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 would like to offer Employment Judge Goodman a large G&T. She didn't miss a beat all day. I'm in awe of anyone who can concentrate for that long - particularly over zoom.

Along with Sanjay Sood-Smith, these are all such beautifully melodic names.

Next week will be mellifluous from the sound of it.

I hope there's a resolution to the various issues, from the many bundles to the case-management considerations.

I have come up with a new cocktail called The Bundle. You just chuck whatever is in the drinks cabinet into a bucket in whatever quantities and scowl at people who can't name what they are tasting.

Hi @Clymene sorry if this has already been answered. They break for 5 minutes about every hour, and as near to on the hour as possible, ie 11am/2pm/4pm.

I don't know about civil cases, but you don't normally get 5 mins break every hour when giving evidence in criminal courts, but I think they're probably taking comfort breaks, as it's a completely different/additional level of attention when participating in on-line proceedings, as if it was live in court the Judge etc would see body language, facial expressions, pick up any concerns issues that aren't necessarily being verbalised, so I think they just need a break to stand/stretch/yawn/roll their eyes lol.

I think EJ Goodman is doing brilliantly under the circumstances, and especially that a lot of the witnesses are Barristers/QCs etc, they are give much longer/more expanded answers than non legal witnesses, she's doing a brilliant job of hearing what is being said, writing points down, and hopefully not missing anything important as the witness/claimant continues.

To just take on trust that a respected member of chambers (and he said they were all respected) is doing something illegal with no justification is weird.

I'm just catching up but that does seem like they messed up somewhere.

😂😂😂

Mia Hall-Law is Director of Operations and Human Resources at Garden Court Chambers.

Maya Sikand was previously a barrister at Garden Court who now works at at Doughty Street Chambers and has since become a QC. She was the person at Garden Court who did an investigation of the tweets/complaint against Allison I think.

I'm interested to hear Sikand's testimony as when reading Allison's witness statement, it really came across that Allison felt a sense of betrayal/misplaced trust in relation to Sikand as they had previously been friends. I didn't entirely understand what actions Sikand did so I need to reread those parts.

Or the Pina Colada, but as no liquid is inherently pina or colada, it's just water.

LMAO 🤣🤣🤣

Hahahahaha, may I respectfully suggest the name could be expanded to the Bus Crash Bundle, if you are challenged on it and double down (on the mix match of ingredients) even more.

I'm just about to test that cocktail our right now 🍹 I'll let you know how it tasted.

It could contain a support olive

What is it that EJ kept mentioning - if indeed it was always the same thing? Once it seemed to be a skeleton something or other, then at the end she mentioned Sex Matters & TT but I can't remember which TT it was. Something seemed to be needed but mislaid.

I think they have made an application to have public access to the bundle allowed?

Skeleton argument is basically writing down what the main points (I suppose = bare bones?) of your case are. When/if you present it verbally you may elaborate.

That’s my weekend sorted

Thank you @Crafting1Queen!

I really need to do some work next week but this tribunal has me absolutely gripped. I am desperate to see Maya Sikand and Judy Khan. I'm guessing after LT today it's not going to be a very comfortable experience

A "support olive" which turns out to be an olive, a maraschino cherry, a twisty straw and a cocktail umbrella.

Support olive 😂

It's a skeleton argument ifIwerenotanandroid. Effectively it's a preliminary statment of your case which as time passes you make more into a full and final version, often through a series of amendments.

I think EJ was referring to an application that Sex Matters had made to the ET, perhaps as a request for Sex Matters to receive a permanent copy of the non-downloadable bundle.

I have come up with a new cocktail called The Bundle.

Then once everyone's started drinking it, you add loads of extra ingredients, and shout at them for starting before you were finished making it.

Query: would it be beneficial to Stonewall if all the testimony doesn’t get completed in time and the case continues on till next year? I imagine it would be quite difficult for Allison.

The gratuitous time wasting seems to come largely from the SW end.

It also has to have multiple separate additions of the same ingredients and then when you try to identify them individually, someone shouts the E numbers at you.

I think 'The Stone Wall' cocktail might just be orange squash but if you shout at and belittle people enough when they say that it's squash you can convince people to say it's a gin cocktail and then some vulnerable people will then actually believe that and start to do the shouting and belittling for you.

"The bundle" sounds like the student drinking games of my distant past. Chuck multiple spirits in a pint glass and then top it up with Newcastle Brown Ale.

The contents and order didn't matter and additional ingredients were frequently added to that too. I also doubt anyone could remember who assembled it afterwards.

Hmmm