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?

This thread is being actively monitored and moderated.

The last post to be deleted (Tabbycatstripy @ 1333) was only up for three minutes before it disappeared (@ 1336, when I refreshed the page).

Agree it’s a vile phrase and I hope that it’s vileness is discussed more. It would make me feel scared not just uncomfortable that these sessions are taking place and positively promoted.

What could they end up saying that’s worse than the “sexual racists” remark their CEO already made?

I suppose more sunlight is good in any case.

Remember that GCC have to engage with AB's "Cotton Ceiling" tweet because the complaint against AB was upheld by GCC in respect of two tweets, one of them being:

twitter.com/bluskyeallison/status/1175739790181974017

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

What would constitute a barrier, to a heterosexual male, who wants to access sex from a homosexual woman? What's the answer?

From what I remember, the main complaint was calling Morgan Page a man (when in fact she said male bodied and for me it's a bit potato potarto).

This is really going to get down to the nitty-gritty of what constitutes the word man and the word woman as far as they are concerned. And how that intersects with the protected characteristic of homosexuality, particularly for an organisation founded on the protection of homosexuals.

The main complaint was the use of the word "coerce" ("coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them") where in the view of AH, reflecting the asserted view of GCC, it has to mean "violence and intimidation" when we all know that's rubbish.

Yes Difficultbloodywoman that was the post I was referring to. It went so quickly I couldn't believe it.

She’s brilliant.

👏

‘How would a reasonable reader read those words?’

Hmm. I am certain I am a reasonable reader, and ‘coercion’ has a clear (and broad) meaning as AB describes.

How would a reasonable reader read the words of a "cotton ceiling", was that? In effect? Well...

AH is suggesting that the problem was caused by AB not removing the two tweets. I suspect had she done so it would not have meant that key people in GCC wouldn't have viewed her as a transphobic bigot with the consequences that flowed from that.

No, and it would also have meant she was unable to participate in political organising unrelated to her work. That is unacceptable. These are reasonable views based on matters of fact.

Oh, AB is still a member of Garden Court Chambers. I did wonder about that. Presumably not earning not much if anything at all.

AB: I say I can on the face it would not seem so but goes to heart as to whether women and lesbians have sexual boundaries from men however they feel about themselves, and an important principle, I have not taken the tweet down and will not

I think she’s on sabbatical.

Yes, chilling effect in action

Is that because there's a legal definition of coerce? Which is directly to do with threats and intimidation?

So might they score a point based on that?Rather than the generally accepted meaning of coerce.

Because if they're going to dedicate an entire workshop showing how to access sex with people whose sexual orientation excludes them, i'd like to see by what means they would achieve that, other than coercion.

Honestly, the fucking disingenuousness of this all is disgusting.

Coercive control is in the law now. Does that require violence? I thought it didn't.

It doesn't.

It's being argued as a term to be understood by the reasonable person in the Clapham-bound Uber*.

• old legal term updated for the present day

So might they score a point based on that?

It's a fundamental point that's well worth scoring: did the nature of the ("Cotton Ceiling" "coerce") tweet suggest criminal conduct, meaning that GCC was reasonable to react to the tweet as strongly as they did?

I wouldn't have assumed that coercion required violence. Just a means of pressurising someone into doing something that they don't really want to do. Many words have specific legal meanings but does that mean that once you are a barrister you can't use the word with its colloquial meaning any more?

No, coercion is separable from force. They might mean the same thing in the criminal context, but AB is being very clear that she didn’t use the word in the criminal context. I might apply coercive pressure to someone to do something without committing a crime; I just need to be trying to exploit some leverage that I have over them. That might, or might not, amount to criminal behaviour.

And it's not just shame that's used, it's the threat of being ousted from the "community" or the threat of being labelled a "transphobic bigot"