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 struck by the fact that Kirrin studied criminology, so will certainly know that most perpetrators of violence are male. And yet Kirrin talked with agitation about the potential danger of encountering danger in the women's loos — as if women are more dangerous than men. This is quite worrying because if Kirrin's going to be attacked by anyone, it's much more likely to be by a man and not a woman. Kirrin strikes me as exceptionally vulnerable.

So the person being thrown to the wolves is female?

All these fearful, confused, ideology addled women. It's a bloody scandal. Who looks at 'the cotton ceiling' and the description of it as 'overcoming barriers', and doesn't see coercion?

it's all just too awful.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with discussing KM's body and appearance so much. That's not really anything to do with anything (although whether they are male or female has probably influenced their beliefs and behaviour). It's what they are saying and how they are acting that is relevant.

"During my first year at university I was forced to use single-sex female accommodation as I couldn’t get ID showing me as non-binary or male".

So he's obviously upset about that and feels that he was forced (even though he could have found a private let and shared with whoever he wanted to whilst fighting for his right to force his way into the men's single sex facilities!)

So how does he square this with forcing females who do want to be in a female only space to share those spaces with men?

It might be because it's late at night but I'm starting to wonder how someone who is so outraged at everything manages to function day to day!

This is quite worrying because if Kirrin's going to be attacked by anyone, it's much more likely to be by a man and not a woman. Kirrin strikes me as exceptionally vulnerable.

In the piece I posted up thread, KM writes:

During my first year at university I was forced to use single-sex female accommodation as I couldn’t get ID showing me as non-binary or male. In these spaces I was victim to multiple violent attacks for being trans.

KM would have been approx 23 yrs-old or so at that time as KM says there was no appointment with a GI clinician until age 22.

I am sure many of us would empathise with KM for the trauma of experiencing repeated violent attacks. I'm alarmed that the university did nothing to protect KM or discipline the (many) offenders.

Ok I take back my miss-sexing of Kirrin.

But interesting how many of the witnesses and respondents in this case are female.

I'm glad Kirren got a hobby they enjoy, I love watching dog agility.

Also, I acknowledge that Kirrin is a great name, if it's one that Kirrin chose (or their mother chose!)
There was some chat on MN a while ago about how, in the Famous Five books, Fanny Kirrin is of the land-owning Kirrin family, and her husband Quentin Kirrin has presumably taken her name... we think. The books are a bit muddled.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
The issue I have with the "multiple violent attacks for being trans" line is that as has been shown via his responses today, his version of violent attack would be someone saying to him transmen are women! its very very very different from mine! Opposite end of a spectrum you could say!

Sorry if it seemed inappropriate. I was responding to an earlier poster's question and I wasn't sure what to say to make it clear that there was visible evidence indicating KM's sex. The photos are apparently in the public sphere. I'll ask for my post to be removed if you want. I have no intention of discussing KM's appearance again.

It's not up to me! I get it. I just think how I would feel if it were me being discussed.

@Pluvia

I will admit feeling rather uncomfortable reading the post in question. However you later clarified that KM themselves has put this information on line.

If that is indeed correct then you are right it is pertinent information to the current SW debate on the issue.

I was surprised to discover this, but KM is in fact a transman/nonbinarty ie NOT biologically male. (Not sure what factual words I can say on Mumsnet.)

Starting to sound like the dead parrot sketch.

I just watched a BBC News video from 2017 accompanying an article entitled 'How bad is online hate crime'

If KM is biologically female the whole flavour of this changes, doesn't it. We no longer feel like we are hearing from someone who represents the cause and drivers of the gender ideology shitshow; rather we are witnessing a very distressing outcome of it. If biologically female, KM's personal emotional investment in the validity of the ideology is enormous and being able to believe in the 'truth' of the ideology must be absolutely necessary for their wellbeing.

I'm feeling desperately sad about the whole thing if KM is AFAB. Sold an impossible and damaging dream and then made the very public fall-guy for its logical outcome.

Adding this from the comments section of an article about all this from Roll On Friday, a lawyerly blog/news thingy.

Hadn't thought about the consequences, but if this is correct we are going to have to organise some Gender-Accurate training for the Stonewashed....

That they is female doesn’t surprise me though. I listened to Kirrin more than I watched and the speech pattern led me to question, as did the sound.

However, it doesn’t change the actions nor the intention of those actions towards Allison.

OP thanks for the new thread, and I appreciate that the intro is cut and pasted from the previous ones. But just so that someone can edit for the next thread, wanted to point out that regardless of what you may think of them as individuals, referring to Robin White and Jane Russell as 'assistants' is exceptionally offensive  and completely inaccurate. Especially when you refer to their leaders as 'barrister for' as though they are 'the' barrister for that party. Juniors are instructed counsel to their clients, not assistants to their leaders. Jane Russell is a barrister of 18 years' experience in one of the best sets in the country.

The correct way to refer to the parties is
IO= Ijeoma Omambala QC, senior counsel to SW
RW= Robin White, junior counsel to SW
AH= Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel to GC
JR= Jane Russell, junior counsel to GC

I'm sure no offence was meant, but it matters because anyone who is not part of the legal world may assess junior counsel's contributions to the case entirely wrongly if they mistakenly believe that they are acting as assistants to their QCs.

KM looks male to me, and was referred to in early internet material as male. I believe KM previously went by the name Kayden?

And although I have no intention of discussing anyone’s body in any degree of detail, I won’t give up the right to say “I think that person is [male or female]”.

SW and their fellow travellers want to shame us out of sexing people with our eyes. I have every right to do that.

I accept I could be mistaken but if you go to certain lengths to alter the physical appearance of your body and it turns out you look a certain way, people are allowed to say so.

Also, with a degree in criminology and supposed experience in working addressing hate crime in their previous role, that ‘I don’t see terf as a slur’ seems even more ludicrous.

This person has a very biased view of the world where trans people can do no wrong, or if they do wrong, it was justified.

‘But just so that someone can edit for the next thread, wanted to point out that regardless of what you may think of them as individuals, referring to Robin White and Jane Russell as 'assistants' is exceptionally offensive  and completely inaccurate’

I’m sure they’ll cope as they continue to present a case in which women who don’t believe in gender ideology are referred to as the equivalent of violent terrorists.

Thanks