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 problem, thanks.

BC's cross-examination of LT seems to be pretty much focused on the detriments (ii) GCC annoucing AB was under investigation, and (iv) the upholding of the complaint by GCC. I think this might be where the best substance of the case lies for AB.

Haha. I love that you even considered that she might identify as Andrew Hochhauser. You can have a Stonewall diversity star.

"GCRich · 13/05/2022 15:39

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.)"

I don't think a company has to take a position on masses and masses of issues from abortion to whether Tories or Labour can be on power. I would support a move back to zero virtue or view signalling actually but I accept that is off topic and not the key issue in the case; although had the chambers kept well out of this complicated topic they would not be where they are today. I also accept almost every big organisation seems to think it wise to take up all kinds of political and moral positions these days even if that alienates some clients. I think they should instead quietly comply with the law and just go about their business.

‘Companies HAVE to take a position on such things.’

They don’t. They can say ‘We sell cheese and strive to uphold the law.’

But a ‘radical’ barristers’ chambers perhaps does have to take some ideological positions. They are still responsible for any breaches of the law those positions lead them into.

Jules, I'm taking the Fifth. And the star.⭐

I think Ben has had some bundle troubles of his own this afternoon which he's covered up well. Just an impression.

Xenia

I agree that companies should stick to uncontroversial issues. Such as that you cannot discriminate against black people and gay people and women.

Getting into the debate of if and when trans rights should trump sex based rights is undoubtedly controversial and should be avoided.

Trouble is with my point of view that whilst I would generally agree with you Tory vs Labour point, and putting aside sex vs gender for one second, the Tories are objectively corrupt, undemocratic, and cruel and those things are objectively bad.

So LT's main excuse is 'I was travelling'

tabbycat

sorry, I disagree. If a company cannot come out and say "we oppose homophobia and racism and sexism" then it is a very poor show.

Tone policing again.

Back on topic... GCC entire problem is that no-one senior found the time to take a step back and think things through and ensure that the law and GCC policies were being followed... but had instead imbedded a deliberately deceptive misogynistic and homophobic hate group into it's structure.

It's all the same bundle.

LT coming across as quite whiny and also as someone who is happy to make decisions without bothering to get the background

LT is saying that he was misled by Maya who did not accuately describe AB's tweets.

'the Tories are objectively corrupt, undemocratic, and cruel and those things are objectively bad.'
2GCRich The fact that you can state this with such self-assurance proves Xenia's point that it would be better for business to return to political neutrality.

I do hope Mia will be giving evidence

Leslie is trying very very hard to personally distance himself from the mess

BC's cross-examination is done. IO going to do brief re-examination.

What if organisations ARE behaving like fascists, though, Mr Thomas? What if they are creating an environment in which a form of fascism is able to thrive? Truth is a complete defence.

Tipped off by Chrysanthemum5 I see my "Maya" should have been "Mia" (Haki-Law).

That was an Eastenders moment. Needed the drum beats after the "Allison knows it's nonsense".

Ooh - very defensive tone there.

I

The difference is with regard to his last statement is that GCC never took a public position before about any groups in chambers.

Leslie is trying very very hard to personally distance himself from the mess

And coming across as defensive, petulant, and aggressive in the process. I find it surprising given his legal background - it's as though his outraged self-importance has eclipsed any professional instinct to manage how he presents himself.