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

It's just absolute rubbish. If someone sends you a link to a tweet. You click on that link. The replies are immediately obvious underneath. You'd have to be really trying to not see the stuff below. It's crazy.

The difference stimpyyouidiot is that you would want to find out what was going on. The GCC people didn't want to find out what was going on. These barristers and QCs only wanted to be told what was going on.

'It's provocative language' - really JK? How would you describe the slurs that chambers never addressed that Alex Sharpe tweeted?

I am really tired of hearing the double standards being allowed here.

JK blundered there in suggesting that AB should have notified them of the twitter storm that she was about to provoke that would then have impact on GCC.

Here's the anger against Allison

for a chambers full of people who don’t use Twitter, they’re incredibly aware of twitter storms and the impact thereof…..

Ask the question BC: how was AB to know all that was going to happen in terms of the incredible response on twitter, as JK is suggesting she would?

Ben Cooper is absolutely right. Khan IS shifting blame to Allison.

'she should have told us.. she should have ...'

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

.

Haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread yet, so sorry if this has already been shared

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f6d89580-d5f1-11ec-bb99-1bcd45646516?shareToken=89c4dcd72cba27b1c40762b878c2004c

What about someone who is potentially on 4 times more than Lee Anderson? who receives that money as 'contributions' because they claim poverty?

Not only do it seem unlikely but I genuinely think most barristers would lie (at least to themselves) rather than admit to being so clueless. I've been trying to figure out why they are all saying this and (while it could easily be that they are all inept) I wonder whether another makes sense to any lawyers out there?

If Alison were claiming discrimination on the grounds of being black or lesbian then the defence of busy, useless disinterest would not fly; but she is trying to show discrimination because of her beliefs which requires them to dislike those beliefs to some degree. I think they are trying to argue that it's not discrimination because they didn't care.

If they can admit that they failed by not listening to Alison but cause enough doubt that her drop in earnings is seen as a separate issue caused by chance then their failures don't amount to harm, or at least not much financial harm.

.

Oops sorry, I thought everyone had gone over to the next thread already. Will stop filling this one up.

Apposite, Tiphaine!

this weeks GCC witnesses have been a great example as to how well meaning intelligent busy people are so easily manipulated by "be kind" & TWAW. This whole debacle is because these people haven't taken the time to think about the issues, to be curious as to why JKR and thousands of left leaning women are being pubilcly demonised.

They believed in Stonewall off the back of gay rights, they think trans rights must be the same and they aren't engaged with current affairs enough to think "hang on there is something I need to know about going on here".

The damage isn't merely caused direcly by Stonewalls actions but by otherwise "reputable" organisations going along blindly led by trans activist organisation Stonewall.

GCC was terrifed of being called "transphobic" but had not interest in exploring what transphobia is. If they hand been even a tiny bit curious they would quickly have realised EVERYTHING is transphobic.

I liked the bit when JK referred to reading to an email when she was in the "ladies robing room".

A special room just for females to undress in presumably.

As an excuse for signing off documents without checking them properly, I’m shocked that a QC thinks that checking emails on their phone during an important trail is a reasonable excuse for missing details. If I was employing that QC I would be very unhappy that they were not giving my case their full attention.
as for being a member of the Stonewall Diversity Scheme, it seems that membership is tantamount to an admittance of their own incompetence - outsourcing difficult issues to another body rather than having an in-house policy.

IIRC, the so-called "Twitter storm" aimed at GCC amounted to 42 tweets from 26 users.

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

'Don't you need to ask yourself the basic question is there anything to say Allison is transphobic or in breach of the equality act?'
Quite right Ben, she did nothing wrong and then they tweeted out that she was being investigated.
And she knows he's right.

And her answer is it was because of what was happening on twatter.

.

.

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