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?

It's getting lots of press coverage.

😆

Even if she doesn’t win, it’s only a matter of whether the ET thinks the disgraceful behaviour from GCC/Stonewall met the threshold. It’s not some obscure point of law. We can all see they treated her poorly.

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.

I found that deeply irritating, but typical when it comes to anything concerning this issue.

I reckon the EJ will address the ‘here we go’ privately.

Maybe so. I've found her quite professional so far. This is certainly a singular tribunal!

Yes I think BC will definitely be raising it with the EJ

I think @Sorrynotsorryyeah might have this mixed up with Wagatha Christie.

Easily done. Just women, innit?

🤣

I think that Starmer is a TRA, the timing was very convenient.

I can’t imagine someone who is GC choosing Starmer as a username.

Trying to catch-up on here each day, jaw has dropped a number of times.

Allison... amazing Women. 👏
Thanks for the thread everyone.

tabbycatstripy: I reckon the EJ will address the ‘here we go’ privately.
I should hope so, it was disgraceful.

Thanks everyone re.Starmer.

I agree with Redshoeblueshoe, the timing of the sexing comment was very convenient. Given all the shenanigans we've witnessed so far I wouldn't be surprised if they've a long list of deflecting tactics, including sleepers on the chat.

I don't believe this a junior admin problem. I think it was either great incompetence or deliberate. Neither of which are acceptable

Doesn't make me want to use that chambers, not that I have any current need of course hopefully never will. But still.

Am sad that no support dogs or mothers or erm solicitors? Today. Waiting for some other drama another day.
Although I've not read to the end of this thread yet, could be something.

😃

I nominate Eddie Marsan.

Alan Johnson would be an excellent choice if you were going for a lookie-likie.

Just to add to this IO attempted to weaponise this against AB, by saying if the viewers couldn't behave in the chat we should all be kicked out!!!! I wonder if we won't see more trouble making tomorrow with as view to stirring things up more. IO & AH would both love all the hearing to be closed off to public viewers.

I'm guessing the morning will start, if not by EJ admonishing the source of the comment, then with BC giving everyone a good talking too. See you all there at 10

Eddie Marsan would be perfect. Good call.

Does anyone know is it technically possible to restrict the chat function. If it is that's what they should do. Just legal people and maybe accredited journalists. No-one else should be anywhere near it.
I think there will be a lot more shenanigans if people realise what a good disruptor it is .. that comment today really distracted from the problem at hand. I can see it being used time and again.

Thank you kindly. Curtsies

There are about a million AKs in the chat who are self appointed milk monitors and reposting bundle links and giving superfluous instructions on how to set the tech up as if anyone cares what they think about anything.

The chat is useful for latecomers to request the bundle links and for newly entering journalists to find out that they need to request permission to get the downloadable bundle.

Today at the end was really the only time it's been properly abused but there's an argument that that was provoked by counsel as if they'd stayed on their best behaviour, so would all of we.

Earlier in the day, there was a suggestion that someone was live streaming the tribunal (with no evidence for that) and IO jumped on it. I think she'd love to get rid of all the observers.

You do realise that some, indeed probably many, of us on these threads are solicitors, barristers, QCs and judges? I mean, only women of course, but even so, with perhaps a scintilla of knowledge?

Agree JulesRimetStillGleaming - I thought we were all going to be permanently kicked out when the 'livestream' furore was going on. I think there's a good chance there'll be further attempts to derail via chat now, at one point this afternoon I counted at least 250 observers. That many eyes on is not good for business.

I thought this, too.

They are a bit behind time, what with having to navigate those awful, unprofessional bundles - she probably wanted to crack on.