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?

Glinner seems to think Morgan Page will be scrutinised as part of this tribunal. Would they call as a witness do you think?

So AH (and whoever wrote the statement) demands that we completely ignore the title and description of the cotton ceiling workshop, ignore the meanings of words in plain English, and conclude that what actually took place was DEFINITELY NOT what was cleaerly stated in the title and description of the workshop in plain English. OK THEN!

Yes what could be covered in that workshop that is not objectionable?

Gosh, I hadn't even imagined Morgan Page might actually be put forward for cross-examination by BC, presumably to explain how teaching transwomen how to overcome the "Cotton Ceiling" is a positive thing to do. That could make for extraordinary cross-examination.

Just going back to the AH 'protected beliefs' question. I do find it quite odd actually that he genuinely seemed to confuse 'protected beliefs' (e.g. GC beliefs) and 'protected characteristics' (e.g. gender reassignment, although he didn't say that, he kept saying gender identity).

So he seemed to think that having a protected characteristic e.g. gender identity/gender reassignment, meant that you have a protected belief?
Or he was claiming that if you hold the diametric opposite belief to a protected belief, that that is also a protected belief? (If I think Jesus is the Son of God, what's the opposite - that he isn't, or that the Devil is? Are both of those equally protected beliefs?!)

For those of us who've been following this closely for a while it is an odd conflation to make. Does it perhaps reveal he's less knowledgeable about this area than he should be?

This is how the Twitter account summarised it but I think there was a bit more in there. He definitely feigned a bit of surprise that AB 'didn't know' if views about GI were a protected belief, and she mentioned something about them not having been tested in court as far as she knew.

AH - protected belief is not a licence to abuse others?
AB - I have never abused anyone, have been a lightning rod for abuse

AH - ask question again, please listen.

AB - i accept it.

AH - you have a right to PC being respected so do believers in GI?
AB - not a protected characteristic
AH - they are free target?

AB - no one is a free target. But they [I think this should say 'that phrase'] connote violence and aggression. I have never been violent or aggressive.

AH - view about GI is protected belief?
AB - don't know. My responsibility is not to harass or threaten anyone, PC or not. I don't believe I have.
AH - your GC views are protected and those with GI views deserve respect?
AB - its belief in biology. Sex is real. That's it. Someone who believes sex is not important and people can ID into sex categories at will, I don't know if tested in the court. I treat everyone w/respect

AH - are you saying when you are tweeting about people who have diametrically opposite view, you aren't sure their views are worthy of respect and treat them differently?
AB - no. Not excuse to shut me down

AH - not what I put to you. Do you apply different standards?
AB - no I do not. My core duties don't allow that. I must act with integrity and honesty, regardless of PC. But having GC PC means I am in opposition to Stonewall proselytising. That is entirely within the bounds of my professional duties.

Yes, please do explain how getting unwilling homosexual women's knickers out of the way as a barrier to male people who would like sex is a 'positive' thing in any sane mind? Bloody hell sanity really is on holiday this decade.

Well, quite.

And asking whether a man with a penis can be a lesbian and who constitutes their dating pool is, the work of a moment.

As is pointing out what happens to lesbians who say no transwomen on lesbian dating sites.

honestly. There's not a person in the land who will see the cotton ceiling for anything other than what it is.

They will be peeling for weeks after all that sunlight.

In case you missed it, over the past couple of years "overcoming the "Cotton Ceiling"" has been reinterpreted by trans activists to mean the cotton that holds in the male genitalia of transwomen, excluding them from having a sex life, and counselling them in how to interact in a positive way with women, and particularly lesbians, means the transwomen might be able to "liberate" their male genitalia from the cotton prison in which it is held.

It's a funny old world.

He definitely feigned a bit of surprise that AB 'didn't know' if views about GI were a protected belief, and she mentioned something about them not having been tested in court as far as she knew.

Yes, I don't think it's for AB to have to say whether gender identity ideology is a protected belief. You would have to define the scope of it first. It's likely that most elements of it would be I think, intuitively speaking, but it's never been assessed on those terms I don't think.

