Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 4

[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)

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

Kirrin Medcalf's complaint to GCC: allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PH-Bundle-pp-331-2-Stonewall-Complaint.pdf

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

Thread 3 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4545725-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-3?

I think if I were press on this case, I wouldn't want to report daily (as I don't think the paper mainly would want to give that much space prior to conclusion) but I would pick out main issues from each side plus anything that would pique public interest.
I'd save my 'big splash' for the result, especially if AB wins, but even if she loses one might expect some clear bits of 'drama' in the judgement?

I doubt it was even as deliberate as that. I suspect nobody ever actually told anyone not to give her work, but they all knew she would be managed out, or they would try to manage her out.

What got pulled? Was it the HB reference?

I only need a nod and a wink in reply. Doesn't need to be written down.

Please could you tell me where to look? Thank you!

At this stage I wouldn’t be surprised if it was in writing. I’m so disappointed in all these people who are supposed to have brilliant, questioning minds.

AB was absolutely right to think her home address should have been removed from the system. She had reason to be seriously concerned, from KM evidence yesterday about how it's perfectly fine for people to 'lash out' for political reasons.

What you do do 😁(sorry)

Interesting what Kirren says here about not policing people, wasn't that what Kirren was doing in relation to Allision

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/dispelling-myths-around-detransition

The policing of people who don’t conform to gender norms and stereotypes doesn’t just affect trans people.

Policing for thee, but not for me...

KM and his fellow travellers are so deeply convinced of their righteousness that they are beyond rational discourse about what their actual rights are or should be, or those of other people. Helen Joyce was right when she said there's no point trying to convince them; we just have to convince everyone else.

KM was one of 8 people to win a writing prize in 2020 and to be published in a book for which the proceeds are directed to Gendered Intelligence.

blog.jkp.com/2020/09/announcing-the-winners-of-the-jkp-writing-prize/

The book: www.amazon.co.uk/Transitions-Our-Stories-Being-Trans/dp/1787758516/

KM and his fellow travellers are so deeply convinced of their righteousness that they are beyond rational discourse about what their actual rights are or should be, or those of other people. Helen Joyce was right when she said there's no point trying to convince them; we just have to convince everyone else.

Completely agree with this. It's an extremely tribalistic ideology which is central to who they personally feel themselves to be and what they believe, you can't apply rational standards or attempts to negotiate or compromise to this any more than you can argue atheism with the deeply religious.

'any more than you can argue atheism with the deeply religious.'

Exactly.

'You must say Jesus Christ is risen, and is your Lord and saviour.'
'But I don't believe in Jesus, or that someone can return from the dead.'
'Heretic! Burn her!'
'Well do you have any evidence that Jesus did return from the dead?'
'Death and being alive are states that exist on a spectrum.'
'No, actually, dead and alive are binary conditions.'
'Blasphemer!'
'Some organic things are dead and some things are alive. There is no in between state.'
'Burn her!'

Khan actually offered AB a discussion about how AB could secure her own safety. She didn't do anything to help in chambers and she didn't do anything to ensure that AB's address was not available to trans activists, did she?

Well do you have any evidence that Jesus did return from the dead?'
'Death and being alive are states that exist on a spectrum.'

🤣 I’m now wondering how theologians missed this trick for two millennia. It seems to be an unreasonably persuasive argument for many people.

We've seen, loads of times, how someone who's got it in for gc women will say of course I don't think anyone should be targeted/abused/threatened and then there's always a but...

It happens so often, it's almost a cliche.

There's a wealth of difference between making that disclaimer and actually helping somebody.

I am very glad she has brought the case and that perhaps the tide is turning about this belief ideology being imposed on so many companies and individuals without free choice.

It can be difficult for employers when employees have different views and when a lobby group has such a loud voice (as here) that they make so much noise the employer thinks everyone takes the side of that lobby group and no one dare speak out for fear of being drowned as a witch or its 2022 equivalent. Must the employer (or chambers here as it is not an employment case) do what benefits the chambers - get rid of the employee or stick to its guns and lose money - caught between a rock and hard place.

yet more and more employers are taking political positions on things these days in ways that in the past were regarded as unwise. I was told to try to ensure no client knew how any of us voted as if they knew it would upset 50% of the clients.

'more and more employers are taking political positions on things these days in ways that in the past were regarded as unwise. I was told to try to ensure no client knew how any of us voted as if they knew it would upset 50% of the clients.'

Yes, it's ludicrous. It affects productivity, morale and the fair treatment of employees. Nobody should have to hide their politics at work, or their sexuality or transition etc., but those things shouldn't be anything to do with work activities (unless you work in politics).

Why do people make such a racket when they join the link?

more and more employers are taking political positions on things these days

I also think there is an element of "group think" that can happen in a lot of workplaces, such that staff don't actually realise that what they are saying is political.

It seems a bit desperate saying “look, someone answered a work-related email you sent, clearly you weren’t being ostracised.”

Hasn't it just . . . ? 🤔

@Xenia
Whe I was starting out in my career, I was told never discuss politics, religion or money in the workplace as you will be guaranteed to upset someone. Pity SW was ever given the opportunity to steamroll over this unwritten rule.

'such that staff don't actually realise that what they are saying is political.'

You get a lot of that in activist circles as well, though. Recognising that there is a legitimate debate about any normative rights claim is damaging to their position, because they don't want to acknowledge that the only way rights are allocated - anywhere in the world - is through a process of forming consensus based on discussion with others. There are (actually, and unfortunately) only inalienable rights in the abstract. You only have the actual right to do X or not to have Y done to you if a sufficient number of others agree.

So when people say it is a right to have others respect and adhere to your pronouns (just for example) what they are ignoring is that there is no such legal right, and no consensus about whether one should exist or not.