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

Thanks ickky for the threads (and all the useful info in the first post). And thanks too everyone for all the insightful comments.

Allison, you're amazing. Good Luck!

This whole issue boils down to Stonewall and the rest of its Trans Lobby saying that women have no legal right to consent, because it views issues of consent as discriminatory.

Women say it is all about our right to consent.

This is an argument about women saying NO to men.

Allison was brilliant, wasn't she?

In the part I watched, she seemed more in control of the narrative that was coming across than he was. I assume that's not usual in a cross-examination! I guess because she was genuinely passionate and for him it's just Thursday.

Just thought I would highlight this excellent post.

No woman has the right to give permission for anyone other than themselves.

This, and Artichokes excellent post. The thought and clarity from these posters is something I am both grateful for and proud of. Thank you and all posters on this thread that have given up their time to document and discuss it all so clearly.

Place mark

Haven't been able to watch this one like Maya's so really appreciate the commentary on here. Allison rocks

‘Resisting the penis’ is a fairly fundamental part of being a lesbian FFS. Someone’s homophobia is showing.

As for the speed with which messages are being deleted, if the misogynist monitors really thought we were just socks or bots or a group of silly women wasting our time, they wouldn’t be wasting their time scouring our threads for posts they don’t like. Sounds to me like somebody’s worried.

Thanks @ickky

It was an attempt to paint AB as someone willing to be unkind to trans people (ie to be inferred to be a bigot) drwitch.

No woman has the right to give permission for anyone other than themselves.

And no woman should have to justify why she refuses permission for herself.

Thanks @nauticant this is what I thought but isn't this a very dangerous strategy for them because it conflates respect for trans people with an absence of boundaries (like the cotton ceiling). - So they are defining being transphobic with reasonable (and legal) behaviour

This brings me to mind of one of Allison's earlier statements, that of the intimation that all they were doing was 'being inclusive' and she retorted 'which excludes me'.

Thanks for the new thread ickky, and thanks to everyone posting who is actually watching. Tribunal tweets are great, but people on here are helping to give a fuller picture.

I think the questioning at the end was trying to back up KM and others' point that they would be 'unsafe' if they encountered AB in the toilet. Bit as she clearly articulated that she is nothing but respectful and has no issue with genuine trans people in the toilets, then he didn't get anything salacious from that.

Plus she was able to shoehorn in commentary on the widening of the trans umbrella by SW and how tranvestites/ cross dressers were deliberately excluded from GRA.

She was excellent.

Oh and haha to just Thursday. For him it's a Thursday that he's being handsomely paid for to win a case though .... pressure

H - focus very carefully on the words
AB - what para
AH - are you there, I don't want any further interruption.
AB - please don't misrepresent me. Trying to find it
AH - I am going to read it very slowly

Really wish AB had replied - That's ok, I'll wait 😂

Surely AH must know he is coming across as a bit of a wanker here.

drwitch, it seemed to me that AH had spent days being focused in his legally-based challenges to AB's evidence and case and had made some progress in exploiting weaknesses, for example asking for detail about how the complaint from Stonewall necessarily caused GCC to act against AB, but the attempted toilets gotcha seemed to be a lazy kitchen sink approach without fully understanding how GC people have been winning on this point for years, ie objecting to self ID, or to Stonewall =/= transphobia.

Maybe he's going to spring a trap related to it tomorrow in the first hour when he concludes his cross-examination of AB.

I think the questioning at the end was trying to back up KM and others' point that they would be 'unsafe' if they encountered AB in the toilet

I thought he accidentally wound up creating yet another instructive contrast between Allison and the likes of KM.

This, and the thing I didn't realise until relatively recently:

No-one asked us. No-one asked women if we wanted males in our spaces. If we MINDED.

The support humans' facilitation of male happiness was just assumed.

thank you for articulating this point so clearly.

The support humans' facilitation of male happiness was just assumed.

Support humans and our right to say, "I do mind" has never been regarded as more than a polite social fiction by those who are entitled to go ahead and do as they wish, irrespective of agreement.

However much I disagree with his arguments, case, and all round demeanour AH will have earnt his money today. He won't often spend a whole day going head to head with such an articulate, well prepared, calm witness let alone one who has the same experience of the tricks of the trade being deployed. He will have had a plan of what he was trying to get AB to say but for once a witness will have known exactly what he was up to and how not to fall into the trap. When he had concluded a question about an email and then AB asked him to read out the rest of the email [baystard swoons]...

He will have had a plan of what he was trying to get AB to say but for once a witness will have known exactly what he was up to and how not to fall into the trap.

Agree.

It's like we're watching intellectual tennis or verbal chess.

I think Allison has the advantage because she believes wholeheartedly in everything she's saying and believes it to be right and true. She scored some humdingers today. Do you think we could get her to stand as an MP?

I have no idea whether he's winning on some of the technical legal points but she is so on top of all of the evidence and her case. I do wonder whether she needs to show more vulnerability in how much this has harmed her because stoic women often appear strong and angry rather than meek and injured - hence the here we go comment. It's clear that she's under enormous pressure. I'm sure EJ is used to seeing how claimants come across under that pressure and after having experienced the breakdown of working relationships.

She's got nothing but admiration from me. She's been fab. Glad for her it's nearly all over though.