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

Only to the solicitors and they would presumably be in contempt if they passed that on to the witness.

have they not heard the word 'cant' before? How ironic.

@Mollyollydolly - why not both??

sorry I see Tabby beat me to it

What I’m taking away from this evidence is that Stonewall sits at the centre of a web of people, some of whom are on six figure salaries and are perfectly aware of the divisive and emotionally damaging impacts of their activities, and some of whom (like some of these witnesses) are obviously very vulnerable people. It’s really, horribly sad and Stonewall’s damaging activities need to be stopped by government now.

I agree. Allison requested closer shot & they partially complied (still not full face) but went straight back to 'security camera feed'.

Good point.

This could be shooting fish in a barrel.

Only to the solicitors and they would presumably be in contempt if they passed that on to the witness.

Good to know! But I was wondering about the barristers getting advance notice on BC’s likely questions. Is the solicitor also not allowed to tell the barristers?

IANAL so I'm only guessing. Hopefully lawyers will be along soon to answer. I thought that they have a duty to the proper practice of the law as well as acting for their clients.

There are definitely not 6000 blue pages there are there?

Off topic, but ...

Was it IDisagreeMrHochhauser whose boss refused coloured paper as a reasonable accommodation? Could you get some coloured acetate overlays instead (or tracing paper if you don't want it shiny)? I can also recommend reducing computer screen brightness massively and using software like flux / night light to reduce the blue light glare. (I get headaches from bright screens, so I've spent a while optimising this)

Well seeing as IO seems to have no regard for the rules of the hearing, I wouldn't be surprised.

how can they say there's no reputational damage, when they go off alarming and have a massive rant when the BBC left their scheme, as per the link posted by nauticant.

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-bbc-leaving-diversity-champions-programme

And the fact that kirrin operated, allegedly, without their approval, is neither here nor there. Pressure was put on GCC, with or without approval.

It was me. I've done all that and eventually made an Access to Work application and have screen reader software and now coloured glasses.

Acetates are fine for reading only but a pain if you want to edit documents. Just to show how much of a disability it is; at the start of the pandemic I lost the ability to read at all and had to dictate everything to a colleague to type for me because I was unable to interact with a computer screen at all. I can't even watch TV sometimes.

I think that in terms of offensive Stonewall ranting against people and organisations that are not full-on Stonewall fans, you can't really beat some of the stuff that comes directly from its Chief Executive Nancy Kelley.

This is from the top down, not a few loose cannons at the bottom.

Is it just me or is it like trying to get blood out of a stone with this witness?

No it's great. Basically agreeing with everything BC is trying to get an agreement to with no qualifications.

So far all the SW witness's do seem vulnerable, it does not sit well, pushing them out to answer the questions.

This cross-examination does have a wading through treacle quality to it but I do think SSS is being reasonably forthcoming.

I've just started watching an hour ago. Is it me, or is Mr Knan throwing everyone under the bus?

He's talking more sense that KM did...

I go back to my shooting fish in a barrel comment.

Is basically agreeing to everything BC says. Even the no's are "no, but yes".

‘It strikes me as having similarities to recruiting volunteers for terrorist acts. The leaders stay in the shadows, the vulnerable little people are sent off to do the dirty work and are disowned when things backfire. We all know the names behind this.’

It’s absolutely awful. They know how some of these vulnerable people will react, they know how much instability there is in this community, and they direct them towards these situations anyway. Negligent arseholes.