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?

Is AH trying to make the argument that because CJ removed her page her views are fundamentally problematic?

EJ intervenes that AH is wandering away from the real issues.

Hochhauser-fail.

Yes drwitch. His argument is based upon CrowdJustice issuing self-serving PR statements and when AB said that in that case those statements should be examined, AH then argued that it would not be necessary to do that. In other words, "They've said you're hateful, let's take them at their word."

He's sort of going back to the old "you may be entitled to believe it but the way you are saying it must be wrong because people on Twitter don't like it"

Now it's the Cotton Ceiling. AH's argument is because there's no evidence of the content of the workshop and some trans activists lauded it, then it can't be problematic.

Leslie Thomas next for GCC.

EJ told AH to ‘tighten up’.

AH's argument requires "Cotton Ceiling" to not mean anything.

A bit like how trans activists say that other words and terms shouldn't have meanings.

AH now saying cross-examination of AB will take the first hour of tomorrow. After that will be Leslie Thomas of GCC.

After Leslie Thomas it’s likely to be Rajiv Menon.

Discussing ordering of witnesses for tomorrow, so maybe tomorrow being AB, Thomas, Menon, and for Monday two Stonewall witnesses. Menon likely to overrun from tomorrow to Monday.

For a deputy high court judge and someone who has been described as “The best cross-examiner in the business”, AH is not really performing as well as I would have expected.

To be fair, you don’t have to be performing at your best to win, you just have to be better (and have a stronger case) than the other team. But I expected more from him.

Yes. Silly isn't it. It's obvious that you could equally argue that it is an example of cancel culture and trans activism having disproportionate online influence.

CJ's reasons for taking down her page.

mobile.twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1278317988429561857

TL;DR Talking about violent behaviour makes the people behaving violently look bad.

re the cotton ceiling: Again AH is doing the same kind of thing the CGD did in Mayas case. - argue that it is distasteful to talk about when evidence is shown that it is problematic. - its the pushback some children get when they try and talk about the sexual abuse they have sufferred

Especially as, as AB pointed out, CrowdJustice got themselves into a right mess, and risk of reputational damage, as a result of receiving three complaint tweets.

I'm so glad I've been able to watch for a bit of it. It is quite different from the tweet experience. It feels painfully slow, particularly when AH launches into something that clearly needs to be narrowed down or pulled apart to see which bits AB agrees with or doesn't and why.

He came across as pretty rude saying AB was giving long answers - he needs to tighten up his questions. If I kept asking him 'is it ever right to end a life, yes or no' (cf Limmy's Show) I wouldn't be entitled to be cross if he wanted to qualify his answer.

Allison is actually being quite focused (in my opinion having watched only a brief bit of this!)

I mean, the course was called 'OVERCOMING THE COTTON CEILING - Breaking down sexual barriers for queer trans women'.

Participants will identify barriers and strategise on how to overcome them.

It is literally in the actual description...

I'm amazed that AH thought it was useful to bring the cotton ceiling into the argument, particularly when trying to make a lesbian look bad. Trying to say she was out of line for using "coercion" in reference to a workshop called (FFS) "Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling," a title that screams creepy coercion....

Yes, what else can the cotton ceiling possibly mean?

The argument is:

"Assuming that the term "Cotton Ceiling" doesn't mean anything, then a course titled "Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling" could be anything, it could teach really nice things, and so, without an insider's report of what actually happened on the course, to object to it shows you are a bigot."

Just plopping this good news in here as it feels relevant

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58453250

IIRC, Ben Cooper said he didn't need to question KM about ''the cotton ceiling'' (I think IO didn't want him to go there...) because he's going to be bringing it up with someone else.

I wonder who it'll be?

Funnily enough I've been reading exactly that argument all over the place about The Family Sex Show.

Oh it's not new news...never mind! <rolls eyes at self>

I wonder who it'll be?

I'm guessing one of the senior people at GCC. Something along the lines of:

BC: "Could you explain why you found AB objecting to the "Cotton Ceiling" course to be, itself, so objectionable?"

possibly followed by asking the GCC person whether they understand what the term might mean and the significance of it in AB's tweet objecting to it.