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 mask slipped right off there.

Seems that GCC should have got an external person to investigate. They are clearly too close to this to have been impartial.

They're all so OUTRAGED at having to disrupt their lives to lower themselves to attend this perposterous hearing!

They’re all absolutely furious with her.

But it’s not her fault at all. At no point did they consider that AB’s ‘views’ were actually part of her belief system, and thus protected.

It’s all anger at her for daring to pursue them under a legal system they claim to respect.

It really did.

Blimey. She’s pissed off and not doing herself any favours at all.

It's a good question. Some of the barrister witnesses have come across like they couldn't really be arsed with the management side of being HoC or whatever. A bit like the way academics like doing their research, but then have to take on director of research, or admissions, or whatever, and they're often not great at it. It's tricky. You need ppl who have worked in the core function of the workplace to take leadership roles but they're often not the same skills, and it must be worse of you don't earn extra.

Is the head of chambers position one you do for the rest of your time at the chambers, or is it on a rotation like head of academic department, where you go back to being a professor afterwards?

MS spent “hours and hours and hours” on this investigation but didn’t bother to read threatening responses to tweets?

Maya Sikand seems to be conflating the time spent being "a pedant" (as she expresses it) as being equivalent to time spent on due diligence.

I'd suggest that it might have been proper to care less about colours and fonts and trust the appropriate staff to deal with that and to have spent some time to get an understanding of social media so that she could satisfy herself that there had been a decent attempt at due diligence.

Wow.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there nauticant

It's for a few years. I think I read it was 4 year term or something and they're elected HoC.

It may or may not be relevant but according to a piece in a newspaper, MS is a single parent so she probably needs to know what her timetable is if she’s juggle work, the Tribunal and childcare.

I wonder if this will be a humbling experience for these barristers to have the ' lived experience ' ( Lol) of seeing what it's like to be in the witness box?

All this collective outrage and anger from GCC is unproductive, and will make it harder for them to know what to do if they lose - some will want to appeal, and others will say they're 'not going through that shit again'.

GCC reacted so strongly that they had been accused of discrimination, because it undermines their self image

I was just thinking the same but less nicely, what a bunch of self-righteous wankers. And they all seem to feel personally betrayed.

This is really bringing home what Allison must have had to deal with - I guess that email that MG sent must be the tip of a very large iceberg with him being the only one stupid enough to put it in writing.

It's so sad to read the break down of theese relationships, many of which were good before.

Ah, that makes sense. I see.

People think they are on the 'right side of history' and can't therefore ever be wrong?

Yes, they're absolutely outraged at having been accused of not nice people. They are full of their self righteous goodness

These GCC witness's are showing the hostile attitude that AB had to deal with at chambers.

Anyone who has worked in an office knows that gossip is rife, it's like a small village. The girl friday would have know AB was not popular.

It's a Right Side of History thing MagnoliaTaint but also a narcissism thing, a unreasoning desire to punish the person who triggers the cognitive dissonance.

These Barristers from GCC, who are/have been giving evidence, are an absolute outrage! They would never tolerate or put up with witnesses they were questioning in proceedings to start going off topic, and making long rambling statements, jumping forward and trying to get their opinions in, and to say what they want to say, instead of answering the question put to them. It's shockingly unprofessional and shows utter contempt for 1) the proceedings 2) AB having to take this course of action and 3) a fellow barrister, who himself has been nothing but professional, polite and calm in the face of this nonsense.

Shame on you GCC Barristers!

This must make the management quite different to how it is in most orgs where the boss will always be the boss. It stops ppl rocking the boat or doing anything unpopular if they know they have to return to being on the same level as everyone else after.

On this point of their self image, I do know Judy Khan through work, but not sure if it's ok to say anything on here. ( it's not defamatory, just illuminating )

Probably best not.