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'd have said Ray Winstone. Bob Hoskins would have been perfect but alas, unavailable for the foreseeable....

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

I would tend to agree. If someone asked me, in a situation where I felt that replying would be useful and pertinent, the question (you know the one I mean) I would not lie and I would resist any attempt to sanction me. But same if someone asked me was such and such a person fat, or stupid: I should be able to answer that question truthfully, but it doesn’t mean I should be able to do what was done in this particular situation. It upsets me to think of RMW just sitting there doing their job and realising everyone could see it. It’s humiliating and it was meant to be.

I agree. There are contexts in which it is necessary to refer to someone’s sex. But this wasn’t one of them in my view - the person in the chat could have said “was it RMW?” There was no need to refer to RMW’s trans status to make the point, and certainly no reason to refer to it in that way.

Allison would be the junior in many of her cases. I so hope she makes QC soon after this. She's fierce in the best way.

If we're casting Bob Hoskins in the film then it really would be fantasy casting. Martin Reuby is your union man out of central casting really.

I agree with Datun.

The comment was perhaps unkind but did not warrant the over the top outraged reaction of IO and RMW, let's compare and contrast that reaction with the shoulder shrug, yeah whatever reaction to the tweets BC read out yesterday and the Here we go comment.

I've had enough of partaking in this fiction and salving of people's hurt feelings because they are not perceived as the sex they want to be. Tough.

MIAD is a transphobic dog whistle I'd say and I'm not in the habit of invoking that expression. I think the time has long gone since that could be passed off as an innocent observation for any but the most autistic of us or people who had never ever ever been on Twitter or any social media ever.

The person in the chat could only have said "was it RMW?" if they knew that name attached to that individual.

But they could have done it more like question-time; "yes, you in the glasses and blue blouse..."

Hmmm. But "blouse" is a bit.... gendered? 🤔

Suddenly everyone's turning into KM denying that it's an insult in this context.

I didn't log on today but yesterday everyone seemed seated - I would've had no way of knowing what garments anyone was wearing other than the top half.

Martin Reuby in the film: Phil Davis

I think we need to know where on the scale of offences misgendering lies, from mild insults all the way up to death threats. What's it the equivalent of? I think if it was put in those terms we would have a more sensible discussion & a recognition of everyone's rights - which of course some people do not want. Clarity would help here.

Oh yes perfect!

And yes, "here we go" is abominable and I'd LOVE to know who said it. Genuinely I'm amazed if it was any legal professional - that sort of thing would've been trained out of them pretty hard, surely?

Who is Starmer and was it them that made the unkind sexing/misgendering comment?

Sorry, this thread is moving fast... it's AH and AB tomorrow, and we have to wait a couple of weeks until BC questions more GCC and SW? He's already questioned a couple, hasn't he?

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?

Perfectly put Datun, and not just any threats, death threats serious enough that the famously misogynistic police force took them seriously.

And the person accurately describing sex and attire was just some randomer off the internet (who should never have been allowed to use the chat if the tech had been in any way professionally managed) but the person mocking the death threats was someone on the legal team of the defence. Unbelievably bad and I cannot believe it was glossed over.

And yes, "here we go" is abominable and I'd LOVE to know who said it. Genuinely I'm amazed if it was any legal professional - that sort of thing would've been trained out of them pretty hard, surely?

Well, before RW got misgendered, Allison said she wanted an apology for the comment and the judge told IO and RW to "be more restrained" and there was no denial from them that someone in the room said it. Only RW denied saying it, post the misgendering. IO didn't comment on it.

I’ve been following this on twitter. She’s not going to win this and will have a massive bill for costs for the other parties. Nor will she become a QC. You need about 25 references to even apply and she’s not even listed in any of the law directories as a leading junior. The idea that she was on her way to taking silk before this happened is a joke. At least it’s been entertaining.

’Who is Starmer and was it them that made the unkind sexing/misgendering comment?’

Just an observer. The comment was written so it was obvious who made it.

Who is Starmer and was it them that made the unkind sexing/misgendering comment?

Starmer is an observer watching the tribunal. Yes it was them who made the comment.

The way it was handled was as if misbehaviour of 'randomer off the internet' had equal weight - no actually was MORE IMPORTANT THAN - the defence's legal counsel.

Surely SURELY the latter should be held to a much higher ethical / professional standard?

(and they should be professional enough to disable the chat - I'm fairly sure they could share documents another way, or allow only one person to manage the chat, it's not rocket science).

She’s not going to win this and will have a massive bill for costs for the other parties.

In an employment tribunal?

will have a massive bill for costs for the other parties

Have a search for costs awards in Employment Tribunals. Take your time. Then come back to the thread and explain how you don't know what you're talking about.

Sorrynotsorry you've shown that you don't know much about these matters....

Whether she wins or not it's unbelievably bright sunlight and the world is waking up.

She knows she has thousands upon thousands of normal women and men behind her, willing to put their hands in their pockets again and again. Whilst individually we can only give little, thousands upon thousands of small donations add up - to over half a million so far.