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

AH querying someone having downloaded Mr Menons witness statement.

Next witness:
Mia Hakl-Law
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES
www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/clerks-and-staff/mia-hakl-law
"Mia is a member of Garden Court Chambers Senior Management Team. She heads the Operations Team and is responsible for Garden Court’s staff and physical resources, including Administration, Compliance, Facilities and Human Resources. She also handles external client feedback and complaints. Mia has particular interest in equality and diversity issues.
Mia pioneered the Access to the Bar for All scheme, which won the Diversity Initiative of the Year at the UK Diversity Legal Awards 2017. She is responsible for managing this Long Term Mentoring Scheme in chambers.
Mia joined Garden Court in 2015, and she has 15 years’ experience of chambers and barristers practice management, having previously worked at Doughty Street Chambers.
Mia has a BSc (Hons) in Economics and Social Policy and a postgraduate Degree in Research in Human Rights Law. She is a fluent Bosnian speaker."

NoImAVeronica

I think we are!

AH fussing about timings when his team's crappy 'patchwork' bundle has cost so much time is taking the absolute p.

I'm amused at the statement that JK "has a murder starting on Monday", like someone would have in their diary their plan to kill someone over a number of days.

OMFG Get on with it.

The faffing! Omg !

Jane Russell sponsored by Apple again.

Stephanie Harrison having a nice chat.

Cringe!

Ye gods! 😂

Someone has logged in as LiesDoNotBecomeUs and Ms Harrison was discussing her diary in full hearing of all the tribunal.

Catching up on this new thread with my mouth open.

Absurdly and irrationally irked by MS stressing that she was a 'friend' of Allison's. If that were true, and if she still felt able to investigate, wouldn't she start from a point of seeking to understand Allison's point? Knowing that Allison is an intelligent person of decency and integrity, and having some insight into her background, wouldn't she think there must be a good deal of evidence for her arriving at the conclusions she had?

Maybe 'friendship' is just another word Stonewall would have us redefine.

This is definitely another comedy section of the film.

She was saying she didn't want to have her evidence split up.

FFS.

Wow, that was some ride of a read! Must have been aMAZing to actually watch!

It seems this is an exercise in how to avoid defending the indefensible, while suddenly realising how indefensible it is and what a muppet one has made of oneself!

Thanks again to all of you for your brilliant posts. This looks like it's truly landmark stuff, even if it doesn't provide actual precedent.

I can't understand how anyone can try to dispute the meaning of cotton ceiling, especially when the gay men's equivalent is "boxer ceiling" - shame Ben Cooper didn't bring that in, but I suppose it's entirely irrelevant to the current case.

Yeah, it's the 'are we the baddies' moment.

@GCRich NK said in a letter to the BBC, in relation to an article the BBC were writing about lesbians who wouldn't sleep with transwomen and the coercion they felt, that such lesbians were 'sexual racists'
^www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html^

Thanks - should have remembered that. I was wondering if there was an element of her trying to play both sides, but no, she was outright supporting heterosexual sex for same sex attracted women.

Are Stonewall currently subject to a complaint to the charity commission on the basis that they need to (1) stop claiming to represent the LGB, and (2) stop attacking protected minorities - their job is to support trans people not destroy others.

Also someone logged in as 'Peaky'

Ha ha at MHL's advice email that GCC shouldn't engage with angry twitter people because it's the best way forward.

I think the tribunal should find for Allison on the basis of incompetent investigation, for sure. The key to the whole case of course is what else can be proved - and Alison’s case regarding the other planks is looking better by the day (I think).

MS was so hostile to BC (& probably to these whole proceedings) that she wasn't even listening to him/his questions! She then had the affront to pull him up on the wording he was using when he invariably did repeat it, or to point her to the pages/paragraphs where he had already taken her to, and repeatedly made out she did not understand, or even know what, question he was asking her. She also repeatedly referred to her report (& I think also her statement) that she had supplied the information/the answers were there in her report/statement, even as brazen to say so to EJ, when she was asking MS to answer the questions & EJ herself actually put BC's question to her again.

She was so infuriated near the end of her questioning by BC (before she even got to threatening him that he better watch what he was suggesting about her actions) that she actually bounced up and down in her chair a couple of times, just like an infuriated toddler does when they are told No or aren't getting what they want!

MS didn't appear to understand that the purpose of calling witnesses in cases (both civil and criminal) is to hear/test the evidence they have provided in their statements/reports etc, and depending on their answers to these questions, to explore their evidence further if then required (you know, to prove/disprove the allegations). If people were able to simply submit statements/reports to the courts, and not have to appear and go through their evidence etc, then people could make up write any old shite they wanted, and skip off into the sunset, leaving Judges, Prosecutors, Defence Lawyers and Juries to read the "evidence" themselves and come to a decision. I mean, come on!!!!

I would think, from the farce that GCC have put on, in regards to "investigating" the complaints etc against & treatment of AB, their alleged total ignorance of Trans matters / social media / twitter, or even how to enter numbers in their computer to search for page numbers or wearing "earmuffs" to prevent feedback etc, nevermind their outrageous behaviour whilst in the witness box, that no sane person would ever instruct GCC to act on their behalf in either criminal or civil cases. They appear to be a bunch of complete unprofessional incompetents.

Also someone logged in as Leela WORIADS

Do we have a grown up on the stand?