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

I couldn't followi this afternoon but have just skimmed on here. Is a good summary that JK basically admitted that they investigated AB w/o seeing her side of the story (through carelessness or deliberate oversight) AND did not investigate abuse against her AND treated other controversial tweets more respectively

You rang?

Hahahahaha @ Bosky.

Gosh- I could go a support Twix now 😛

<scrabbles through cupboard>

<no Twix> 😩

<finds a Tunnocks Teacake>

<brightens> 😃

Regarding everyone at GCC claiming that they weren't aware of gender ideology, proposed Gender Recognition Act reform, gender self-id etc etc back in late 2019 - well funny how GCC happened to host a meeting in July 2019 of the Human Rights Lawyers Association entitled "Gender Recognition and Human Rights: Reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004"

twitter.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1151944001290952704?s=21&t=Agdi-UeaqhZ7VF52LQM9ng

Anyone got a feel for how TRA Twitter is taking this week in the tribunal?

twitter.com/notcursedE

I think this person was Patient Zero for all the misguided gloating last week - they were watching, but didn't appear to understand the concept of cross-examination. I wonder if the penny's dropped by now.

I'm amused to note that they agree with Mumsnet on one thing - they'd never hire a barrister from Garden Court! 😀 I think these are satisfactory disgruntlement levels.

Gah! Missed the swears yet again!

I wonder if GCC are doing any kind of soul searching on the back of this. They clearly dropped the ball badly on this, and massively compromised their professional standards, on top of shafting someone they say was a valued friend and colleague, on the back of sketchy 'evidence' that they didnt bother reading properly never mind dig into thoroughly.

All they have is excuses and buck passing and it is so clear that some of them feel betrayed by Allison taking them to tribunal.

I wonder if any if them are asking why and how an organisation full of the sharpest minds in the country dedicated to fighting injustice ended up here. How did they fuck up so spectacularly. How did they completely and utterly disregard Allisons point of view and throw hher under this bus with such disregard. How did they abandon their principles to this extent.

It wasn’t so much that she blamed her, but BC put to her something like ‘At one point you were made aware of the threats to AB’
JK: Agrees
BC: So why did you not then put up tweets condemning these threats
JK: blah blah, don’t really know, had Allison asked us to publicly condemn them then we would have but she didn’t.

If anyone else has a better recollection please feel free to correct

This!

You may be right regarding that weasel, Critical, but there was definitely another one that sneaked in under cover of "Louise'll" - I heard it too, android. Must be like Toad of Toad Hall in there...

I've attended previous meetings of the Human Rights Lawyers Association in association with Big Brother Watch, iirc. I recall being very put out that I couldn't attend that one. Just as well from the look of that thread as it would have been enormously frustrating to be present for such game-playing.

Oh good, I'm not going mad. Maybe they're having a competition to see how many animals they can get into the tribunal. So far we've got a dog, a cat, a wren & 2-3 weasels.

Re the BC swearing- it reminds me of when I was a Trainee solicitor and attended a hearing for one of our clients (for the purposes of notetaking). The other side muttered something under his breath and the Judge asked his barrister to clarify what he had said. The barrister shuffled then said 'He called her a See You Next Tuesday'.

Our barrister - both well spoken and softly spoken said very politely ;' I think the word was Cunt, Your Honour'.

Yes, absolutely. I can't remember when the erroneous first ET decision in Maya's case was handed down, but perhaps they really fell for the "not worthy in a democratic society" BS at first. But surely they should have realised after Maya's EAT judgment vindicated her that the landscape had changed and quietly settled with Allison?

Ahh yes Tunnocks is the support treat of choice for us GC's. 🍫

Good find! Also second tweet in the thread:

"Garden Court Chambers had held an event on the GRA two years previous."

twitter.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1151944932631994369

Someone has thoughtfully put it all through Threadreader and then archived:

web.archive.org/web/20220519161822/threadreaderapp.com/thread/1151944001290952704.html

Thank you so much! That doc is exactly what I was missing

😂

GCC must be in a difficult place right now. In attempting to appear utterly fair and liberal they appear to have switched off logic and in so doing may have perpetrated a gross unfairness against a person with multiple protected characteristics expressing a protected belief.

Not quite knights in shining armour after all.

Ben turns off his laptop with a contented smile and whistles for the Support Wren

Mrs Ben is waiting for them in the kitchen, with a Support Twix for Ben and a Support woodlouse for the Support Wren.

"We played a blinder, Mrs Ben" mumbles Ben though his Support Twix. "Couldn't 'a done it without this little fella." <gently strokes Support Wren>

"Yes, Ben. I read it all on Mumsnet."

"Oh, great! Good reviews?" <does small victory dance to tune whistled by Support Wren>

"They certainly are."

"Whey-hey!" <air punch>

"But Ben"

"Yes, Mrs Ben?"

"Stop using lip balm. It's giving them conniptions"

"Oh. Ok"

<Ben and Wren rush in to turn the TV on. >

"Which DVD d'ye want Wren? Clangers or Bagpuss? Or there's Noggin . . . "

I thought Ben was openly gay? Or did I imagine that?

I think, if there is a spouse, it's Ben and Mr Ben, in fact. But otherwise I am sure that is uncannily accurate.

Also support woodlouse. 😁

The tribunal is covered in this piece:

Fair trials at risk with online courts

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7843894c-d6a9-11ec-8585-951ab3afb4d2?shareToken=b4460551df2535692eb952e583d2e340

The comments (mostly saying online = better public access) are worth a read.

I am getting confused. Has MB been called yet? She is now a judge isn’t she? I can see that she was a director of Gendered Intelligence from May 2019 to January 2020 and GI put out a tweet in October 2019 to ‘encourage everyone to write a letter of to GCC expressing your concern about the barrister in question…’. And this was copied into GCC and Stonewall.
Was MB also a member of GCC at this time?
🤔