses tomorrow - I know because of scheduling issues they are on now but BC did want to have some time to cross examine AB first

Who are the stonewall witnesses? Will it be the one who wrote the email?

Kirrin Medcalf and Zainab al-Farabi. Not sure if I have those names exact or not.

A couple of things I'd like to see tomorrow is for BC to examine NA and KM on whether what they said about gender critical views before the most recent Maya Forstater decision is something they'd say now and to go through the tweet by AB criticising the promotion of the overcoming the Cotton Ceiling workshop:

twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1175739790181974017

NA ZA

What did they say about gender critical views nauticant? I mean, I can guess the type of thing but was it out of the ordinary?

So infuriating I won't be able to watch till around midday tomorrow. But they'll probably take till then sorting out if they can see and hear each other.🙄

I’ve just seen someone on Twitter accuse AB of exercising (something like) MALE PRIVILEGE by expecting to be given quality work in the same proportions as her colleagues.

I think the logic is similar to gender ideology: you act in a way that males sometimes act, but you are female, therefore it’s illegitimate because you are acting ‘like a man’.

Get these people to the Olympics. We haven’t won medals in gymnastics for a while, have we?

Manderleyagain: I was thinking of the everything-is-transphobic broadside complaint KM sent to GCC that had the Chicken Little effect. But you've got me bang to rights on ZA, it was just an assumption of mine that she had said similar.

Looking forward to Stonewall being questioned. Reading Allison's statement I was filled with horror at their behaviour. The evidence about Lucy Masoud towards the end was unspeakable. Shows this is a pattern with Stonewall, their arrogance is breathtaking.

Manderleyagain: I was thinking of the everything-is-transphobic broadside complaint KM sent to GCC that had the Chicken Little effect. But you've got me bang to rights on ZA, it was just an assumption of mine that she had said similar.
Ah so that was KM! I get what you mean.

What was the evidence about Lucy Masoud? I can't get the witness statement on my phone.

I think I might have been in the same hotel as Lucy Masoud last year sometime. Does anyone know her? Does she have a massive laugh?

37.Lucy Masoud
(548) In 2021, I was contacted by Lucy Masoud. She is, like me, Gender Critical, black and lesbian. She told me she had read about my case and that it had similarities with her own experience. She said that she had been critical of Stonewall, and suspected that they had tried to contact her employer (the Fire Brigades Union, or FBU) in an attempt to damage her reputation at work or otherwise undermine her livelihood. She had made a Subject Access Request to Stonewall, the response to which she sent to me. It is in the Bundle.
(549) The documents within the Subject Access Request response seem to show:
(a) That Lucy Masoud was interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme about All Women Shortlists in the Labour Party, which Stonewall considered “problematic”. Apparent quotes from the interview were distributed within Stonewall (Bundle Page 6154).
(b) In an internal Stonewall document relating to its “client” the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Lucy Masoud is recorded as having made “transphobic” comments (Bundle Page 6154).
(c) Preparations were made to issue a comment about “FBU Transphobia” (Bundle Page 6156).
(d) In an email, two Stonewall employees referred to her as a “committed transphobe” (Bundle Page 6157).
(e) An email exchange entitled “To flag: Lucy Masoud/Radio 4” was almost entirely redacted (Bundle Page 6163).
(f) In an email exchange, two (or more) Stonewall individuals discussed a meeting “to discuss ways to deal with any potentially/challenging conversations/individuals because Lucy Masoud is part of their network and may rear her head” (Bundle Page 6159).

(g) Such a meeting was scheduled for 14 June 2021: “Courageous Conversations with problematic DCs/Network members (Lucy Masoud) (Bundle Page 6170).
(h) In another email she was referred to as a “notorious transphobic hate preacher” (Bundle Page 6177).
(i) In 2018, Stonewall staff appear to have discussed how to “tackle her or any situations that may arise in regards to anything that she has said, which is obviously in contradiction to Stonewall’s position on things” (Bundle Page 6178).
(550) I believe that these documents show Stonewall applying pressure to an individual’s employer because of criticism that she had made about Stonewall, and using their Diversity Champions (“DC”) scheme to do so. I think there is a clear parallel with my experience and that this shows a course of conduct by Stonewall.

This is in the public domain but the bundle isn't. Can be viewed within the tribunal but isn't to be downloaded or otherwise reproduced.

Thank you!

The text about Lucy Masoud is from Allison Bailey's witness statement. Since it's her document which she put on her website in a downloadable form, the restrictions laid out in the tribunal for other documents (the non-downloadable bundle and other witness statements) shouldn't apply.

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf

when Is this likely to finish? And a decision made?

I just caught up on today's tribunal tweets.

AH is foul, isn't he? I know this is his job and I'm sure he's very good at what he does but he has chosen to use these nasty tactics -

• repeatedly asking if she wants to withdraw
• repeatedly referring to her case as a conspiracy theory
• implying she's doing it for the money ()
• making a thing of her medical condition in a really underhand, snide way

I'm quite shocked this behaviour is allowed in court. I've only got TT to go on though, how did it come across for those who watched? And how was Allison holding up? She's had a tough day

IIRC HairyBum it was scheduled to go on till 23 May. It could easily take 1 to 2 months for a decision to be issued. I'm not saying it couldn't be earlier but the Maya case, which was a less extensive case, is now in that time-frame with us still waiting.

Morning tweets threadreaderapp.com/thread/1523580984985550848.html

Afternoon tweets
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1523649362781700098.html

Langclegsinspace I'm just following on here and twitter - and I absolutely agree with you. AH is coming across as vile.