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

Did JR say it relates to 'Jo and Ben'?

Ooh drama. What's happening? Is it about the vulnerability do you think?

Fingers crossed it's Stonewall deciding to settle. Fingers and toes crossed it's not that someone's been livestreaming and they want to keep the public out...

I think that they will say there is livestreaming and that the case should go into closed session. I think also that Junior Councel for GCC was very quick to use the issue about D's vulnerability that LT kept bringing up as a reason to have a closed hearing. I do not think we needed to hear anything about the details of the vulnerability, so it felt like a device planned beforehand by GCC and their councel. IANAL and probably have watching too much TV.

It's very odd that head of chambers knows exactly who their very vulnerable junior staff member is but is hazy about a very senior QC who is now a judge. And can't remember if she was on the management team.

And now I have to go out to a wedding this afternoon and will miss the whole thing. Bum. Please record all highlights on thread, pretty please.

Seeing as how everyone is allowed to be so fragile except Allison, I think someone has probably chipped a nail.

She said two people had been emailed this morning, I forget who though.

It's seeming as if you're only allowed to be 'vulnerable' if you're on one particular side of this issue....

Did JR say it relates to 'Jo and Ben'?

I thought she said that Jo and Ben had been sent an email - I assumed to give them a heads-up, not that the email itself was the issue.

If they shut us out I'm going to shout "For fuck's sake!" so loudly the judge will hear me even though I'm muted... 🤐

I've been logged in every day and behaved impeccably. Will be gutted if we all get kicked out. Although I will get much more work done.

I'm so miffed at this case making such a mockery of autistic people. We aren't fragile flowers. Bloody hell. Allison's trauma history makes her just as vulnerable as I am.

I had black screen earlier, I thought it was because I'd changed networks (though not devices). I have a holding screen on now whilst they're at lunch, will keep it on so I hopefully don't lose it (if we're allowed back in...!)

LT has a customisable twitter account? Is this a new Musk feature?

It could be that he looks at a list he set up instead of the home page feed-
I have a couple different lists I look at depending on what issue I want to read about. Or, he might just mute most people when he follows them.

I do think that SW and GCC are itching to get this into closed session because the value to AB comes from a possible win and sunlight, and even with a loss, the sunlight is valuable to her and to her cause. Getting this removed from the view of the public would reduce some of the reputational risks considerably.

It seems to me that some parties in this case would be very happy if the public access were to be abandoned/limited. It would be grossly unfair if the public were to lose access to this case.

Yes, I posted before I saw what you said - exactly!

How much longer does it have to run?

Fingers crossed it's Stonewall deciding to settle. Fingers and toes crossed it's not that someone's been livestreaming and they want to keep the public out...

As with the disruptions from observers earlier (the one was suspiciously well timed to draw attention away from "here we go,") I wouldn't bet against there being attempts to shut the public out by whatever means are available. It's the closest thing they can do to "no debate" at this stage. I'm sure there's a fair amount of TRAs who don't want anyone to see/hear Mr. Cooper in action.

Every single time it's been BC's turn, there have been silly interruptions and issues.

Even if they do shut out the public due to something like livestreaming, they should still allow accredited press members in?

How much longer does it have to run?

A couple of weeks.

That's what I was wondering. They must, surely. It can't actually be done in secret.

What's the problem with kicking all the zoom people out, but actually live streaming it?

i'm sure there's a reason, but I just don't know what it is. It would stop all the interruptions, but everyone would be able to see what's going on.

I don't think EJ will be minded to shut out the press and Tribunal Tweets.

I doubt they are willing to settle yet.

I bet that the serious matter is that someone has streamed or recorded a small portion of the proceedings and they will now push for it to be closed to the public.

And I would also put money on the people recording being TRAs who want this to remain in the shadows rather than the sunlight.

I find it hard to believe that there are no settings that would allow them to stop most shenanigans.

All technical issues can be handled by email or by texting a dedicated account.

And licensing better software would resolve a lot of this fol-de-rol.