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

Not sure of details Tension, but there was a 10 minute break in proceedings where a serious matter was discussed.

It transpired that there had been threats against one of SW's (I think) witnesses. Like you, I wasn't even aware of which witnesses were due to be examined or when, and I think most of us were in the same boat - understandably, witness details etc were kept under wraps.

LT was very angry when he was asserting his high regard for Allison and frustration at the situation.

I didn't read him as angry, more expressive of some complex emotions for the reasons that you summarise (e.g., a high regard and respect for Allison, some investment in mentoring her in another area of law and some comradeship in being able to help someone who was looking to expand her areas of practice).

He has a remarkable record. LT 's civil rights record, his persistence in pursuing justice for the Hillsborough families, his support for the Grenfell families, he is deeply admirable in many ways and thoroughly merits his awards and plaudits.

None of us can be complacent. This is why we have reflective practice and need to be challenged about believing intrinsically in the true course shown by our moral compass.

I have some compassion for the schisms this has created between AB and LT. They are both inspirational role models with so much in common. Had AB and LT continued their professional mentoring relationship, I'm sure it would have been of great mutual reassurance and benefit.

Judge Goodman made an announcement at the start of today's hearing - apparently threats had been made on Twitter, although as you say, the list of witnesses hadn't been made public so it all seems a little odd. Whoever did it needs their head examining, as potential witness tampering/threatening is a pretty serious offence.

Support olive and a Stonewall umbrella made me snort my wine. Is Sauv Blanc supposed to be flushed though one’s sinuses?

I don't believe a word of it. Since when have GC women ever threatened violence. It's pure DARVO to portray that their side is the abused one when the reverse is true. I think Allison should play that card as well. Only in her case it would be based in reality.

I bet EJ has had several large gins tonight 🍷(couldn't find a gin emoji)

I've created a new cocktail to stand alongside The Bundle. It's called The Defence and it's fierce - just a few sips and you can't remember anything!

Wallace - seriously - we all know certain people have been drinking those all week.
I think it's an antidote to drinking KoolAid

It must have been difficult for LT to confront the fact that trans rights issues are more nuanced than he had been led to believe. Reading about his evidence reminds me of another courtroom scene:

”We follow Stonewall, Ben. We follow Stonewall or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?”
”Yessir.”
”Are we CLEAR?”
”Crystal.”

…and look how that turned out.

Agree with all of this.

It's so unfortunate when things like this happen and relationships get fractured that perhaps were reparable if there were only those two people involved.

I got the impression that LT took sides without fully understanding why or what he was doing and how much of a betrayal that that would feel to Allison.

Workplaces are strange. I've had close professional relationships that feel like friendships and then been surprised when people have prioritised the corporate entity and their standing within it over the relationship. It can feel like abandonment when you realise that your relationship with someone is less important to them than their relationship with the entity.

There was a tweet in Maya's case - "we're one tweet away from 'you can't handle the truth' "

Started chuckling at The Bundle and genuinely LOLed at ‘support olive’.

I have a question: say Allison wins her case and is awarded compensation/damages for her loss of earnings. Who pays on behalf of GCC? Like all Chambers, it’s a collective of self-employed barristers. Do they all have to dig into their own pockets?

Article in the times. I haven't got a share token and have been able to read it myself. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lawyers-wanted-stonewall-business-fv0m3jx33

Here you go pyjamagame

Lawyers ‘wanted Stonewall business’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/55366bae-d2fd-11ec-84ba-2054de44b21e?shareToken=68c62c828e710bc08bdf218ff50dadde

McDuffy thank you very much. I really do need to just take out a subscription, as they are consistent with their coverage of this issue.

It does make me wonder what would create a better understanding - something like the US concept of a ‘civics’ class in schools?

As someone who has on occasion taught Citizenship in school (as part of PSHE) I can assure you that children come out knowing pretty much naff all. I was appalled by the resources I was given and had to create my own.
As an aside, very few students - maybe one in a class of 30 - even knew the correct full name of the country they live in by the time they got to Y10, I know because I asked them.

Morning vipers, can anyone tell me where I go to join in the co-ordinated harassment please, I didn't get the invite...

What?

Really? Just made it up?

I think its like how we are all funded by creepy right wing religious fundies... I'm still waiting for my cheque. It would appear to have been lost in the transatlantic post bag. I take Western Union though....

I've mostly seen people on these threads condemning the childish antics of the use of the chat box. There are always a few who put free speech above anything else - would they shout out in a court room? Only a very tiny minority.

All you're doing is giving IO and RMW opportunities to interrupt cross examination when you try to be 'clever' so it's totally counterproductive. And I wouldn't put it past anyone to do it to sabotage the tribunal deliberately but the judge is totally aware of that.

I've even been all over Mumsnet standing up for Kirrin Medcalf due to so many posters not getting what being autistic entails!

They can keep throwing mud but I don't think it will stick.

Women discuss a subject of interest to them on an online forum = coordinated harassment

Women lunch = front-page news

We live in a strange old world.

Quite Loulou

How very bizarre to state this was co-ordinated by us?

Some people really need to rethink their prejudices. Not only that, but also realise that by making that statement that is obviously unsubstantiated, they are also continuing to send a wave of activists to this site and continuing the narrative pushed by pundits lately.

But it is rank hypocrisy. They just can’t see it.

Just popping in to thank everyone who is able to log on for doing so and taking the time to talk about it here. I haven’t managed to log in yet but between this and TT I feel like I’m keeping up with the case.

And Allison deserves a huge glass of wine this weekend. She’s bloody Brilliant to keep going with all this.

England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland
United Kingdom
Britain
Great Britain
United Kingdom of Great Britain
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

No, not at all complicated!