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 think the judge would only stop observers as a very last resort and can't see her giving on to pressure from the defendants on that. The suggestion of a closed session previously was purely if more details about Mr Neale needed to be discussed. No idea what this forthcoming closed session is about but doubt it's about that.

ianal.

No. And it's the press who are important. They are reaching millions of ordinary readers, not just people who are already invested on mumsnet and Twitter.

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 thought the reason given at the beginning was that Stonewall and GCC didn’t want their witnesses to be harassed by GC people. Because apparently that happens all the time and it is literal violence. Alison and other gender critical people getting death threats, on the other hand, isn’t literal violence. They are just making a mountain out of a molehill and brought it on themselves.

Stonewall are desperate to get the public shut out. Everyday their reputation is being damaged. I hope it doesn't happen, disruptors and people not acting in good faith everywhere.

But anyone can login and see the witnesses, so I don't get why that's any different to live streaming it. Unless they're accounting for laziness.

Sort of like Shroedinger's Stonewall. SW staff suffer literal violence from wordses; AB actual death threats - stop making a fuss, eyeroll.

Presumably it's against the law to live stream and we'd need new legislation to allow that to happen.

IANAL. I am guessing.

When I worked in a medical setting, the surgeon I was attached to told me never to put anything in case notes or an e-mail that I wouldn't be happy to see projected onto a screen in a court of law.

When I worked in a medical setting, the surgeon I was attached to told me never to put anything in case notes or an e-mail that I wouldn't be happy to see projected onto a screen in a court of law.

Good advice and it applies to everything whether work related or not, never commit to writing (or recording) something you may later regret.

Presumably it's against the law to live stream and we'd need new legislation to allow that to happen.

Have a look at this: www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-container/bbc-fined-for-contempt-of-court-a-salutary-lesson-for-court-users-in-the-age-of-zoom-and-teams/

Ahh, this seems particularly relevant:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/part/7/crossheading/use-of-live-video-or-audio-links-public-participation-offences-of-recording-etc?view=plain

And it's an Act of Parliament that governs it and they're not quick to amend.

I bet EJ wishes it could be recorded. She could sit back and really listen knowing she could listen back to the answers later. She's having to write everything down.

When I worked in a medical setting, the surgeon I was attached to told me never to put anything in case notes or an e-mail that I wouldn't be happy to see projected onto a screen in a court of law.

I think the opposite also applies: if someone senior seems to be asking you to do something dodgy, ask them in an email if this is what they mean. If they realise there is an accountability paper trail, chances are they will back-track.

I wonder if Stonewall are now seriously worried that this case is going to impact their corporate income streams deeply and rapidly when those signing off budget for their schemes and courses can clearly see in the mainstream press just what calibre of person Stonewall has in key positions ‘advising’ and ‘running’ engagement with big business.

£thousands to have the likes of KM come in and talk to my executive team and business units? Come on.

I think they think their reputation is impervious to serious damage because they still think wrapping themselves in the flag and shouting bigots makes detractors back off. But that doesn’t work on a back office decision around purchase and funding.

I’m sure they want to stop any further exposure of the shit show that is being uncovered in this tribunal. And I really think they want to do it before it gets to a cold hard clinical look at things like ‘the cotton ceiling’ and then the input of Nancy - both will absolutely get more press coverage.

My work made a point of telling us all once "if we get any complaints we have to produce all emails, but it wouldn't be possible/reasonable to produce everything written on the internal instant messaging system..." cough cough

I wonder if stonewall / ABs Chambers had an internal messaging system and how much was discussed through that

I have just been disconnected. Worth trying again at 2pm?

Didn't Maya's case have a fair amount of discussion of the use of the Slack channel in CGD?

I have just been disconnected. Worth trying again at 2pm?

You're not supposed to be in there until 2 as they are having a closed case meeting.

Do we know the running order of witnesses from now on?

I think there are some SW witnesses on Monday, and GCC for rest of day today.

I'm not sure we even know who all the witnesses are, do we? IIRC they didn't want to release the schedule in advance because of the risk of witnesses being bullied.

LT continues, then Menon of GCC, then two Stonewall people on Monday. There does seem to be an expectation that Menon will overrun to Monday morning.

I recall BCC saying that Judy Khan would also be a witness but there was no indication of when this is scheduled for.

I'm in the holding room, waiting for the conference host to join.