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

'anti trans' is such a disingenuous term, I'm glad JK has agreed it wasn't approrpiate.

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

Certainly when you have working with official Good People whose whole raison d'etre is to be Good - and that's the value they're giving to your organisation, making the Good rub off on you - someone suggesting they might not be entirely good is indeed extremely inconvenient.

This is the core problem with all this "DEI" stuff - having "Good checkers" who have the sort of power that inevitably leads to corruption, and crushes inconvenient people.

It effectively neutralises all sorts of normal checks and balances, and stuff we had previously installed to support whistleblowers, etc.

Break now until 2pm.

blimey another thread already .....

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.

If GCC was so worried about having their reputation damaged by people like Dick Warlock, I wonder why their buddies at Stonewall didn't help them out...

Argh! I seem to be doomed to never hear BC read out choice tweets. Best I’ve managed to catch are ‘lesbian knickers’ and (I think) something about a bunch of arseholes…

From the previous thread:

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

This is EXACTLY what I see as happening in schools. Stonewall are a trusted organisation and some people therefore haven't bothered looking in to the detail. They (the schools and teachers) are going to be in HUGE trouble when their ignorance is exposed as poor safeguarding. "I trusted X" is not an adequate excuse.

NecessaryScene, I agree. It is as if some people in different demographics have their list of the issues which are "good" and without thinking about it too much all have the same view. It is what I am glad my children avoid even if it is very hard work that all 5 of them and I have different views we are constantly debating and indeed change views. It is very easy to have the one view with which you were brought up whether that be woke left Blairite - the "champagne socialists" as we used to call them who were and still are very prevalent in the law in London, when I almost had to hide I voted Tory. I am prepared to work with people who don't vote Tory and I can accept there are good people who voted Brexit - I voted remain; good people who have very different views from me but this rise of the woke left which has virtually over taken the liberal left seems to be a rise of a one thought only, one view only kind of person who lives in an echo chamber with others who also tick off the same list of the "good" causes and woe betide anyone with a different view.

I accept I am very different from many others. I am even in the 9% who have not had the covid vaccine but the number of people, London law type people who assume my views must be XYZ is really strange. I never assume someone's views will be of a particular kind because they are my class or my sex yet so many of these types do.

Somehow I find it even more disturbing when BC reads out the tweets - his dispassionate approach really clearly indicates how awful they are

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.

I think this is a really important point helle, and one that will get overlooked. People nodding along in the training, not really absorbing it because when they're questioned directly, they are so wishy-washy about what they really think. so many of these top, clever, liberal, diverse barristers have maintained they are "still learning" and "not really aware of the issues".

If that's true, it's frustrating. If it's not, it's even worse. They either haven't understood or something is making them very much not want to describe their views in any depth.

Exactly. There was clearly an assumption it was the right thing to do. That assumption was easily exploited by Stonewall.

Are we likely to hear more Stonewall people?

Allison's LBGA launch Tweet of 22 October 2019 @11.12pm:
'This is an historic moment for the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual movement. LGB Alliance launched in London tonight, and we mean business. Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match.'

Nowt wrong with that.

I can’t help feeling these clever barristers had identified this dispute as a “hot potato” which would either end in them throwing AB to the wolves or GCC being monstered in the press for traducing its liberal values. No one wanted to dirty their hands. It would explain why no one was looking into it properly - too dangerous. Announcing the investigation was damaging to AB and apparently in breach of their own policy, but is like our dear PM announcing the latest investigation to kick something into the long grass until the public hubbub goes away.

You missed these beauties. I don't know how he keeps a straight face: must be that thing of taking time to get into the right place he mentioned yesterday.

Yes, hearing him say 'lesbian's knickers' was my personal highlight from yesterday. It was quite astonishing (clutches pearls, sinks onto chaise longue).

I think there is something about how some people, say, some men my age and older, are actually deep-down full of resentment and irritation about anything they think of as "right on" and they think it's all obstructive nonsense. They have been convinced over many years of patient training by HR depts that they aren't allowed to make racist or sexist remarks, but in their hearts they do adhere to their structural superiority, they just can't admit it. Now, apparently, "we are supposed to do anything that is required of us by [perhaps a phrase about a certain sex in a certain garment]" they think crossly, "along with everything else" - but it is no more or less ridiculous than anything else that they already resent. So there is no analysis from them either, because their analysis is just that everything was fine "before" and now we have to pretend to respect people that we actually don't, just to keep our jobs and seniority.

Re Dick Warlock: This is the actual name of an American stunt performer and actor who worked extensively on movies during the 1980s - particularly on John Carpenter movie like The Thing and Big Trouble In Little China. His name pops up often on the credits of cult movies from back then and never fails to get a laugh in the Vulture household.

Mr Warlock is currently aged 82 and thus unlikely to be heavily involved in this case.

ifIwerenotanandroid Ah, thanks for that! One day I’ll catch one… Bloody awful tweets though. Honestly awful.

It has been astonishing to witness the (professed) lack of interest in Allison's side of the argument. Is this a strategy on their behalf (even though ignorance is no defense) or was it an unconscious bias at the time because Stonewall was seen as some sort of Sacred Cow?

I think it’s telling that several of them claim their position has nothing to do with an anti-GC perspective or pro Stonewall stance, but they take issue with the phrase ‘trans extremism’. Would they be similarly critical of any other use of the word ‘extremism’? If AB was campaigning against the far right (race extremism) or making an argument against religious fundamentalism (religious extremism) would they have been similarly unsympathetic?

Place marking x

Thank you ickky and everyone for the commentary.

I would also say there is a strong message running through identity politics of "sit down, shut up and listen" that many of the GCC barristers, many of whom themselves are likely to be left wing, have absorbed. Listen to marginalised communities, believe women, being an ally is not speaking yourself but amplifying other voices etc etc. This leads directly to "listen and accept uncritically what this pressure group says, as they represent this marginalised community".

I remember reading a blog years ago that said that white people should both a) stop speaking for the black community on racism, and b) stop expecting the black community to do the work and emotional labour of speaking out on racism. I thought at the time - so, as someone who deeply feels like they want to do something anti-racist, what am I to do? Speak up? Not speak up? Is that speaking for the black community? Is that making the black community do all the work?

In the face of these contradictory demands the "safest" position feels like - I will listen and accept uncritically the instructions of a group whose representative credentials feel unimpeachable. If BLM tells me to believe/say/do X in order to demonstrate my anti-racism, if Stonewall tells me to do Y to demonstrate my anti-homophobia or anti-transphobia, I do it because I have a perfect "out". They told me to do it! And they're from that community, therefore they have knowledge and experience I can never have. Because I am not of the same identity.

@TheBeardedVulture I was worried it was a job description!

Thank you @ickky and everyone.

Can I ask who was responsible for GCC's Twitter account? Who sent the tweet naming Allison and saying she would be investigated?