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

He can’t remember...

That isn’t convincing.

she really is.
And she is listening & notetaking the whole way though too.

Xenia

These issues are tough IMHO.

I would argue that - for example - there is no neutral position possible, on - say - gay rights and ethnic minority rights. Either you support the idea that gay people and black people should not be discriminated against, or you are an appalling person who is not going to get my money. (Obviously racists and homophobes have the right to stay silent so I don;t know of their bigotry).

Companies HAVE to take a position on such things.

The problem is not that GCC took a position, the problem is that they were mislead (by Stonewall and arrogance and laziness) into a position which was itself completely outrageous and disgusting (the idea that "trans rights" [both words being undefined] trump the women's and gay rights which are embedded in law.)

Is anyone able to link the bundle again in the chat or is that no longer permitted?

Maan, LT is losing his head (not angry really in my view just getting completely befuddled trying not to incriminate themselves)

But GCRich, Garden Court advise on public administration law and on employment law. How could they not know what the protected characteristics in the equality act were (still are), and not recognise that this organisation in front of them were not sticking to them? They're meant to be curious, and sharp. Anyone can look at the act and at what SW say, and see the two do not match.

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

When you think about it's bizarre ANYONE would consider signing up with Stonewall. Its because of SW ambulance chasing TQ+ rights on back of LGB rights.

All these organisations think they are signing up to getting a shiny rainbow badge for a bit of corporate virtue signaling, and before they know what the fuck is going on they are chin deep in gender ideology & everything is a transphobic hate crime - and its too late/too hard/too confusing to find a way out of it.

How was he qualified to be a Head or Chambers when he isn’t even ‘familiar’ with the Equality Act?

This is the text in an email from LT they were just discussing:

The suggestion that she may have breached the equalities Act is very serious, the media PR fall out from this for our chambers I don't even want to think about.

As BC asked, does LT know anything about the Equalities Act?

Stonewall used to be an organisation that many people would be proud to be associated with. In 2009 ish my public sector organisation looked at signing up and we decided it was too expensive but there was a commitment that we would work towards it.

A gay colleague who was part of the group with me that looked at it, then went on to work for Stonewall later. At that point, none of us had an issue with Stonewall or the champions scheme/ WEI except the expense of it and how much info it required.

BC is making the point that GCC reacted in a kneejerk way in response to complaint tweets, many of which were unpleasant, without even considering the substance of the "twitter storm".

From Tribunal tweets:
BC: you say its serious against EA.
are you familiar with EA and its application?
LT: no

Alas, poor LT.

One email complaint was anonymous and shouldn't have been considered. Another was complaining about LGBAlliance. Another was an accusation of AB being a transphobe because AB had tweeted about the launch of LGBA. As was the last email. Where the third and fourth emails are notably similar.

Did LT outsource all his thinking and the Chambers' corporate knowledge about the Equality Act 2010 to the controversial political lobbying organisation Stonewall?

Thanks for the bundle link 👍

The handling of the complaint was a complete mess and overreaction by GCC. However, this isn't sufficient for AB, she needs to show a detriment that followed from the mess, and the way the complaint and the detriment are causually linked, and that isn't easy because it depends on things like proving what the clerks were up to.

Another half an hour before BC is finished the cross-examination. It would make sense for there be re-examination by JR after that, but will there be time?

BC: you say its serious against EA.
are you familiar with EA and its application?
LT: no

I bet he is now.

This may be a stupid Q but this is the first time I've watched: who is the person whose thumbnail says Andrew Hochauser QC? They don't match googled photos of AH.

And where are IO/RMW?

Look at the first post on all these threads. She is junior counsel to hochhauser (garden court defence) and the other two are the legal defence for stonewall.

She is Jane Russell, AH's junior counsel.

Thanks. I meant I hadn't noticed IO on the screen. Got that camera now they're back.

The detriments are (i) withholding of work (the clerking issue), (ii) GCC annoucing AB was under investigation, (iii) SW making a complaint to GCC, (iv) the upholding of the complaint by GCC, and (v) foot-dragging over the SARs.

If AB fails under (i), there's still much to play for although I'd assume the damages (financial) claim lies mainly in relation to (i).

Ms Russell is not happy

Sorry! Misunderstood.