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’m also a lurker on these threads, I’ve been on mumsnet many years growing more and more concerned about this situation

I am a mother/ sister /aunt /cousin and wife of individuals who are Lesbian and ND

DD is a 19 year old Autistic person and doesn’t have a single friend who doesn’t label themselves either non binary or trans. Her circle is full of very vulnerable people on the spectrum who are already at the margin of society , although DD views herself as female she considers herself asexual

I have watched this group of young people grow through their teens and get sucked into this cult identity with fear
I have spent a lot of time discussing gender disphoria with DD for many years before as DH was very late to relationships due to his autism

@Pluvia I thank you so much for the experience you describe it helps me understand how this took hold, the many others transcribing and enhancing our understanding I thank you also. I feel this is a seminal moment in the turning of the tide . I’m sure there are others here like me watching and listening who have little else to add so are silent

I was just upset at what looked like the career/role/achievements of an objectively brilliant woman being put down simply out of dislike of whom she represents. I appreciate that that wasn't the intention, although some posters have confirmed that they believe this would be justified. This sort of view point comes up constantly and it infuriates me, and it seemed like a good discussion to share the clarification on.

My issues with them have nothing to do with who they represent my issue is with their appallingly unprofessional behaviour throughout this case, the stuff going on in the lead up to the case being heard was bad enough but the circus they were party to yesterday was an absolute low that made a mockery of their profession and the Court.

Mark Gatley QC is observing. He popped up with camera on accidentally before lunch.

MG could easily been given a heads up about the complaint and then after a whole day, sent the requested information.

AH is just wrong here. MG's conduct was disgraceful.

To prove that the reduction of income is because of deliberate actions Allison has to make a case a bit like the 'dishonest waiter'. Sometimes a waiter gives the wrong change. These things happen. But it's strange that overall the mistakes are very favourable to the waiter, so we can assume skulduggery. Similarly sometimes things happen and work which could gave gone to one barrister instead goes to someone else. Lots of little things influence where the work flows. But its strange when the overall pattern is that a barrister who is out of favour with management falls from one of the highest paid to one of the lowest. It's too much of a coincident to just be a waiter making mistakes.

It might be hard to show well enough to persuade the judge, but it does persuade me. It was used in ( the film of) David irwin's defamation trial, but I'm not drawing a comparison with the content of the trial.

AH is driving me insane
WTF is he on about - 'your conduct was disgraceful'
ARGHHHHHH
It makes perfect sense to be polite even to someone who has upset you. AH IS THE DISGRACE

AH is going down a very strange path.

Since when is it disgraceful to maintain professional politeness even in the face of receiving such as reply as Allison received?

'Since when is it disgraceful to maintain professional politeness even in the face of receiving such as reply as Allison received?'

It's not. AB was professional in the face of extreme discourtesy. And yes, her work was obstructed from the time MG read the email and decided not to give her the information, to the time he changed his mind.

It was a rhetorical question sorry tabby. I should have put a emoji after it.

Hella - I know - what a stupid point to make. You would be unwise to inform someone you are making an official complaint, and always remain polite regardless.

Desperate stuff from AH.

Just a couple of days ago, he was complaining that Allison's email of ''is this appropriate?'' was ''deriding''.

Now he's got an issue with her being polite and professional in the face of hostility 🙄

It seems to me that there is a whole lot of double standards at play here and I suggest that there would be a very low bar if AB was of another 'minority' group.

I'm really struggling with locating things in the bundle - any tips?

(As an aside, what idiot put it together? 3(?) different numbering systems. The same item reproduced multiple times)

When they refer to the main bundle page numbers, add 100 and it should take to roughly the page.

To navigate through the non-downloadable bundle, the best way I've found is to look at the chat to see that E number they're referring to, eg E4349, and to refer to the page count shown at the bottom of the screen when scrolling through the bundle.

Thank you, Spindle. That is the one. I see Alex Sharpe, is credited along with others as a 'Topic Expert' in that report so I think I misremembered the nature of their contribution to it.

He is winding Allison up here.

Sorry, completely unrelated to your post but I love your username!

EJ: "Mr Hochhauser, I think we've got the point you're trying to put across."

Oh joy

It was the way that she used that statement to bring that line of questioning to an end. It was clear she thought AH had over-laboured the point.

Moving on to AH's next point, at last. He's so laborious. Allison v impressive.

I sign off most emails with "thanks" or "thank you", almost automatically. Really odd to think that anyone might construe this as anything other than a (female- socialisation-driven) bit of etiquette.