Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 5

[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 please choose a non inflammatory/offensive name, everyone can see it in the chat - This is a court room, please behave accordingly.

The court chat function is there for official court purposes, not for observers, please don't use it unless you have a technical issue.

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, senior counsel - barrister for SW
RW = Robin White junior counsel to SW - assisting IO
GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2) (GCC would be a better abbreviation)
AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC
JR = Jane Russell junior counsel to GC - 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)

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

Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4546945-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-4

I’ve been thinking that. Can you imagine having an argument.

“I put it to you…”

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

The treatment is asymmetrical. Mr Neale may have a vulnerability, but that doesn’t justify showing so little concern to AB when she was receiving pages and pages of violent outbursts and offensive pressure on social media. They are accepting (and LT is guilty of this too) that she is ‘strong’ and ‘invulnerable’, and that has overtones that are inappropriate. Any employee receiving threats is vulnerable.

exchange reminds me of when I was being bullied at primary school (physically hurt as well). the head explained to my mum that we had to be understanding because the bully was vulnerable as he was from a "broken home" (my father had left us 2 years before 🙂 )

Do you have a penis? That tends to help.

Ha I think you'd definitely remember if you'd looked at T*isaslur website, it's pretty shocking!

Twisting my lemon my screens black at the moment didn’t know if they were on a break.
I just keep leaving and rejoining it’s worked previously when the same has happened. Might have to try a few times.

She does not hate to interrupt.

I don't have a penis but as sex changes across the lifecycle, I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

Leslie Thomas QC for GCC just stated Words Matter

Well, quite.

My screen has gone black too!

I'm sure any improvements in your treatment and place on the priority list if you do grow a penis will be purely coincidental.

He’s right that they are not the same person but the treatment of staff by Chambers needs to be equal, and they were both Heads of Chambers.

No screen issues here

Can I point out that the Bundles clearly identify as logical, ordered and correctly paginated. Suggesting anything else is literal violence.

Did you look at AS twitter profile after Allison raised concerns about it (paraphrased).

No of course he didn't - fully indoctrinated by SW to only respond to concerns raised by trans activists....

I don't disagree that the treatment is asymmetrical.

I'm not familiar with ETs so I don't have a sense of how much this can be taken into account if AB has not raised the asymmetry as grounds in her claim.

LT's explanation is plausible, irrespective of whether or not it's sincere.

love over hate is an expression isn't it? You don't have to think it means TERFs are haters. It might be just a... a... sign off. 😂

LT being very reluctant to admit that when the abuse was coming from Alex Sharpe identified as being GCC he wasn't interested in following it up.

LT: "Love over hate could just be a sign-off" on a tweet. LOL at that.

My screen went black about half an hour ago. Was working fine before that. Tried going on chrome but just get the spinning thing on black screen. Glad it’s not just me!

‘I'm not familiar with ETs so I don't have a sense of how much this can be taken into account if AB has not raised the asymmetry as grounds in her claim.

LT's explanation is plausible, irrespective of whether or not it's sincere.’

In and of itself it’s not a detriment, but if the reason for the hostile treatment she experienced was her beliefs, it’s part of the discrimination she experienced.

In and of itself it’s not a detriment, but if the reason for the hostile treatment she experienced was her beliefs, it’s part of the discrimination she experienced.

You appear very certain so I defer to your more informed opinion given my own declaration of ignorance of ETs.

Isn't assymmetry crucial to proving discrimination. - Difference in treatment against someone else w/o the protected characteristic. DN is like a comparator

I am autistic. Employers routinely treat me like shit and make no allowances whatsoever.

Are you telling them what they want to hear? I think that made all the difference.

I’m not very certain but it makes sense to me. She’s trying to demonstrate that they had assumed a corporate position that her views were illegitimate and that’s why they treated her poorly.

Depends how often one uses "love over hate" as a sign-off...