Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 6

[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

Thread 5 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4548160-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-5

I assumed they were inputting them as their username. I just come up as 'Me' as that's what I've input as my username.

I assumed they were inputting them as their username. I just come up as 'Me' as that's what I've input as my username.

lol I saw you there and wondered if you were in fact me, as I'd forgotten what I entered as my own username and couldn't find it on the list. (I was trying to check my camera was off!)

I saw a few different phone numbers, all in the same number format, which made me think some software somewhere is filling it in.

At this stage I have very few fucks to give for them.

It seems to be being revealed it is TM & so many women driving this ideology being imbedded in our society - its doing much huge damage to us all, irreperable harm to children and young teens and they think they are fucking saviour warriors. Its really pissing me off. Is this high performance victim hood /SJW performance the TM affirmation and acceptance equivalent to the TW invading womens spaces & spinning in dresses?

They are welcome to live how they want but the vicitimhood they are seeking is at the expense of much much damage and harm to many people - children, women, and men too. Enough!!

I think we all need to give our heads a shake and realise this isn't something men are doing to women as it is all too often painted - that is way to simplistic. Women are deeply embedded in the development, and implementation of Gender Ideology - and I'm afraid to say so many of the people pushing this on kids, whether their own, or those they are teaching or otherwise caring for, are women.

WTF are we going to do?

There is a Skype link option which I couldn't seem to access from the GP waiting room but perhaps people are somehow and that's showing phone numbers.

Like a PP said, I tried Chrome and Safari with all combinations of audio and video except I wasn't brave enough to enter with my own mic and camera on in case I couldn't switch it off.

Hopefully I'll be back at home for the rest of the week so not a problem. First time I've needed to rely on tribunal tweets and they give a good sense of what's going on.

Saying hi and thank you and marking my place.

There is a Skype link option which I couldn't seem to access from the GP waiting room but perhaps people are somehow and that's showing phone numbers.

Skype uses SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) and I'm wondering whether the panics that happen when a SIP prefix in seen in the observer list is to do with Skype calls rather than observers streaming the proceedings elsewhere. That said, the SIP-prefix observers do tend to disappear sharpish on being referred to in the proceedings.

Thanks for the continuing threads. I don't have time to login/watch so the threads are useful. As for what we can all do - just keep the issue of women's rights in mind as I have tried to do since the 1970s and be persistent over these issues.

Is this high performance victim hood /SJW performance the TM affirmation and acceptance equivalent to the TW invading womens spaces & spinning in dresses?

Setting aside some of the more prominent TM in the UK (Whittle et al) that's an interesting perspective.

For a number of TM or male-presenting NBs for whom this is a cross-sex presentation, I sense nothing but profound, internalised misogyny. Others come across as deeply distressed people who are in search of a resolution to their life alteringly disruptive discomfort with their sexed bodies and the gendered expectations that are socially assigned to them.

I wonder if my difficulty is in considering the TW who adopt the persona of The Most Oppressed alongside the transgressions of demanding the erasure of a sex class, breaching the social contract around single-sex spaces, promoting gender stereotypes of spinning in dresses, and in continuous need of external validation for the immersive reality that they inhabit.

I'm not seeing a greater display of victim hood/SJW performance from TM v TW or even NBs. If anything, in the detransitioner stories, I mostly know about FtM detransitioners, a number of whom seem to blame themselves and claim a contribution to their predicament, moreso than MtF stories that I'm aware of. However, I'm aware that there are age differentials that skew those groups for the present.

I agree @TheClitterati - it hadn't even occurred to me that SK was female - until seeing them in the tribunal. Of course for females identifying as male, the focus is on getting what they want, regardless of the impact on other women's boundaries being broken by men.

Theclitterati
Yes you are right. All the evidence is that blokes are more sceptical than women about the 'be kind' demands. The resistance from radical feminists, older feminists etc is obviously mostly women, but it's also true that women and trans men are doing this. And very female dominated industries are embracing it - the birthing world for example.

Today was interesting. Stonewall have been trying to make out that STAG is not part of stonewall, thst it's a group who advise stonewall rather than you part of stonewall that advise others. i don't think that can really fly as they recruited the people and they have a part of 'the wall', and the communication goes both ways, but they should have thought more about what oversight they had.

It would be like if the rhs set up an 'rhs brassica advisory group' of people with relevant experience and expertise to advise rhs on everything broccoli and cabbage. Rhs recruited & interviewed them, paid expenses, gave them access to the rhs intranet. Members used their status on the panel when they went speaking to the sprout growers guild or farmers. But would they then still be representing rhs if they used that forum to make complaints against a lettuce grower because they think lettuce sucks and brocolli rules? I would have thought so if that was the forum used.

