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've got to go to the office on Monday and will sadly miss the SW witnesses.

SupportOlive - nice. I was considering it but you got there first. 😀

🤣👏

I think I know exactly what you mean here....I grew up with w/c parents and was raised in NE England, my entire extended family are Welsh and very emotionally expressive.

I assimilated accent wise when I move to the SE in my teens but my emotional range and expression is the same as what I've grown up around, laughing very loudly, speaking quickly and animatedly. Add to that my ADHD and I have a very expressive vocal range and am frequently shamed by people in the SE who police my tone by telling me I am dramatic, over the top, calm down etc when I am simply being as animated as the adults in the cultures I grew up with are.

Trying out a name change.

@SchadenfreudePersonified you’re twitter famous!

Tbh that can be said of any of the 800 organisations that are in the Stonewall schemes. My college has solid safeguarding policies, all based on legislation e.g. the Equality Act, until they joined Stonewall, and safeguarding went out the window. Just like that. In one fell swoop. Crazy.

... went out the window. Just like that (lost that bit of my post)

😂😂😂

Yes, I agree with all of this. I came in late during his evidence and was astonished to find out that he was a Head of Chambers. I was not impressed by his evidence given his decades of experience, seniority at the Bar and hugely impressive CV. I would have expected such a senior barrister to know how to put on a more detached and professional performance as 'Head of Chambers' even if they felt personally aggrieved at being asked to explain their part in a debacle which they felt they were involved with in name only.

LT was very angry when he was asserting his high regard for Allison and frustration at the situation. It read to me as though he was angry that he'd been her friend/mentor and that he felt that she'd repaid that friendship by not toeing the line and shutting up and going away like a good girl. He was happy to be her mentor and really rate Allison as a professional...but only on his terms. Who needs enemies when you have friends like him.

So India W is one of the monitors <waves>

When I was at university I was hypnotised into thinking a glass of water was gin or some such, and got quite pissed. Amazing what you can convince yourself of, under the right conditions.

What is the logic behind the rule that only the respondent(s) in an ET get to call witnesses?

There is no such rule and it’s strange that people think there is. Each party calls the witnesses it wants to to support its case (you obviously wouldn’t call someone who doesn’t support your case). If Allison (not Ben Cooper, it’s not his case, it’s Allison’s) hasn’t got any other witnesses besides herself, that isn’t because she’s not allowed to.
You can cross-examine whichever witnesses the other party calls to support their own case. I can’t imagine that Allison would have any other potential witnesses that would add much - all her fellow members of chambers are respondents in her claim so I doubt any of them would give evidence for her, plus most things are contained in the emails already and won’t be added to by someone being called to give evidence. SW employees obviously won’t support her case so why would she call them?

Squuueeeeeeeee!

Form an orderly queue for autographs, please.

😁😂😂

I'm blocked by IW so unable to savour my moment of glory to the full, but I feel world-famous.

Yet another annoying aspect of the upgrade - photos of Twitter grabs etc are so small that I can’t read them.

I have zero experience of court proceedings/tribunals etc. Is there a reason why BC doesn’t have a junior counsel, but the other QC’s do? Is it only the defence that get to have a junior?

It is quite interesting to see how court proceedings are viewed by people outside the tent though. It does make me wonder what would create a better understanding - something like the US concept of a ‘civics’ class in schools? It can’t be good for justice that the courts process is so cut off from society as a whole!

Stonewall on Monday, eh? ... <eyes calendar>

Schadenfreude - congratulations. Cocktales all round.

Did someone say Sanjay Sood Smith is giving evidence next week? His page on Stonewall website appears to be blank and his linked in page has disappeared. Think his tweets are protected.

www.stonewall.org.uk/people/sanjay-sood-smith-executive-director-workplace-and-community-programmes-hehim

He doesn't work there anymore.

Loving the name change @SupportOlive

When/where did this happen? I wasn't even aware who the witnesses for next week were when the issue of a threat was commented on. It's clearly serious enough for the court to take it at face value. But I've no idea when/how this happened. Was the info posted in the chat facility today or something?

It seems to be my somewhat cynical comment that one of SWs random supporters may have posted the threat against the witness. I my experience GC feminists don't threaten (or not very often) while TAs do (quite a lot|).