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

That's exactly what happened, Tasteful.

LOL. I wonder how AH feels about having all these barristers as his client. I'm starting to actually feel sorry for him!

We don't like to speculate, Android...and the monitors are watching, so we're being circumspect.

I can't remember what actually constituted the 'Twitter storm'. But I wonder if it was the usual stream of batshittery.

@ifIwerenotanandroid I believe the vulnerable male at GCC is David Neale, a legal researcher. Leslie Thomas QC referred to him being vulnerable and needing protection but didn't say why he is vulnerable (DN's bio here says he has autism, but there may be something else).
www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/clerks-and-staff/david-neale

The constant refrain of ‘I don’t really use Twitter’ is getting beyond reasonable now.

No, that's fine. I didn't know whether the issue had been mentioned in the tribunal & was out in the open. Thanks.

We're soon going to have to shine the @ickkysymbol up into the sky to get rescued by a new thread.

is it just this, or we all like this in many ways on many issues but I myself am just as blind on those other ones?

This has certainly made me a lot more careful in my beliefs and a lot more critical of everything.

Quoting myself, I know. But it would be useful to see exactly what sort of tweets the people in Chambers gave credence to.

Is there ever going to have been a 'right time' for the barristers in this chambers to have given what Allison has alerted them to the attention she deserved?

Seriously, how many times can these barristers use the 'I was [insert] and too busy /stressed ' to put much effort into it.

Interesting hearing just now on an FOI request refusal from CPS on communication with SW, around the CPS Hate Crime school guide that was withdrawn in response to JR application on it.

Link to thread live tweeting here

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Thank you, Party. I saw some of LT but missed that bit.

Thanks as ever, Ickky!

It is also staggering that they paid so much more heed to the barely literate anonymous rants of complaint than to the voices in support at the same time.

While we're having a break, can anyone explain how you do use twitter? Every time I've tried it just seems to be tweets and retweets and then I find myself on a strand of a thread that's moved away from the original tweet. I must be doing something wrong!

Does anyone know who is on after JK?

Yes, she’s done that a few times with AH I think.

well not that particular, but he’s interjected saying ‘I’m sorry but Are we still on this page’ and she’s been the one to respond saying ‘yes’ or ‘it’s page xyz’ or whatever, (showing that she knows what BC is talking about, it’s fine, no need to interject on my part sort of thing)

"Vulnerable" is not a blanket definition that applies every day surely? I say that as someone who has a long term health condition, and have had the benefit of adjustments made for me and a great deal of personal support. I am not vulnerable though. It's not a word that has come up in anywhere I've ever worked, no matter what people were going through. Saying that, most of my colleagues over the years have been women...

Can someone explain how they were all so aware of potential reputational damage on Twitter, of the 'Twitter storm', of it all kicking off there, when none of them appear to have read any of it?

If they are only reading Allison's tweets, where's the storm? None of them appear to have been reading any of the replies?

I wish Ben would ask what exactly was said that they considered was damaging to their reputation.

showing that she knows what BC is talking about, it’s fine, no need to interject on my part sort of thing

If it was me, and I felt like I was doing fine but my lawyer was interjecting anyway, I'd assume that I was on dangerous territory for the case and I hadn't realised it. Seems really odd to just brush it off.

So far Datun the reason given is that de Menezes had told them so. So we'll have to wait to see if he gives evidence.

can anyone explain how you do use twitter?

I follow people and read what they tweet, like or retweet when it appears on my screen. If I find something interesting I click on the tweet and that opens up lots of other people's responses to the tweet as well.

Personally I am anonymous and rarely actually tweet or reply.

Yes, and I see that Ben already went there.

BC: so your position is that difference is the twitter storm but you had not looked at the twitter storm?

Thank you. I'll perhaps take a look later.