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

Is David de Menezes going to be a witness? From looking at how the complaints process went on in GCC, that could be highly illuminating.

Is this witness the person who wrote the tweet saying Allison was being investigated?

They do & in this case, very rapidly expose their indignant fragility.

The psychology is really interesting. They all start off in their professional personae and end up inadvertently revealing so much about themselves and their own personal hangups! (All the GCC people I mean, I'm not accusing the Stonewall lot of being professional at any point.)

It's an interesting contrast to AG who started off putting her own personal vulnerability out there in the witness statement and managed to stay completely professional on the witness stand for days.

typo - AG should be AB obviously

Are we on a break? Just logged back in and have a black screen

I reckon it’ll be cutted up pear by 4pm

Maybe it’s easier for MHL to admit GCC got suckered because she wasn’t the one pulling the strings.

So who was? Will she say??!

Every time I'm reading "MHL" on the Twitter feed I'm thinking "mediocre hot lawyer".

First (email) complaint is from Julian is that AB was involved with the LGB Alliance.

Second (email) complaint is anonymous and should have been discarded. MHL agrees.

Third (email) complaint is from Carl is that AB was involved with the LGB Alliance.

Fourth (email) complaint is from Tracy is that AB was involved with the LGB Alliance.

BC making the point that these are not substantive complaints needing a resolution but are effectively just venting.

It is refreshing to hear succinct answers, even in disagreement.

No we're not on a break

No, it's in progress. Perhaps log out and back in?

Mental Health Lawyer, I can't see 'em. Just got this thread.

BC: when you looked through them [the tweets being abusive about AB sent to GCC] did you think there were signs here that AB was being subject to abuse on twitter?

BC: Someone called DICK Warlock on the page, uses the term "virulent transphobe", doesn't he?

BEN is loving reading out these tweets in court, isn't he? What a great moment!

EJ looks tired.

And that's just 2 weeks of (concentrated) trans lunacy.

I'm reminded of that skeletons-on-a-rollercoaster meme... The state of some of us 5-year veterans...

MHL: I don't have twitter so I didn't go on twitter [to check anything about context]

Another one not on Twitter to look at responses.

Funny, because I am not on Twitter, and yet I've been able to see the responses. You only needed to look.

Most of that @Gabcsika was talking about the timetable and order of witnesses and AH's funeral on Friday (not his personally). Then SH interrupted proceedings by debating on the phone about what days she'd prefer to give evidence as she hadn't muted herself. You didn't miss much.

I reckon it’ll be cutted up pear by 4pm

😁

It is fabulously illuminating about behaviour and psychology - no matter how impressive AB is, after seeing the other witnesses I'm starting to think that no one could be that clear, coherent and disciplined unless they did actually have a profound conviction that they had done nothing wrong. (For the record, I never doubted that AB did, of course. But now starting to doubt that anyone could fake it.)

😁We can't take the chance of getting darked on

It appears no one at GCC is on Twitter...

Ahh, the machinations of Michelle Brewer to stir it up. Assuming she does give evidence, that's going to be a doozy.

It's amazing how every single person in GCC seems to have been far too busy to pay any attention to what was happening.

I understand why as individuals they'd take that line but isn't it rather damning for them as a collective? Can an organisation disown responsibility for its behaviour on account of everyone being busy?