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 would suggest that the chat box is open at the start and has
—a reminder of the Court Clerk's contact details
—a link to the bundle
—a link to the courtesy rules for the public
—a link for contact details for journalists
—links to other necessary admin and report mechanisms.

Thereafter, the chat box is closed to the public. A designated facilitator should be a participant who can appropriately alert the panel to any technical problems etc.

It wouldn't get to court if either side had a cut and dried case though - she probably will feel she has been wrung out anyway, and the 'not a shred of doubt' situation is far more likely in a criminal trial (where that is pretty much what the prosecution has to show). It's not as much the turning work down (I think they may be looking more at reducing any damages there than trying to say there was no disadvantage at all, though they will probably go on to say it's all explained by something else), as the how did she respond when the issues with the tweets arose.

Will be interesting to see what follows.

I nominate Timothy Spall.

I've not had the fortune to be present for an intervention by Martyn/Martin Reuby. I've been imagining a cross between Rory Kinnear and Phil Davis.

Agreed. All the talk of the crappy cases, it's like getting the MD to do the filing, wouldn't happen or only in exceptional cases.

Accurately sexing someone should not result in censure. How have we got to this.

Of course it shouldn't and neither should misgendering, there is NO Law against misgendering, there is no Law that says we have to force ourselves to lie about what our eyes see but we are living in a world of forced speech and thought and Stonewall Law.

There are two more weeks to go after this one, IIRC, and only then will BC be let loose on the GCC and Stonewall witnesses. Things will start to fall into place.

Can't wait. That's when I intend to join the online observers. Unless idiots abusing the chat facility stops that.

Can't wait. That's when I intend to join the online observers. Unless idiots abusing the chat facility stops that.

Quite. It would really suit Stonewall and GCC if we all get chucked out just at the point that AB's team get to cross examine the defence witnesses.

Hi Datun, it's good to read your posts on the Allison Bailey threads.

I see Martin Shaw when I think of Martin Reuby

Look how the mocking of threats to a woman is batted away, whilst correctly identifying the sex of somebody, is treated far more seriously. Why? It's wrong and biased.

I agree, though I did think it was a deliberately goady comment. But it was a random observer. Who knows why they are there. The attitude to Allison was far worse and they should have been made to apologise as she asked.

Chat box is necessary. It's for posting links to documents and for people to ask for documents or for tech issues.

Surely all conference software has the ability to set all participants to “allow chat messages to me only”? That way the facilitator can decide what (if any) questions need to be posted to the chat box, and provide links to relevant documents.

Yes that would be good.

I actually have some sympathy for the judge in (not) dealing with the awful verbal comment. She had no realistic hope of confirming who it was. She’d have been relying on the person owning up, which they clearly weren’t willing to do.

My question whenever a male person takes offence at being identified as male is always “why do you hate men so much that you take it as an insult?”

”Man” is not a value judgement, it’s a biological descriptor of an adult human male.

I wonder whether we should be thinking seriously about a movie, of a fictionalised version of the case, win or lose? We raised half a million pounds for this case: how much does it cost to get far enough with a movie proposal to get it off the ground? In the UK #nodebate is dead enough that an indie studio might do it? And a good, compelling movie might have more impact than a court case, especially if the latter is lost for silly technical reasons: I'd certainly contribute if that had a realistic chance of helping. Any mnetters knowledgeable about the film industry?

I've just realised what I wrote to @Mollyollydollywas wrong and I should have written that AH estimated cross-examination of AB would take two days of this week taking us to the end of tomorrow.

I don't know if Friday is a sitting day. If it is, that might see the start of some significant witness testimony from GCC.

We need Glinner involved. It can be his comeback hit.

To be clear about why I think the Starmer comment was out of order, there’s a difference between saying something because it’s true, and saying something because you want to be cruel. There are people I regard as overpaid, useless idiots - I don’t say it to them in their workplace, where they have no choice but to be and can’t punch me in the face.

Fantasy cast?
Got Elliot Page for KM
Juliette Stevenson for EJ
Damien Lewis for BC
...

hard agree @tabbycatstripy

Hugh Grant as AH?

Think Janine from Eastenders could pull off a Nancy Kelley

Yes, I know where you're coming from. My point is we have reached this artificial situation, based on artificial offence, in my opinion.

The entire thing is based on artifice. And correct sexing someone being thought wrong, is part of it. We've all been indoctrinated, to a certain extent, to uphold the fiction.

We shouldn't be sanctioned for refusing to uphold a fiction.

I believe the people for whom this is really a question of gender dysphoria are rare. And even then, upholding the fiction is colluding with sexism or homophobia.

And, at the very least, it's outrageous that quoting somebody on a board that is entirely based on the premise in question, and is completely separate to the legal proceedings, should be subject to censorship.

To be fair. They weren't wrong as far as legal practice goes. A "junior" is just a barrister who is not a silk. They could still have decades of experience and be junior counsel on a case.

However, barristers are not above being total knobheads with zero common sense in the real world either.

Sorry. Barrister pedant.

Bob Hoskins about 20 years ago would've done a good Martin Reuby.