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?

Thanks Signal. I thought it was why IO/RW suddenly had a note-taker awkwardly shoe-horned in behind them early yesterday (pre-drama.)

This long discussion is about detriment (iv) from AB's Further Revised Amended Particulars of Claim, that GCC upheld the Stonewall complaint. It seems to be, among other things, a discussion of what "complaint" means in terms of what is claimed by AB.

Coming up will be a discussion of detriment (v) which is about the failures by Stonewall and GCC to comply with AB's Subject Access Requests.

When is lunch? I hope Allison Bailey has a nice lie down with a cool drink and someone rubbing her feet very soon. This is brutal.

Usually 13:00 - 14:00.

Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.

It's fine for him to continue to be as unpleasant and aggressive as he feels he needs to be.

😂😂😂

I think they've finally worked out how to automatically mute people when entering the link.

Just tried to log into Twitter and saw that my account has been locked. And it was for saying ( 're abortion), 'American women need a sex strike'. Wow!

He keeps flipping between the sort of cross, telling-off tone and the elaborately patronising, patient tone. I think he is probably hoping to get Bailey flustered / annoyed enough that she makes a mistake, whether a strategy mistake or a mistake of self-presentation. (he obviously can't be unaware that he is coming across as a complete arsehole)

He really is horribly patronising and hostile, isn’t he!

That's the second or third "I'd like you to listen now"

That sounded like AB was criticising people's right to believe in gender identity. I think she's losing her way here.

Oh, he's walked into the protected characteristic error.

I don't think he has. His point is about a belief in gender identity being a protected characteristic rather than gender identity itself being a protected characteristic.

The law doesn't say we have to respect other people's beliefs does it?

It just says we should not be discriminated against on the basis of those beliefs.

God Allison's good. AH's weird questions about whether opposite beliefs to GC are legally protected and worthy of respect had SO MUCH wrong with it - misunderstandings or deliberate misleading - I would've been spluttering incoherently trying to point out why it's not even a question. AB honed in on the problem brilliantly.

He eventually worded it fairly sensibly - something like 'do you consider whether someone's belief is protected/worthy of respect etc before you choose whether to act respectfully' which is not what he sounded like he was asking initially.

(and she got in the implication, although not the clear statement, that 'the opposite of GC' means not believing sex is real or important - that's how I took it anyway)

AB's is turning AH's gotcha about CrowdJustice (they said you were hateful, didn't they?) around very nicely.

DH has just reminded me that DD1s class teacher disabled the chat when her class were pissing around posting emoji's in lockdown in a lesson. I can't actually remember what they were using (teams / zoom / whatever) but obviously it's not impossible.

DISABLE THE CHAT!

Earlier when she instructed AH to read out a paragraph from the bundle made my day. I doubt that's standard practice from a witness 😂

AH is a bit rattled over his CrowdJustice gotcha falling apart.

Yes. Loved it when she sad that when we talk about gender critical beliefs, all we are talking about is a belief in biology, the belief that sex is real, immutable and important. That's it that's all gender critical feminism is.

Absolutely! AH tried to make the point the because CJ pulled her page, Allison must have been hated.

She beautifully turned into “see how bullied GC women are?” Excellent work.