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

@TensionWheelsCoolHeads you make some good points, it's hard to know where in the mess of the disclosure it might have cropped up. I do hope we learn more tomorrow, I got the sense that the judge was keen to know a bit more about it, so we will see.

What is Martin Reuby's role, can anyone tell me? Sorry, I saw him speak earlier (re dictaphone notes) but don't know his role and it's not listed in the pinned post on this thread.

😂😂😂

We're due to hear from the beautifully named Maya Sikand QC and Mia Hakl-Law. It's a week of rather lovely names.

We're also going to see the examination of seriously impressive people with outstanding CVs that make me grieve that these natural allies of AB somehow find themselves on opposing sides in this matter. The harms and unintended consequences of this dispute will ripple out for some time to come.

He's one of the 3 tribunal members alongside Judge Goodman and Eva ?

What is Martin Reuby's role, can anyone tell me?

He is a non-legal member of the tribunal who is there to provide a perspective from an employee, and in his case he also brings his experience of having gone through an Employment Tribunal himself firstly to prove he was an employee, of the Unite union, and secondly had been disadvantaged at work because he blew the whistle about the use of ‘zero hours contracts’.

Most tribunal hearings are chaired by legally qualified Tribunal Judges but they often sit with specialist, non-legal, members – for example doctors, accountants, surveyors or those with particular experience of disability or the armed services – depending on the subject matter of the hearing. Tribunal members are not expert witnesses; they provide a practical, specialised view of the facts and evidence before the tribunal. For example, an employment tribunal may include members with an employer and employee perspective.

Brilliant, thank you

In fact, I might as well include the source for that segment since it's interesting in itself:

www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/tribunals/fee-paid-judiciary-page-1-2/

He has a trade union background hence stands out a little from the lawyers etc. But his interventions, though infrequent, are very astute and might prove to be crucial.

I almost certainly won't be able to follow live tomorrow so, as always, grateful to everyone here who is doing such a great job of keeping us a(robin red)breast of happenings. If there are buzzards, peacocks or an emotional support wren, so much the better.

That's interesting about the tribunal members. Who chooses them/decides who should make up the panel?

You typically have to go through an extensive review and interview process to be recruited to tribunals like that. Similar to lay (as in non-medical) members who are recruited to the MPTS or other professional tribunals.

www.mpts-uk.org/about/how-we-work/tribunal-members

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/who-makes-the-decisions

Completely off-topic, but regarding the latest instances of monkeypox in London the BBC reports, "Currently, common contacts have been identified for two of the four latest cases. All four self-identify as gay, bisexual or other men who have sex with men". Who on earth could these "other men" that the Beeb is too coy to properly describe possibly be, I wonder? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61470940

Is a term from the 90s

"The term MSM was created in the 1990s by epidemiologists to study the spread of disease among all men who have sex with men, regardless of identity, to include, for example, male prostitutes."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men

Men who have sex with men don't always identify as gay/bi, im guessing thats all it is referring to?

Thanks, @UnWilly and @NewBootsAndRanty - I stand corrected.

From upthread

embarrassinghadrosaurus

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.

Thanks it's interesting to hear that other organisations formalise this 'arms length' arrangement. I can see that they would be able to disown anything the volunteers did as not representing the organisation. But im not sure stonewall has done this. No one seems to know what the arrangement is supposed to be. I think another outcome will be stonewall (& other charities that haven't thought this through) formalising the distance between them and the advisory group.

Or maybe a bit of a run around the playground in the fresh air.

I think the people pushing this at a higher level — the people speaking behind the scenes to key individuals and groups in the HoC or police or in certain universities, for example, are male-sexed people. You only have to read Helen Joyce or google Stonewalls' transgender advisory group or Press For Change or Trans Media Watch and you'll find them. They stay out of the spotlight while vulnerable younger people like KM and SK are dazzled.

I've had a really busy day at work so couldn't look at any of the tribunal stuff today. Have just spent my entire evening catching up on TTs and these threads. Thanks everyone for the comments/insights. Really wish I could watch it all!

I sit on a professional conduct panel and there was a full recruitment process via the relevant body. Panel selection for my body is by category of member eg lay, professional member and then availability. I suspect they would have tried to get experienced members for this case as it would have been a baptism of fire if it was your first tribunal.

Just jumping on to mark my place, having read up to here today!
It does always amaze me that the TMs are the ones who come out strongest in public for TRAHR etc. - and makes me wonder why too. Is it because they are trying to do the Maggie Thatcher thing of outbloking the blokes, so that they are accepted in the male hierarchy? Which obvs involves throwing "those other women" under the bus, in order to increase their own power base.

Just a thought.

And all 5 groups are vulnerable to pressure/bullying/coercion from those - mostly males - who politicise this.

To understand the motivations, read Kevin Simler's essay on Crony Beliefs which explains that Crony beliefs are held for social advantage (which includes not being ostracized/thrown out of the group) rather that 'meritocratic advantage' (getting the answer right). Reading his essay with Trans Ideology in mind is eye-opening.

An interesting thing about crony beliefs is that they actually feel like the same as beliefs intended to get the 'right facts'. A few months after reading the essay I suddenly realising that a belief I was arguing passionately for (not gender related - something totally different) was in fact a crony belief. It was a huge shock! The human brain is an incredible thing.

We should take that as encouragement. If the socially acceptable position changes - which I believe it will as better reporting exposes the terrible human cost of gender ideology - a lot of people actively pushing this will quietly stop.