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 agree - and only one side will benefit from this becoming a closed hearing.

Thanks @JustSpeculation

Meanwhile...here is a jaw dropping twitter thread about a demanding guest who also has requirements to accommodate her support parrots.

I say just send the parrot to answer the cross examination questions.
We all need a support parrot.

twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1525190581969993729?s=21&t=GdP38Ej1aOJQLYMayY76tQ

The scenarios RS Archer comes up with are hilarious.

The R/S Archer twitter feed is amusing but I strongly suspect that it isn’t all literal and fact. There may be an element of satire and/or entertainment.

If TRA’s think the case is going well for them that’s a real positive in my mind. It means both sides are happy that their beliefs, values and actions are being appropriately presented.

If after all this Allison doesn’t win I’ll be bitterly disappointed for her, and about the wider implications. But it won’t be because the case wasn’t well presented, or was badly argued by her team.

She, and the other amazing women taking on these legal challenges, are winning either way. They’re opening up sensible discussions about where the lines should be drawn. They’ve stopped ‘no debate’ in its tracks.

They very probably don’t. You can get insurance to cover personal injury to others (either employees or members of the public) which covers the “slipped on a banana skin in chambers reception” type claim.

Cover for wrongdoing like discrimination has always been very hard to get, because it covers a wide range of blameworthy scenarios. Also insurers don’t usually insure you against the consequences of your own deliberately wrongful acts (the banana skin example is negligent but presumed not to be a deliberate attempt to cause personal injury). If there’s a campaign of bullying by one staff member that’s not something insurers would want to cover.

You used to be able to get it but limited in scope so it didn’t cover all scenarios and so prohibitively expensive that it’s not worth it. My chambers looked into it but concluded it wasn’t worth the cost. Whether it is even available any more I don’t know because the insurance market has hardened a lot in recent years and many insurers won’t take all sorts of risks any more. And of course it won’t cover a potential claim you already know about.

I’d be 99% sure they don’t have it. If their main strike out point was it was going to cost them shedloads they would have had to disclose its existence anyway.

I name changed for this as I had been the same name for ages and fancied a change and this was too good a chance to miss.

I nearly chose "Emotionalsupportviper" and TBH am not sure whether it would have been better than "Properlypaginatedbundle" or not.

Any thoughts, people? 🤔

@funnelfanjo you are correct.

An explanation of the RS Archer twitter feed is here.

The arrival of support parrots is unlikely to be a coincidence!

thecritic.co.uk/the-curious-case-of-rs-archer/

I have a feeling the fear of a claim from someone with a GRC will have been leveraged to embed SW training and SW law. And is part of the reason captured organisations have ignored the rights of women and other PCs.

Should have read

I have a feeling the fear of a claim from someone with a GRC will have been leveraged to embed SW training and SW law. And is part of the reason captured organisations have ignored the rights of women and other PCs

I think that professionally there is tremendous respect for each other by lawyers on both sides. They all know that they have a job to do and that this isn't personal.

I, too, will be very sorry if Allison loses, but as others have said, the fact that another ray of light is being shed upon the idiocy that is "genderwoo", and the implications for all of us - women and men, straight, gay, bi and genuinely dysphoric, and for those people with DSDs, who are getting dragged into this morass against their will - are becoming clearer, more people will realise what a pernicious and dangerous thing it is.

SW is still working very much in the darkness - just barely sticking its nose out at the moment. Most people have no idea of what a vast web of influence it has developed, or what it will mean, particularly for women, if it continues.

This case is making it to everyday folk. DH raised it over dinner last night, and is livid about SW and what's happened. He sort of knows some of the issues but we don't talk about it a lot. It was interesting to hear from him about it.

Likewise and MN STILL haven't fixed it despite it being listed as being done ASAP.

the implications for all of us - women and men, straight, gay, bi and genuinely dysphoric, and for those people with DSDs, who are getting dragged into this morass against their will

It's, what, @ 2p for every girl and woman in the UK to make this open defence of sex-based rights? Roughly 1p to do that for the whole population and to spotlight the creep of authoritarian powers (e.g., the right to protest, the online harms bill and so much more) and expose their consequences in society, the workplace, in schools, and everywhere?

These crowdfunders, tribunals and other challenges are necessary. There will be more. At some point, the NHS has to be tackled for the harm they're perpetrating on the public understanding of healthcare, of dignity and respect.

In general, responding to consultations and raising money for these actions is feeling like a thankless, deeply painful, part-time job with zero pay and lousy conditions. But we have to do it and we do it for people who revile our beliefs and some would strip up of our occupations and send us to the gulag for holding those beliefs.

It's so important that tribunals like this are available for public viewing. We have to understand the implications for all of us, now and in the future. Jean Hatchet wrote this after being challenged by someone after a meeting in 2018.

Woman last night : “really it’s a shame you all have to waste your time on the trans issue when there’s so much to do in feminism”

That will teach me to work on several financial calculations at the same time - I omitted the decimals. So, <1p per person, <2p per woman and girl for the above.

I so wish we had a "LIKE" button for your post @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Once men are women, then there will be no women. Nothing left. Not for us, nor for our daughters. And not for most men, either, even if they don't realise it.

And I have a good idea who will be the next target if this barrier is broken.

And you are spot on about

the creep of authoritarian powers (e.g., the right to protest, the online harms bill and so much more) and expose their consequences in society, the workplace, in schools, and everywhere?

insidious and dangerous and we are sleepwalking into it.

I don't do Hard Sums.

You can have whatever you can pay for! I'd guess Allison has been acting as de facto junior because she knows the papers so well, and saves money too.

What about OhHearWeGoBastard?

When men take the word “woman” from women and use it for themselves it is the most aggressive collective act of male violence against women and girls you will see in your lifetime.

This X infinity

This is what people seem to not be understanding and it's so important that people do.

Anyone supporting the obliteration of the word woman to refer solely to women is committing an act of male aggression or, if they are women, they are enabling it.

I think I like it.

I'd guess Allison has been acting as de facto junior because she knows the papers so well, and saves money too

It is very strange watching Ben Cooper effectively up against four barristers, though. And knowing how much money had to be raised to accomplish that!

Also, knowing that similar things have happened to women all over the country but very, very few of those women would have the skills (and exceptional fortitude) that Allison does for their case to survive the cross-examination. I’m so glad this is happening, but it really brings home how inaccessible justice is for most people.

I think I prefer 'emotionalsupportviper' - it's wonderful. I'd steal it but I saw a complaint that someone changed names & then couldn't change back.

Actually a while ago I thought of this as a possible punishment in real life: the courts could mandate that someone's name has to be something for the rest of their life, or for a fixed length of time. Saves money on prisons, & names could be meaningful e.g. Mr Child Molester2856 or just funny e.g. Mr Idiotic Plonker. Make the punisment fit the crime.

should be 'punishment', of course