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'm pretty sure 'coerce' means to apply emotional pressure, as much as any other definition.

AH's point is that in a sexual context coerce = criminal. He supports this by waving around "violence and intimidation".

Yes so she's using it in its every day meaning so most people would understand that she wasn't suggesting a crime was being committed.

Its odd isn't it. AB is being simultaenously asked to ignore a pretty big subtext in the workshop title and blurb and at the same time be judicious with her language so that people don't infer she means violence when she doesn't

It was interesting to see how barristers have core duties relating to how they interact with others (e.g. on Twitter). And how careful Allison was to adhere to them.

Be nice if other twittering barristers held themselves to the same standards, particularly when engaging with women.

Essentially, AH's point is would the reasonable person read "coerce young lesbians into having sex" imply criminal activity?

Even in a criminal context, coercion doesn't imply violence - eg UK prosecutions for coercive control in relationships can be based solely on emotional abuse, not physical violence.

and at the same time reading "overcoming the cotton ceiling" as not being about coercion of lesbians into having sex

Good lord.
Women are coerced into sex all the bloody time. Just look at the relationships board. It doesn't necessarily constitute a crime, although the judiciary have obviously recognised that there is a fine line.

i'm sure if Allison thought they were committing a crime, she's have bloody said so.

I've found this line of thought / questioning difficult to follow. Is AH trying to apply a criminal standard, or level of proof to AB's case? Can that work as a strategy? I may just not be following it well, I'm only listening here and there.

It's an absolute mindfuck, isn't it.

it's an accusation of a crime on one hand, and completely innocent on the other, depending on which side of your mouth you're talking out of.

I think it strongly implies the opposite and can be read as 'here's this workshop about how to persuade young lesbians to have sex with you while keeping on just the right side of the law'.

I did mess that up slightly and it should have been worded as:

Essentially, AH's point is would the reasonable person read "coerce young lesbians into having sex" imply as implying criminal activity?

Seems to be again, "maybe you can HOLD a belief, but don't you dare EXPRESS it."

Well AH / SW / GCC: women have a lot of expressing to do!

And re the meaning of coercion - the times I've been subjected to coercion, it's NEVER been violent in any way.

That's exactly how it sounds.

Now onto detriment (v):

SW and GCC failed to respond to Subject Access Requests.

I'm not sure whether there would be much in this beyond normal shenanigans that some parties in court get up to.

I'm a 'well educated member of the public'.

I'd read coerce in that context as 'pressure' such as 'you need to be kind', or even 'if you won't have sex with me then you're transphobic'. Definitely not criminal.

Ahh, but are you reasonable TeenPlusCat?

The dictionary definition of coerce is "persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats."

'Threats' is very broad and threats such as "people will think you're a bigot", "no-one will talk to you", "I'll report you for hate speech" are incredibly powerful. They are limitless.

Yes, like calling lesbians sexual racists for having boundaries.

Some arsehole has just written "transwomen are men" in the comments. They've been disconnected by the judge.

"Coercion (/koʊˈɜːrʒən, -ʃən//^) is compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threatss^, including force.[1][2][3] It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free willl^ of an individual to induce a desired response, for example: a bully demanding lunch money from a student or the student gets beaten. These actions may include extortionn^, blackmaill^, torturee^, threats to induce favors, or even sexual assaultt^."

Wiikipedia

I was just about to say that people seem to be behaving themselves today!

I wish they'd pack it in, in the chat as it's most unhelpful

It is so bloody annoying. I wonder if they can block their IP address?