Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 8

[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

Thread 7 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4551757-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-7

Hurrah for the new thread. Thanks @ickky.

Allison Bailey - claimant

Witnesses for the claimant:
Nic Williams - Fair Play for Women
A Woman's Place
FiLiA
Kate Harris - LGB Alliance

Witnesses for the respondents:
Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC
Kirrin Medcalfe - head of trans inclusion Stonewall
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC and in charge of writing report on AB/complaints
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC

To come - Judy Khan - barrister at GCC
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge

The Tweets he selects to read out are gold!

Thank you!

thanks ickky!

Making it more visible.

Hearing Ben read out those tweets in his calm reassuring voice is not quite how the authors of those tweets envisioned them sounding I am sure.

I hope the authors are very proud.

Thank you, Ickky

FWIW - JK alluded to us 'hearing from the clerks' in due course, so we'll maybe be hearing from some of them too?

Allison uses "provocative language" says JK.
Asserting women's and homosexuals' rights is being "provocative", apparently 😳

Thanks Ickky.

Was that AH going to interject, and JK saying can I just finish?

Does anyone have a link to the launch tweet they're talking about?

The anger is rising in JK. Blaming AB for the abuse AB received on twitter. Blaming AB for harming GCC.
NO concern for GCC opening AB up to abuse, NO concern for effects of Alex Sharpe's tweets on AB, NO concern for AB being a victim of twitter abuse etc.

It's an incredible skill that BC has to just plow on and make his points regardless of how she responds. Nothing she says makes him flap.

It all just seems like resentment at the inconvenience teamed with an assumption that Stonewall were a benign organisation.

Place mark. Thanks for new thread. 🙏

I believe it's one of the "two tweets" IloveHolby:

Launch tweet: twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1188365954255863808

Morgan Page/Cotton Ceiling workshop tweet: twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1175739790181974017

Yep, I completely agree @tabbycatstripy

Thanks @nauticant

This word 'particularly' is being used a lot. It strikes me that she's trying to imply that she wasn't aware but at the same time acknowledging that she was aware in some way, just not interested enough to be usefully aware.

I find this so strange. My chambers is old school to the max but we've been radicalised by Mumsnet aware of this debate and how it impacts our policies and dealings with each other for years. GCC is one of the main players in this field. How could they not have understood the debate at all?

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.

Astonishing that these people who are used to being in courtrooms are finding answering questions so hard to follow

She really doesn’t want to commit to an answer here, does she

Of course, it must also be very sad for trans activists to hear barrister after barrister, witness after witness describing the complete lack of interest they have in these issues.

Even with all the specialised focused groups dealing with trans issues within organisations.

And that when organisations are making these tweets and statements, they are actually NOT doing it out of any interest in trans issues, they really are either virtue signalling for self promotion, or they are doing it out of fear to their reputation.

Even now. When these witnesses are facing discipline for their actions, these witnesses still don't seem to have much interest in the issues at all. Some could not even grasp the concepts even after supposed research.

This tribunal and Maya's has made this very clear.

There is a few very invested people, but the majority simply don't really care or engage enough to actively understand.

This really needs to be mentioned very regularly. No debate has failed them dismally.