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

@JulesRimetStillGleaming thank you! Am paranoid about the camera being on so have stuck a plaster over it!

Allison.

I'm wishing Allison so much good karma for this morning.

Please keep the commentary posts coming! (I can't watch live because life stuff and work, but can see this thread.)

AH trying to draw an equivalence between Allison asking for a colleague to be sacked and Stonewall asking for her to be sacked.

She says it's not equivalent. There was demonstrable wrong doing by colleague and they resolved it a few weeks later in a meeting.

MORE bundle bollocks at the start. AB asked if they could deal with it later and get on with her cross examination.

Allison 💐

I think that was a request from Sex Matters and Tribunal Tweets to have the bundle/evidence downloadable or available for the public

Stonewall are proselytising gender identity theory- AB

Well said! I’ve struggled to articulate this. Thank you.

You're right Jules, I've requested my post to be deleted.

'gender critical' means a belief in reality, in biology

Gender critical is just a belief in human biology (AB).

‘Belief in the sexes is just something I have known about since childhood.’

Boom.

when we talk about GC it sounds like we're talking about a complex belief - we're really not - AB

Good point. It's not complicated. It's very straightforward.

AH questioning AB about her beliefs, the discussion seems to be about a definition of "gender critical beliefs". AH is asknig whether the respondents knew about the full extent of her beliefs, presumably part of an argument that if they weren't wholly aware of AB's esoteric set of beliefs, then they couldn't discriminate against her on that basis.

God Hochhauser's tone is so rude

It's pure character assassination. I'm sure she's completely wise to it as a strategy.

Precisely.

I will add for the hard of thinking in case it was my post that made someone think yippee let's use that to have a stir, the point was not a criticism of Allison, who is talking about a very specific situation and is doing an amazing job in the most difficult of circumstances.

The point was more the utter hypocrisy of AH and SW. That they were bringing the whole line of questioning in the demand of 'are you a good girl who doesn't say no to males?' which is just sheer misogyny and showing the utter ignorance of females and a belief in their being some kind of subspecies who doesn't need consideration or actual listening to on issues that affect them or who should be in their spaces. And the utter hypocrisy of throwing words like 'inclusion' around while being utterly dismissive of, if even vaguely aware, of any of the issues of inclusion for women, or of Allison's point that inclusion is not inclusion if it excludes her. Or indeed any female.

Which demonstrates that the word 'inclusion' represents no interest or commitment to the actual value or principle of inclusion. Because either those representing this ideology believe that inclusion is for male born people and not females, which would make this a male supremacist movement and make an utter nonsense of continuing to pretend a belief that they hold anything but binary sex based thinking with no difficulty at all in telling who gets included and who doesn't matter. Or 'inclusion' is merely a word to throw around in pursuit of advancing TW in achieving mastery of the system above female needs and voices, and is limited merely to achieving that political aim with no real interest in its meaning or concept beyond whether it is successful in manipulating the situation to advantage.

I'm not quite sure which one is worse, but I can't be the only one whose eyes are being opened ever wider as I hear and see more and more from those representing this really rather interesting view of society and other people.

But yes, he comes across to me as supercilious, bullying, and insincere.

Both AH and IO both have vile, rude tones. I guess that's their tactic/approach. I much prefer a more neutral tone.

BC manages to cross-examine without rudeness.

I think AH likes AB, though.

Did anyone notice the observer whose pronouns are ze \zoo? Pisstake or is this a real thing now??

That's a piss take, cos there's a Bill Murray film called The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

I love that AH is gay. This really does feel like the LGB community battling in public, in law, about what our values are and what we stand for.

We see it that way but I bet the employees of CCG who were cross examined by him disagree. Such I think is the nature of being on the witness stand.

I haven't watched any of the proceedings but at the end of the day all the barristers are doing their job in a way they feel is in the best interests of their clients.

I ended up as a defence witness in my early 20s. The defence barrister was really good (he won) but I wouldn't have wanted to be on the other side of his questioning. I think I would have felt quite differently about him. 😁

EJ just gave AH the filthiest look.