Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 7

[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

Thread 6 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4550451-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-6

MS - was listening to her when she said it, she appears and says in terms on her oath that this is her view SW running criminal protection racket, if BC thinks illuminative way of approaching tweet,
EJ - we have had the point

MS disparaging Counsel for the Claimant?

Sorry, autocorrect -

Ikky - I think she did a poor job basically, aided and abetted by GCC

What other place of work allows 'friends' to investigate their 'friends'? Is this normal practice in barristers' chambers?

It sounds mad and unethical to me.

Thanks nauticant, I understand now.

MS's commitment to finding that document is indeed noteworthy Clymene. Especially since having found it, MS decided that she needed to learn nothing more about the Cotton Ceiling.

Next up, Ms Haka-Law.

Ooh MHL after lunch!

I really need to be doing something else but I'm gripped by this

And after apparently doing 'research' not come up with anything sensible.

For those stuck inside an epistemic bubble, "research" would be better described as "apologetics". Trying to find something to justify a viewpoint that you know has already been decided as the correct one within your group.

Wrong but me, that should be Mia Hakl-Law.

I would very much like to see what she found. Is it in her statement?

Break now until 2pm Mia is up next.

I'm not using Twitter much for my own sanity - I wonder what the TRAs think of progress so far?

@VestofAbsurdity

Ben Cooper was asking about Allison's tweet on the Morgan Page workshop under the false assumption that a screenshot of the workshop blurb was attached to the tweet.

It's been corrected now that the blurb wasn't attached to the tweet but MS confirmed that she saw the blurb when she did her report so it's all moot anyway.

Did IO not have any questions for MS?

I couldn't possibly be impartial if i was writing a report on a friend at work and i would admit that straight away.
It wouldn't be fair to either party.

No due to 'time' which I don't believe for a second.

So MKH next - at some point are we expecting MB & SH to appear? I know yesterday there was a reference to MB's witness statement and I noticed one to SH's today, but does this mean they'll be gracing the tribunal with their presence in person?

No, Vest - she was conscious of the time, she said.

Thanks @IdisagreeMrHochhauser

Thanks all.

But MS must've searched a few years ago? And if the workshop was current back then, it might've been higher up the search results?

Don't know, just suggesting a possible reason.

MS - seriously offensive, to align anyone's activity with facism, v serious, seriously offensive

What is this in response to? Was she intending to call out the Stonewall gang there? It was AH asking the questions, so that doesn't seem to fit.

It's been corrected now that the blurb wasn't attached to the tweet but MS confirmed that she saw the blurb when she did her report so it's all moot anyway

MS had plenty of time to mention this when she was giving her long, tortuous evidence. Unusual approach.

Wonder if the confusion was based on a quote tweet? Anyway I don't think it's crucial other than it looked like Ben made an error but I'm sure they'll correct it again if anything else comes up over lunch.

Attached is the advert for the 'overcoming the cotton ceiling' workshop. Here is Planned Parenthood Toronto's fuller explanation, on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/PPToronto/posts/in-january-of-2012-planned-parenthood-toronto-in-partnership-with-other-local-pr/10150615471958021/
It is utterly ghastly - here is the main bit:

"The purpose of the workshop 'Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women' is to draw attention to the ways in which trans women are socially constructed as undesirable, and are denied full participation in queer women’s communities.
Stigma and social exclusion can have immense impacts on the health and well-being of all marginalized people, trans women included.
PPT’s mandate is one of equity; as such, we strongly stand behind queer trans women’s right to participate as full members of LGBTQ communities, and are committed to promoting and upholding trans women’s sexual health and well-being. Our programming for LGBTQ women serves all women who have sex with women (WSW), and since trans women are women, we provide programming that addresses the needs of the lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, and queer-identified trans women in our community.

The issue of sexual consent is absolutely paramount at our organization. We believe that all people have the right to say “no” to sex and to exercise other forms of control over their bodies.
The workshop does not and was never intended to advocate or promote overcoming any individual woman’s objections to sexual activity.
Instead, this workshop explores the ways in which ideologies of transphobia and transmisogyny impact sexual desire." <insert puke emoji>

The last sentence entirely contradicts the one before it.

I'm getting the impression that no one at GCC had lifted to the Stonewall stone to see what was underneath, unsurprisingly, given they were probably be marketed to. And when Alison lifted the stone up, they didn't quite grasp it.

And now they do.

And they're also finding out how an awful lot of other people grasped it a lot sooner than they did.

Can't be pleasant.