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

A male bodied person who wanted to go to the prom needed a dress so went to monsoon, apparently.

they then took to Twitter in outrage to say they were denied the opportunity to try one on, because the changing rooms for women only. And they weren't allowed in.

Monsoon responded by apologising and offering them a free prom dress.

Turns out the person is a 28-year-old transactivist. And, according to the big cheese at monsoon, was only asked to wait until the changing rooms were empty.

i'd show you the thread on here, but I can't bloody work the search properly. And I've tried several times!

With regard to the issue of the conflict of rights between transwomen and women, and it's presence in the public domain /mainstream media - the BBC ran an article re Fairplay for Women's analysis of statistics of transwomen's commission of crimes (esp sexual offences), which the Spectator then commented on, back in Aug 2018
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629
www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-the-bbc-scared-of-the-transgender-debate-

they then took to Twitter in outrage to say they were denied the opportunity to try one on, because the changing rooms for women only. And they weren't allowed in.

The version I saw was that they were simply asked to wait until the women currently in the changing room had vacated it. But this was still an outrageous violation of their rights, of course.

If they didn’t look at the detail provided by a colleague in defence of herself/ to support her complaint when they were in the eye of a damaging Twitter storm it’s because they didn’t want to do so.

Why, it's almost the definition of bigotry!

Now that MNHQ have improved the searching capability here, if you need to find anything on MN you'll have a lot more luck going out of this site and searching using Google. Shame that this means more data to Google but that's how things are.

That was a slam dunk, wasn’t it?? The confidentiality bit?

Completely explains what we're seeing here, thanks.

Am in a meeting so can't listen - what was the confidentiality bit

I can get on board with JK's point that no one cared about the issue at GCC, but what this meant was it opened the door to a small number of zealots,

Aren't they sort of making AB's point by saying they didn't care, at least far as them being influenced by Stonewall? They didn't behave in the neutral manner that you would expect people who don't care about the issue to behave. They outsourced their thinking.

The complaints policy said that confidentiality was assured for the complainant and the subject of the complaint. GCC tweeted that AB was being investigated.

I think she’s just admitted that this was wrong.

she = SK

Sorry, JK!!

Ah yes I think that came up earlier in other witness evidence

The age old debate of 'when is a complaint a complaint'. A tricky question, having worked in complaint management, I can say. Do you record everything, every critical communication as a complaint however submitted and whatever the content?

They just managed to fuck this thing up every step of the way didn't they.

Re the earlier discussion about whose vulnerability trumps whose - I think the GCC barristers are arguably displaying the natural consequences of a particular (liberal?) feminist view that women are 'equal' with men, and shouldn't have special treatment because of being female, and life is hard for men now because the traditional mores of masculinity aren't encouraged any more, so a man being or feeling vulnerable DOES deserve special treatment or accommodations, whereas women are and/or should be strong and tough feminists able to just 'lean in' and get on with things.

Plus, my psychologist friend, a very kind woman, responded to my TWAW concerns with 'but they ARE women!' because that appears to be what she was taught in her psych training. I assume that must be pretty widespread.

And the Mail from November 2017:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117669/Girlguiding-issues-controversial-advice-trans-members.html

Certainly there are fewer articles, the further back you go. But this is not a new issue.

Aren't they sort of making AB's point by saying they didn't care, at least far as them being influenced by Stonewall? They didn't behave in the neutral manner that you would expect people who don't care about the issue to behave. They outsourced their thinking.

That is my take on it too. They outsourced their thinking, they were too busy to deal with it, they couldn't upset their vulnerable colleague (NOT AB), etc etc. Upshot: AB was dealt with unfairly.

Yes. A PP earlier helpfully described the order of witnesses as moving through zealots to enforcers and then high clergy. JK is coming across to me as an unwitting enforcer. I'm looking forward to the high clergy category. I don't think we are there yet.

What did the tweet say?

I guess all of them will eventually reach a point where they can no longer defend the indefensible

I just cannot imagine if my employer TWEETED out that someone, by NAME, at my company was being investigated. It just seems so unbelievably wrong in so many ways. Even the MP who is being investigated for rape right now retains anonymity.

DickWarlock gets another shout-out!

"Dick Warlock" gets another shout out!

Yes. That's another one.

I know there were articles and reporting, because they were responsible for my 'are we making some headway here barometer'.

I can appreciate that people who have only read the Guardian, and maybe don't have children at school, and don't go on social media might be unaware, and may also dismiss it as some kind of niche issue.

But not when it's come up as a specific problem in your own work place, with your own workforce in conflict with each other. And you're being asked to address it!

"Pyjamagame · 19/05/2022 11:53

The age old debate of 'when is a complaint a complaint'. A tricky question, having worked in complaint management, I can say. Do you record everything, every critical communication as a complaint however submitted and whatever the content?"

I run my own business and have similar concerns. At the risk of going too off topic, surely a complaint is one in writing from a named individual (or a person who is explaining why they need to remain anonymous) that follows the terms of the CHP?

The bigger issue is the extent to which you ignore moaning on the internet, and the extent to which you reach out to random moaners, offer them your CHP and give them every opportunity to turn their "twitter vent" into an actual complaint, if they wish.