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 think the tribunal member stuff might be a case of mistaken identity anyway. Different spellings, different people?

Anyway, obviously we must be circumspect.

So... on a tribunal panel member?

That seems to be a very serious action to do...

It's quite usual in barristers' chambers to be marked 'keep free' by the clerks. Some areas are very paperwork heavy, so you might be 'keep free' for a personal reason but you could equally be marked as keep free in order to do writing up / preparation / written work.

Generally clerks will not feel too bad about phoning up a barrister who is meant to be 'keep free' if there is something that comes in - they will call just to check.

To be honest Helleofabore looking at the account from TT, I see that most likely on hearing EJ talk about this, I immediately muddled some things up:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1526549944286453760

but there is confusion over witness vs tribunal member.

MS seems very grumpy.

Either way Naut, that is a very serious thing.

One thing EJ did say is that one person in the facebook group has been identified and the tribunal was able to see they had been an observer.

Good. Trying to interfere with court proceedings is a serious matter and should be dealt with properly. The panel members need to be able to do their job without being targeted on social media.

I heard 'tribunal member' in terms of who was being discussed on Facebook, by someone who was in attendance in the hearing (could be someone listed in the list of attendees on the left)

The TT tweet isn't quite right I don't think.

I'm sort of having trouble following the current bit. Anyone else/ can summarise?

I've come to the conclusion that barristers make shit witnesses.

Can anyone else see the tribunal? I've signed & got the template, as it were, but everything apart from the left hand side is black & there's no sound. It was OK until I switched off for lunch.

Yes all fine here. Try going back out and in again?

It's fine for me. Try logging out and back in.

@ifIwerenotanandroid you may need to log out and come back on - it doesn't always load properly

Just going through the process of how the complaints should be treated and discussing wording of email to AB.

Cheers fellow vipers, worked on the third attempt. Oliver Postgate is go. (I hope he records some audio books one day.)

Digging up information on a tribunal member is one of the risks of having these hearings so easily available and online. In the old days judges did not even give out photographs or any personal information about themselves at all so everything was kept private and they were simply the objective organo f the court - a better system in my view although hard to achieve in today's open social media type society.

I think MS is GC...

MS being economical with the truth over whether she looked at the tweets made in reply to each of AB's two tweets. She doesn't want to say that she didn't because that would suggest not digging enough but doesn't want to firmly say the opposite. Very evasive, this is a shame.

BC is slowly teasing out of MS that it's unlikely she bothered to look at the response tweets (many of which were abusive) responding to AB's two tweets.

MS didn’t see any threats and relied on DDeM to tell her of any from Twitter.
Im suddenly looking forward to BC v DDeM now

Well if she didn’t see them, I understand that, but this all creates a pattern of a very cavalier attitude to a woman’s career, doesn’t it?

Paragraph 3 of her WS demonstrates quite the pedigree, @exwhyzed with regards to VAWG, which would suggest that she's firmly GC.

But you just can't tell who she's including in the Women and Girls.