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 a longstanding friendship with a trans individual of more than 25 years standing, like you I am not blind to reality.

So this is partly because she wasn’t being paid.

Lifton might tell us this is a thought terminating cliché of our times.

Is DN trans?

Ah... it was all Allison's fault defence. If only she had approached them with evidence then they would have left Stonewall.

And the, I was only a volunteer HoC doing it for the love, defence. Which surely is basically admitting none of them were doing a great job at it.

Is being Head of Chambers such a thankless task bringing nothing but grief as JK is saying, without any benefits, eg kudos, reputation, networking?

Ahh so a forced volunteer, who had no time to pay attention to these matters. That is no way to run a business.

I have to log out for a work meeting now so I expect something sensational will now happen.

It seems to me that GCC has very much focused on 'diversity' - but in doing so, has become absolutely un-diverse in terms of thought, outlook, politics, etc.

This is all screaming out as a huge gap in the market for management consultancy. They could go in to all the chambers and make them more efficiently run and better trade collectives.

Also, it is obvious that no critical thinking took place - GCC were obliviously going along with the ideology. End of. And they kept doing this all the way to the tribunal. Embarrassing.

Apparently DN is vulnerable and has a trans family member and his vulnerability would mean he would be extremely upset by anything he would perceive as being "anti-trans" Ameanstreakamilewide.

I need a facelift. But it isn't an option to have the rest of the world lowered instead.

I like JK's straightforward, non-legalese manner of speaking. I missed the David Neale bits earlier - vulnerabilities then. So why does everyone have to tread on eggshells because of this? Emotional manipulation.

I don't think we should speculate on the personal lives of (potential) witnesses as that got someone in trouble for doing so on Facebook. These threads are being read.

Why didn't they look at this case logically and think about how their behaviour would (rightly) be perceived - the damage to them is huge so I don't understand why they have pushed so hard for this to go ahead to this point. Is it just that they hoped Allison would give up?

‘This is all screaming out as a huge gap in the market for management consultancy.’

I think there’s a gap in the market for a woman on the Clapham omnibus. Let’s market ourselves as ‘common sense check consultants’.

I'm mindful that a number of professions take on activities that aren't paid separately to their day jobs. It's the price of contributing to your profession in addition to public service.

I find it rather odd that JK's assistants or clerks didn't give her the highlights of such an acrimonious email chain, even in passing. The lawyers that I know have never struck me as existing in an office gossip free zone.

Are GCC advancing the 'I'm sorry, the dog ate my homework' defence?

Tabby, I can see a flaw in your plan ....

Good post @SenselessUbiquity .

Wrt the busy-ness of everyone and not looking into things, it is a benefit and weakness of branding isn't it? A brand, at its best, is a promise and a shortcut. It saves the consumer having to do the in-depth research to find products or services which will suit them. Stonewall had such a brand. A strong one, perceived as good, like John Lewis or Boots or Amnesty (hollow laugh).

What I don't understand is that once Allison raised these concerns, no-one took the time to look into them properly it seems.

‘Tabby, I can see a flaw in your plan ....’

Is it that only men are allowed on the omnibus?

I'm picking up a different vibe. More of a, "I had no intention of taking a GCSE in Art, so although I was set the homework to do, I scanned it, realised it would clash with other plans, did part of the work and turned that in as it makes no never mind in my real life. If it had been really important for me to do this, I'd have thought my friends would let me know."

That the woker clients would prefer a more stunning and brave kind of woman

‘That the woker clients would prefer a more stunning and brave kind of woman.’

That is a fly in my ointment.