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

Lunch now until 2. BC has finished cross examination.

BC finished, break for lunch, back at 2pm.

Well, ‘we just disagree’ clearly isn’t going to fly. I disagree with people who think The Sopranos is the best TV show ever made. I don’t write to their employers demanding they take action against them.

You're obviously missing a trick there Tabby

Is the "wall post" referred to by BC part of what incited the storm of anonymous complaints against Allison? By which I mean was it made around that time?

Thanks for the new thread.

Support lawyer is the same one who was with KM

That's interesting, @Chrysanthemum5 I had wondered the other day whether the solicitor with KM was KM's own solicitor or a Stonewall-supplied solicitor, and what the latter would imply in terms of whose interests were being represented and looked after.

Emotionalsupportviper

That’s it, I’m sending the email.

I still can't get it to work on the chrome app on my iPad . I can get in but I just get a loading circle of rotating arrows and never any more than that.

I did boot an old desktop into life and got in, but had forgotten said desktop doesn't have a sound card so that was flipping useless, aside from I can at least now picture everyone!

Thank you for the thread. I think the 2 witnesses this morning have proved the point that there was a concerted attempt to undermine Allison.

I think they’ve proved there was activity to undermine her in both GCC and Stonewall (via the STAG and KM). They’ve also demonstrated that this wasn’t unprecedented at Stonewall. But they haven’t demonstrated that it was directed by senior people at SW (for example by people like SSS).

But they didn’t do anything to stop it either even though they obviously knew about it, and ultimately these people and their activities were under the umbrella of SW.

It feels to me like some people just don’t like being held accountable.

😁😁😁

What kind of weird person would read nauticant as naughty cunt? Mind you, (showing my age here) I remember the Alan Partridge episode where the man with a South African accent said "no you can't" and AP was very outraged "well there's no need for that!"

Anyway. Thank you @ickky for the new thread, and everyone else for taking the time to update, it's the only access I have and I really appreciate it!

Actually, I might be wrong there because SSS was directly involved (didn’t just oversee someone who oversaw someone) in the actions to discredit Lucy Masoud.

Thanks to these threads I got myself the access and have had a bit of a watch this morning, although too busy really so dipping in and out. The last witness didn’t sound truthful to me. How are they allowed to sit so far from the camera? There was a request to zoom in and they just said we can’t. End. I don’t understand why they aren’t told to rearrange the room so they can be properly seen. And all the lateness! It’s almost like they have no respect for the proceedings at all. Shits.

Thanks @ickky
Just having a lunch break catch up.
Never mind period leave, we really ought to be able to get leave for observing an important court case!

big thanks to everyone posting.

I'd say on balance SK was one of the more honest witnesses for SW and GCC. Except for where he claimed that calling someone a "TERF" was simply a statement of disagreement and had no derogatory aspect. The distance from the camera is claimed to be something that cannot be remedied. I don't believe that's true, for example that the camera has no zooming capability whatsoever.

How are they allowed to sit so far from the camera? There was a request to zoom in and they just said we can’t. End.

Does anyone else just want to drop in for a few minutes and rearrange the camera and mic position for them to improve the quality of the video and the audio stream? And show them the settings for basic stuff so that they can see what they need and adjust it to their preferences?

I believe they are being kind to SK because of his adjustments so are not pushing the need for him to be nearer to the camera. BC I was actually very pleasant and kind to him which probably annoys stonewall as they wanted SK to appear a vulnerable little chap bullied by Big Ben

It's almost funny that the SW team keep delaying the proceedings "to set up the room" and then they are so extremely bad at it.

But they haven’t demonstrated that it was directed by senior people at SW (for example by people like SSS).

Does that matter? I would have thought that it is still their responsibility - they should be aware?

Wish I could watch this - thanks to all for commentary.

I saw a TRA on Twitter admitting KM's evidence last week was a car crash (but I expect even that will be our fault for being such scary angry women)

I'm glad these witnesses and defendants' (well Stonewalls) barristers can see decency and straightforwardness in the Claimant and her team. One could be forgiven in thinking it may be for the first time. Maybe BC's modelling will rub off a little and they will all be able to 'do better'. I'm not expecting miracles, but anything would be an improvement.

The witnesses expect kid gloves, all the while being exposed as not quite so exacting in their own behaviour. (to put it mildly) It seems the barristers will admit there are other people present with the witness only if explicitly asked. Tough if you don't ask the right questions, I suppose. Delay seems to be the order of the day. Not to mention the deconstructionist 'bundle' and a camera that serves more to zoom out rather than zoom in.