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?

Tabby, if KM transitioned to male and took the name Kayden, it is likely they would then choose a new name for their transition to NB. I would say Kirrin is to mark that new transition.

Not being a Blyton reader myself, I also assumed Kirrin was a female name and they just added an ‘r’ to Kirin.

‘Tabby, if KM transitioned to male and took the name Kayden, it is likely they would then choose a new name for their transition to NB. I would say Kirrin is to mark that new transition.’

I’m not saying it’s not possible. But KM clearly goes out of KM’s way to deny and obfuscate natal sex. I am not going to lie and pretend I do. I see a male. I could be mistaken but I don’t think I am.

I went to employment tribunal at KMs age as a witness. Whilst I didn't have my mum with me, at various points I could have done with a mum hug.

I feel really conflicted, on one side I see a vulnerable person who is now in the national press and all over twitter, not for their words but for their support requirements. Being silenced in this way is normally a female experience.

But this person has really dangerous views that will set back women's rights. KM as ready to mobilise support against AB without even reading the article she was commenting on whilst representing a national charity. That feels upsetting and dangerous.

Like others I wonder where are the 'sensible heads' in the room. Surely the stonewall legal team knew what KM's support requirements were - why didn't they follow proper processes in advance. Were they looking to undermine their own witness?

I haven't seen KM's CV but they seem young, but were they not mentored and managed by stonewall management? Or were they just left too it.

KM is 34.

I’m certain KM was a vulnerable young person. Now KM is in a senior role at an influential charity and (however sad it is that KM was lied to about biology) it is right that KM is being held to account for KM’s actions and their impact on another person.

Blimey.

So they aren’t ‘assisting’ then? (Which is actually how it is written in the OP’s)

Is that you RW?

And I am sure you realise Allison has two ‘L’s.

Unless you are standing with another Allison/Alison, of course.

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.

You've misunderstood how the legal system works. Stonewall are making a case in which gender critical women are referred to as the equivalent of violent terrorists. Not the barristers. Plenty of informational available online about professional ethics and the cab rank rule if you're interested in understanding it better.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying 'it's acceptable to refer to the Doctor as a cleaner in a report about a surgery she performed, because the person having surgery was an awful person yet the doctor treated him anyway.'

The only photo I could see online, the one of Kirrin with the dog, certainly shows what looks like a male. Could just be the angle the photo is taken though.

I haven’t misunderstood how the legal system works. They’ll cope. It is not ‘exceptionally offensive’ to refer to them as assistants. It’s inaccurate, but not - by any sensible measure - exceptionally anything.

‘The only photo I could see online, the one of Kirrin with the dog, certainly shows what looks like a male. Could just be the angle the photo is taken though.’

Could be. I don’t care what sex KM is. I am just not going to be emotionally blackmailed into pretending I don’t see what I see.

Blimey.

So they aren’t ‘assisting’ then? (Which is actually how it is written in the OP’s)

Correct. They are not assisting. And even if the job of a barrister could broadly be described as assisting the client, it would apply equally to both counsel, not just the junior.
Correction accepted re spelling of Allison. My apologies to her.

I've seen the KM photo now with mastectomy scars.

Head of Education Programmes at Stonewall. Recruited straight out of uni, promoted to Head of... within 2 years.

A new poster AND a swathe of deletions.

This thread has changed tone within minutes.

Fair enough.

So, now the lecturing of we women (the natal kind) has begun - and it only took until thread 4?!?

PLuvia's post has been deleted?!?!? How rude!

Can we leave off discussing appearances please, it's not relevant and we don't want the thread taken down.

@IStandWithAlison

Thanks for the info, I have amended for the next thread.

I'm not sure that worrying about giving the correct titles to the barristers involved in the case is anyone's priority here, and chiding us for not getting it right isn't a good look.

Indeed, we get the other side's barristers' titles wrong too - Ben Cooper QC was a god, last time I checked.

(At least everyone gets their "QCs", which is the main thing.)

I suggest if you want a more formal presentation, you might find it in a forum more focussed on barristers' rights than women's rights.

Ben Cooper is still a god.

I don’t accept that saying “looks male” is “discussing appearances” to an offensive level. It’s not especially relevant I agree. It’s also inoffensive.

Kirrin’s comments on access to contraception show how silly it is to fudge sex and gender and to pretend that humans are not one of two sexes.

If you were born female and are in a sexual relationship with a male you could become pregnant. If you don’t want to become pregnant you should use reliable contraception.

Why people who claim to support people who are trans and non-binary obfuscate this befuddles me.

I worry that Kirrin needs to believe this and will struggle when it unravels. It also shows the need for watchful waiting and psychological support rather than affirmation.

Tru dat 😀(we need a god emoji)

It is quite remarkable what happens when people cannot resist their need to lecture MN FWR even when they are very, very busy.

I did wonder when we would see these appearances.