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 hope he then went on to self-ID as female and got his pension, hence highlighting the utter absurdity of allowing self-ID over one characteristic and not another. As well as the misogyny.

Totally agree @theemperorhasnoclothes

All best wishes for Allison today. ❤

There is really no comparison.

Completely agree. On one hand a witness describing death threats was mocked by a professional while giving evidence in court. On the other, a random observer insulted the appearance of a professional. They are simply not in the same league.

Allison's Twitter is still active. She is amazing and I think it's looking good for her.

I don't think a chat function when people log on to watch a hearing is appropriate. Instead people with a technical problem should email the IT people at the tribunal to get it sorted out. I don't really see why you need chat at all. If you look at the chat against live proceedings on youtube of the Depp trial is awful but is not official, not run by the court not read by loads of people following it.

All these things in the English courts are new, but useful for access to justice. I used to go into courts quite a lot even as a teenager and found it fascinating and very cheap -only travel costs to get there compared with a cinema trip etc. To be able to view eg the UK Supreme Court (as we can these days) live is very useful. However for most court proceedings I don't think we should change the usual rules - that if you are really interested you need to go there . It is a very big change for everyone in court if everything were to be available by live feed and changes the process for the worse in my view.

Mind you the last big case I did (50 day trial) noe business journalist turned up on day 1 and had left within 15 minutes when he realised how "boring" the whole thing was so I don't think most people would want to go to most cases.

Pensions - there’s this

www.cloisters.com/transgender-equality/

‘I don't agree it was 'bullying' of RMW - it was a randomer off the internet.’

It was a random bully off the internet. I thought it was vile.

EJ has stated that anyone mis using the chat function will be removed without notice.

IO has stated that the comment at the end yesterday was neither of them and wants the record amended.

Yes and the equivalence given to discussing them is disturbing.

It would be similar to the court spending ages discussing the - presumably many - offensive tweets about this case. What's the relevance?

A professional involved in the case openly mocking the claimant is a different matter.

The time spent on the chat comment would have been better spent just shutting down the chat function for observers.

ha ha EJ no need to log in with preferred pronouns as no-one will be talking to you 😂

It's a good job Martin Reuby heard it and spoke up, or I think we'd be hearing suggestions that it didn't even happen ...

So who said it, then? The note taker person in IO's room? It's still disgraceful.

I thought the note taker might have been an intern or junior staff and it might have been them.

IO is so disingenuous.

Incivility is contagious and the effect spills over to those who are bystanders and relatively uninvolved. It leads to a lack of team work and poorer outcomes. There's been some research about this in healthcare systems and, iirc, there was a conference about it within the NHS in the last year.

General website:
www.civilitysaveslives.com/

I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that this is more widely applicable.

Thanks that's interesting. From a quick look it seems there is already evidence that it's applicable in office workplaces, and these people are trying to get it considered in clinical contexts, where there's some but less evidence. It stands to reason.

Trials are a very good example of where civility is needed to makes things work. If everyone said what they actually felt all the time in its rarest form it could not work. Sounds like the chat the someone else broke the rules if civility.

Work places (especially middle class heavy ones) do have unwritten codes of civil conduct. Some at the chambers broke that in how they treated allson, but I also think that was part of the reason her initial email went down badly. It told people to their faces exactly what she thought and implied criticism of decision making, in front of colleagues (cos it was reply all). It wasn't just the anti stonewall stance in itself. That doesn't excuse some of the behaviour but thats some of the source of the animosity.

IO has stated that the comment at the end yesterday was neither of them and wants the record amended.

Is that all that’s going to be done about this? And immediately after IO changed the topic to the “harassment yesterday”… of Robin.

I just hope the EJ’s apparent leniency with this lot is overcompensation for fiery burning loathing.

If it was the note taker person who audibly said, 'here we go', they need to fess up and apologise to Allison and the Tribunal; and remove the uncertainty around whether IO did it or not.

Although I'm still left wondering who blurted out, 'Oh God!' - was that IO when she realised?

It doesn't matter who said it, given they're obviously not going to do the decent thing and own up, but it clearly came from a member of the defendant's legal team (even if just the note taker). And that should go on the record.

Allison is a great communicator isn't she, she calmly deals with AH and isn't allowing him to rush her/steamroller her, putting her point across clearly, politely not taking any nonsense.

The chat section should be used purely for posting factual links to essential documents - the bundles etc - nothing else, and should be open only to those taking part in the tribunal.

There should be a dedicated person whose job is to handle the very complicated IT aspects of this hearing, and if any observer has a problem with accessing bundles etc, or is eg a journalist wishing to make legitimate contact with the court, they could email this person as an intermediary and their essential message could be passed on and dealt with appropriately. The running of the tribunal need not be interrupted.

This would free up EJ Goodman's valuable time (and patience) and stop the increasingly frantic activities going on in the chat box.

Rarest = rawest (most raw!).

Yes, she’s clear and calm and certain. It’s concerning that those qualities are so often presented as (variously) aggressive, unreasonable, hysterical.

She is a great communicator.

I can’t I imagine the stress she must be under. Although she looks to be a pillar of strength, I hope she has some good support around her.

Yes. Maybe if MR hadn't said he'd also heard it, we'd be hearing it was all made up.

Can they not confirm from which microphone, or connection it emanated? I presume everyone is protesting they didn't say it. Yet, people heard it.

She's said that every time she mentions pronouns in the chat box. She says consistently that she doesn't see the need for them as no-one will be addressing any observer.