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

I have every sympathy but I honestly thought she was having a revelatory moment.

I have to go in to work for a meeting in 45 minutes. Gutted! I thought she might not be that relevant.

Just got in. I’m not in court today, writing a report at home, so I have this on in the background.

It feels like she could break down at any moment. She still seems quite emotional. It shows how stressful it is for everyone.

GCC barristers - they were all too busy to actually look at what they were supporting and agreeing to.

All such busy bees...

When my sister died, I didn’t use it to make an excuse to bully someone, nor did I sign important documents

The workload barristers are under is relevant, isn’t it? So much must pass under the radar in terms of policy development and the positioning of Chambers on issues that seem (to a person advocating in a murder trial) unimportant or to do with ‘internal’ employment ‘stuff’.

It doesn’t excuse it. You can’t manage people like that.

I have to assume that she is making reference to a case she was in the middle of, she'd been approached to be a syndicate leader etc. I should think that she was paying due care and attention to those.

AB's case deserved the respect of comparable attention, given the gravity of the consequences for AB. There is no indication that GCC engaged in due diligence for this affair.

Surely as a lawyer she knows that 'ignorance of the law is no defence' !

I would contrast the empathy shown here by the vipers for JK compared to the gleeful way TRAs wish death on women and delighted in the death of Magdalen Burns

Managed to log in on my iPad for the first time ever. JK appears to be another who is now much better-informed than she was then….….…and as a barrister, and one-time Head of Chambers, can’t follow long questions?? 🤔

Everyone reacts differently to grief, some people lash out at innocent bystanders etc.

I'm not making excuses, but could see how misplaced anger could have been directed.

From a lot of the answers I've heard none of them actually knew exactly what they were agreeing to and were blinded by the name of Stonewall. Nobody looked any further in to it, even after it was brought to their attention, they just doubled down.

That s very sad. But in a sense, it shows that destroying Allison was just routine to them, if she had really thought about the implications of that statement , she would not have done it at that time.

I am so glad to see the empathy here for poor JK, despite our disagreements with her stance and behaviours.

I hate the way GC women are painted as vicious hags lacking in any ability to see outside our blinkered, bigoted point of view.

It is simply not true, is it. We have got to this point because we see the danger to women of gender ideology - the danger to all women, across class, race, age, educational background, sexuality… and with the women at the intersections of disadvantage most at risk from an ideology that says any male should be able to access any female same space.

Could someone please clarify - the statement that JK made - was that a statement about investigating Allison or JK’s witness statement?

thank you

Her statement I believe.

I can also sympathise with her position of being hugely busy at work, and just not giving things they care and attention they deserve. I'm not saying that's okay. I'm saying it's certainly something I've done in the day job. I suspect most of us have.

Excellent post Simonedinovoir

Once again pp not realising how much Stonewall had changed.

If she didn't understand what self ID was, I wonder what she thinks about it now?

JK is saying that she wasn't aware of what Stonewall were campaigning for at the time and thought they were a mainstream LGBT organisation. I think this is what has happened with most organisations that have signed up - they have taken Stonewall on trust as a well established LGB campaigning group.

Those of you who know how these things work will this lack of knowledge or due dilligence go in Allison's favour?

There are two statements - this case was taken to an earlier preliminary hearing when GCC tried to get the whole claim thrown out. JK produced a witness statement for that claim (which was denied) which accused Allison of bringing a vexatious claim. That earlier statement was the one BC was referring to and the one signed around the time of her sister's death.

Just logged on - JK seems very sad.