Sorry, got sidetracked and missed the end there so what time are we back and who's up this afternoon?

Thanks

And didn't AH say that he can see how the title cotton ceiling might be considered offensive. How's that then? If it doesn't refer to the underwear of a lesbian?

I now think Hochhauser is a deeply implanted GC agent.

In case you missed it, over the past couple of years "overcoming the "Cotton Ceiling"" has been reinterpreted by trans activists to mean the cotton that holds in the male genitalia of transwomen

There is ample evidence online that not all of them got that memo.

I'm not struggling to reply to the previous post, because I'm sure if my response is logical it will get deleted
Is it too early for gin ?

🤣 they would be calling it liberating the cotton ceiling in that case! And it's not exactly a ceiling then either. Breaking through your own underwear??

oh, I hope they go down that route.

Followed by BC sharing the actual reactions of those same transbians.

That’s a stretch, isn’t it, given the actual words typed by actual people involved in the Cotton Ceiling workshop?!?

”Free the penis!” (Wasn’t that the name of Super Hans’ putative pub on Peep Show? Might have been something else, it was a while ago).

In case you missed it, over the past couple of years "overcoming the "Cotton Ceiling"" has been reinterpreted by trans activists to mean the cotton that holds in the male genitalia of transwomen, excluding them from having a sex life, and counselling them in how to interact in a positive way with women, and particularly lesbians, means the transwomen might be able to "liberate" their male genitalia from the cotton prison in which it is held.

Hmm it is indeed strange isn't it, because I thought as TW are women, if they want a sex life with a woman, they can choose another TW. (As well as of course any woman who is interested - just not those who aren't, which is basic decency anyway...)

No one is excluding TW from having a sex life are they - just excluding them from having a sex life with people who aren't attracted to their sex. Same as anyone.

Pretty sure I learned to remove my own underwear without ever doing any workshops on how to “overcome” it. 🏅

I have to say. I am intellectually offended and pissed off by gender ideology and the idea that a TW is supposed to be a woman just like I am - but I don't feel emotionally upset by it all the time. But "cotton ceiling" really, really makes me feel sick and angry - I can't bear it. It's so bloody disgusting and abusive. It just conjures up a vision of rape - a literal attempt to get into someone's pants when they are trying to block you because they don't want you. Just vile.

And to appropriate "glass ceiling" which is women being unfairly blocked from career ascendancy due to sexist discrimination, and use it to suggest that TW are discriminated against because someone doesn't want to shag them. BOILS MY PISS.

NO ONE is entitled to sex with someone who isn't interested in them. How is that not obvious?

Sorry for tangential rant

Yes but I hope BC is saving this for Nancy, who reckons that lesbians are racist - or summat - if they won't have sex with a TW.
I would love it if at that moment EJ fell off her chair laughing

I don't really understand how this al works but I think Stonewall would have to call them as a witness because Allison can't compel witnesses to attend on the other side of the argument but IANAL.

If Stonewall maintain that Allison has it all wrong about MP then surely they have to put their money where their mouth his and get them to defend it.

In case you missed it, over the past couple of years "overcoming the "Cotton Ceiling"" has been reinterpreted by trans activists to mean the cotton that holds in the male genitalia of transwomen, excluding them from having a sex life, and counselling them in how to interact in a positive way with women, and particularly lesbians, means the transwomen might be able to "liberate" their male genitalia from the cotton prison in which it is held.

Does interacting in a positive way with lesbians still mean trying to coerce them to have sex with you but more by piling on guilt and “being kind” than screaming “die in a fire, terf”?

I see the monitors are out in full force.

Maybe MNHQ would prefer it if we all went over to Twitter ?

I can't imagine it coming out any way other than disastrously for Stonewall. Either they admit that men with penises are lesbians and therefore actual lesbians constitute their dating pool - and thereby justify LGBA in one fell swoop - or they don't, and undermine their own entire premise and reason for existence.