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

No

Ooh womder what the 5 min break is for?

I get the feeling LT is by now privately convinced Allison was in the right all along, and he's finding it difficult to keep up the front. Sometimes he almost seems relieved when BC forces him to agree with something.

He knows she was right. He knows his role in this was mainly one of being too distracted to help a colleague and a friend.

Really, how? I was describing his facial expression.

Yes I think he is ashamed that he didn't stand up for her

Can anyone help me understand how to join? I have the code I need but when I click on their web link it asks me for a conference alias or URI. What's that? it's not the pin code.

It sounds a bit like the line manager in Mayas case...

Can you show a screenshot of the page?

That's really quite sad, isn't it? If true, could he not just say so now, or is the most important thing to protect his organisation and maintain the fiction?

Don't worry. My OH has come home and is helping me to figure it out. He's followed links like this before. But thank you.

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” John Stuart Mill

You've chosen a good time to join Whatiswrongwithmyknee.

Yet again we hear 'it's not what she said, it's her tone'....

Fuxxake

Bloody wimmin and our problematic 'tone'.

I think that, aside from the points with regards letting his friend (AB) down, his main "sin" is a very common one. He was happy to take the kudos and / or money for being HoC, but he was not able to find the time to be an effective HoC, and as a result managerial decisions were not of the standard one might expect from someone competent enough to be made HoC. Basically the sin of crap management.

Of course it's not.

Actually, he's probably also guilty of the sin of arrogance. Has he been more humble he may have realised that he had no idea about the issues and needed to put the hours in to get to grips with them.

So what is this “ethos” that people are committed to as part of GCC? How do you define that? How do you define what falls so far outside it that it justifies censure?

At the very top level, it's bizarre that a Chambers even considered being a SW DC. The whole point of paying a LOT of money for legal advice, is that you get good advice. That includes someone looking at your case or problem or challenge from all angles and telling you if you are exposed in any way. I would not be at all confident in going to any Chambers that was involved in workplace activism because it runs the risk that their advice might be flawed.

‘At the very top level, it's bizarre that a Chambers even considered being a SW DC.’

It’s because (most of) the decision-makers rarely care enough to consider the ideological implications.

The EJ is sharp.

Yes, spot on.

It is a huge change for advisors - that so many are espousing these kinds of causes. It is a big mistake in my view. They should remain utterly neutral (other than of course observing employment law when hiring and firing their own staff).

A lot of JR's objections fall flat don't they?