‘I think we all need to give our heads a shake and realise this isn't something men are doing to women as it is all too often painted - that is way to simplistic. Women are deeply embedded in the development, and implementation of Gender Ideology - and I'm afraid to say so many of the people pushing this on kids, whether their own, or those they are teaching or otherwise caring for, are women.’

It’s both. It’s a complex phenomenon.

Thanks so much for the thread. I've been trapped working most of the day as I was too gripped on Friday to do anything. Should have cleared my diary!

One of the key vehicles for driving gender ideology forward in schools, I'm afraid to say, has been the participation of female teachers, supported by female teaching union officers.

It's vicarious liability that SW & GCC are on the hook for. There's no defence to the prejudicial actions of employees by claiming they weren't aware or didn't direct the actions. If it's been carried out by employees during the course of their work, they'd be hard pushed to escape being held vicariously liable. IANAL just FYI.

Probably more SW than GCC (unless MB's actions as a member of chambers & not head or joint head, are found to be key here).

Thanks for all the commentary, it's really appreciated. TT is factual but a little dry (understandable given the speed they work at). I like to read the TT tweets to get how it's all going, then come here for the really gripping stuff!

It would be like if the rhs set up an 'rhs brassica advisory group' of people with relevant experience and expertise to advise rhs on everything broccoli and cabbage. Rhs recruited & interviewed them, paid expenses, gave them access to the rhs intranet.

This is very interesting for a number of reasons. There are lots of patient and public voice volunteer positions with health and social care organisations in the UK. The organisations tend to have special members of staff to manage and support participation by these volunteers.

The volunteers can often be members of committees, panels, working groups, advisory groups, steering groups etc. They are recruited and interviewed by the health and social care organisations in order to be representatives of whatever specialist range of experience is needed (eg, having had a particular procedure to manage atrial fibrillation, or being a carer for someone who will shortly be going into a residential facility whom you'll support there). They may be paid expenses but they mostly have to sign IR35 declarations that they are not employed by an organisation, even if they are paying tax and NI through them or that you accept your liability if you're not paying tax and NI through them. So, the volunteers are not employed, nor are they contractors. They may be asked to speak at events on behalf of the group appointed by the organisation but they are not to claim or to be represented as speaking on behalf of the organisation.

A lot of organisations want the halo of claiming to have public or patient involvement and the input of relevant people such as a Race Advisory Group or an LGBT Advisory Group. At the same time, they accept no responsibility for these volunteers, despite mandating the volunteers to sign-up to principles of confidentiality and do some mandatory safeguarding or governance training.

I wonder if one of the unintended consequences of this case will be that a lot of organisations discover that they can attribute blame for some actions to volunteers for whom they're not responsible? And if a lot of volunteers will suddenly need clarity on their legal liability for some guidance that they may or may not have given and may or may not have been implemented?

absolutely.

and now we are seeing Stonewall's TRA agenda being led and managed by women including TM. Look at all the TRA women giving evidence in this case and Maya's case too.

I thought exactly the same. It's bizarre how such an organization has wielded so much power with employees who, as you say, don't seem that impressive.

I don't think the employees need to be impressive. Both Stonewall and GCC have an excellent reputation as an organisation. Even if their employees are shit it takes a while for people to notice and the reputation of the organisation to be damaged.

My question is re all those witnesses who are now claiming 'I wasn't aware of that at the time', 'If I had known that I would have responded differently', 'I can't remember', etc.

Why didn't they look at it when legal action first taken against them and settle out of court? Why go on to try and defend something that you admit you now know was wrong or you don't know anything about it.

If you think you are in the right then, sure, go ahead and defend your stance. But if you know actions are now seen to be wrong, or you just have no knowledge of them, why go ahead with defending them?

Maybe this is a silly question, but does it make a difference that STAG have Stonewall in their name? Stonewall's brand is their most important asset, and they've monetised it very intelligently over the years. If they're allowing the STAG to use the Stonewall brand in a public facing context, they didn't do that carelessly or thoughtlessly.

Just remembered I actually have something mildly interesting to contribute: for anyone who heard lovely birdsong in BC's background and was wondering what the bird was (I think it was when AH was complaining about four minutes having been spent on something) it was a wren!

I did like the judge stopping because everyone was overtired. Tomorrow maybe they can have juice and biccies and run on a bit longer?