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

😄😄😄

Spindle

You're bang on. In her statement, Allison says she began thinking of legal action, to protect her professional reputation, after she asked GCC to take down their tweets and they wouldn't. She wrote to the Bar Council first thing the next morning, because she was hoping that someone from outside Chambers could intervene before things escalated.

That is really interesting @CriticalCondition - especially as I think someone mentioned on a previous thread that they later said when they tried to get the claim dismissed that they were paying for it themselves.

I suspect they know as much about insurance law as they know about their obligations under the Equality Act, i.e. fuck all. So they notified their insurer and then were told, erm this is not what your policy is for.

One thing that has been a real eye-opener to me is how little criminal practitioners know about equality law. That anecdote about the other member of chambers who said I won’t help you because you’re suing us. From a civil/commercial perspective it amazes me - nobody with half a brain would do that because we all know that when someone is in litigation against you that is NOT WHAT YOU DO. I’d expect people to know (a) possible victimisation and (b) will be cross-examined about it. The way GCC chambers dealt with Allison was amateur hour all the way through.

I think Michelle Brewer is the absolute linchpin in all this. If they can demonstrate that she was influential - both to HoC and to the clerks, then the case is a slam dunk as far as I can see as her disdain for Allison's pov is pretty obvious. IANAL.

I read the page in the bundle mentioned further up thread and JK at one point refers to AB as dealing with a difficult woman or similar. Has that come up in cross examination yet?

I had to miss some of today for work (boo) but have just read through this whole thread and you lot are so funny. I'm glad my suggestion of the film has taken off and I think we need Support Twixes all round after this.

Just delurking to say that you can get employment practices liability insurance which covers things such as discrimination claims. Certainly the organisations I've worked for have had it. I'm not sure on how chambers are legally structured but it's not impossible that GCC have it in place.

<goes back to lurking and trying to keep up with the sheer pace of the thread whilst aimlessly looking for a support pillow>

Liking the idea of support twines all round!

Support Twixes, even

I suspect they know as much about insurance law as they know about their obligations under the Equality Act, i.e. fuck all. So they notified their insurer and then were told, erm this is not what your policy is for.

Indeed. Of course you don't expect a lawyer specialising in property, for example, to know anything about family or contentious probate, any more than you expect an ENT surgeon to know about dodgy knees or fibroids. But this is pretty basic stuff that most lawyers I know could dredge up from law school or at least recognise as a known unknown that needs checking sharpish.

And yes. Three weeks in and nothing so far has changed my view that Michelle Brewer's evidence is one to clear the diary for.

I think Michelle Brewer is the absolute linchpin

I agree. When posters have mused on just exactly how a Chamber full of intelligent lawyers and staff could have gone along with this load of abject nonsense, I've wondered if there might be an individual involved near or at the top with agency and drive.

(Or a 'Leaderene', as Private Eye used to jest about another key figure from days gone by.)

I can’t quite fathom what’s in it for women like MB?

She must be a true believer, but she isn’t sheltered based on her bio, and she can’t be stupid. It will be interesting to watch her testimony.

I keep missing the swears, but I imagine BC is relishing those moments.

on a few occasions I’ve had cause to write swear words in my court reports (when relaying something someone has said) and I always get a childish little frisson 😬

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

He’s gay, sorry to ruin the heterosexual marriage fantasy there. He also is a colleague of IO and RMW so probably gets on with them outside court and has drinks with them occasionally, you know seeing as he’s a lawyer doing his job for a client rather than someone “on your side”. Honestly, some of the comments on here are quite embarrassing.

Honestly, some of the comments on here are quite embarrassing.

Embarrassing? I guess it depends on the perspective, doesn’t it.

Sorrynotsorryyeah - "he’s a lawyer doing his job for a client rather than someone “on your side”. Honestly, some of the comments on here are quite embarrassing."

Lighten up! We are allowed to fool around and have a laugh.

As to whether "he’s a lawyer doing his job for a client rather than someone “on your side” now you are having a laugh!

From the choice of barristers at Old Square Chambers I rather think that any Mumsnetter claiming detriment due to "gender critical" views is going to plump for:

oldsquare.co.uk/people/ben-cooper-qc/

rather than

oldsquare.co.uk/people/robin-white/

He also is a colleague of IO and RMW so probably gets on with them outside court and has drinks with them occasionally, you know seeing as he’s a lawyer doing his job for a client rather than someone “on your side”.

I think we can see just how barristers can ‘get on with’ others in their own chambers quite clearly from this case, don’t you think?

BC QC is ‘also’ in chambers with Anya Palmer. He might ‘get on with’ Anya too.

If BC QC is not ‘on our side’, that is even more remarkable that in the last two cases, Maya Forstater’s and this one, he has been able to argue very coherently and with a depth of knowledge about both his client’s perspectives. He really must be a god to maintain such a high level of advocacy for something he might abhor across two hugely intensive and important cases.

And to display the depth of perception as to what women upholding the rights for all females against the conflicts of those males attempting to access those rights, are actually talking about. White has been posting on this board for years and still lacks that depth of perception (and I suggest, professionalism). I doubt White could do anywhere near the job that Ben Cooper is on these two cases.

I can only assume he either can absolutely understand and may empathise with Maya and Allison or is completely neutral and uninterested outside these cases. Or he is the ultimate QC and has never let the professional mask slip even once in these two proceedings to let anyone know that he abhors what he is instrumental in fighting for.

Plus he displays a level of empathy and maintains a milder approach than other barristers involved in the case. Perhaps it seems that way because he continues to attempt to show the tribunal the inconsistencies in people’s actions and beliefs through relentless questions while other barristers on the case have resorted to more aggressive styles.

The regular posters are fully aware that barristers will take cases that they might disagree with. But this case has also given us a glimpse of how chambers and barristers can be very unprofessional.

Maybe it is the power of his voice….

I wonder why?

(sarcasm, in case anyone needs that disclaimer)

If BC QC is not ‘on our side’, that is even more remarkable that in the last two cases, Maya Forstater’s and this one, he has been able to argue very coherently and with a depth of knowledge about both his client’s perspectives. He really must be a god to maintain such a high level of advocacy for something he might abhor across two hugely intensive and important cases.

yes, he’s a QC. Do you think lawyers can only argue convincingly if they personally agree with their client? You do realise that criminal lawyers convincingly defend rapists and pedophiles right, cross-examining their victims?

"The regular posters are fully aware that barristers will take cases that they might disagree with. But this case has also given us a glimpse of how chambers and barristers can be very unprofessional. "

Some activities in chambers would make you wonder if half of them still had their heads in their teenage years. Chambers was like a playground to some of them.

Then some, and I get the vibe Old Ben Kenobi QC is one of them, were always thoroughly decent and professional.

I wished the other counsels learned from Ben QC how actually bringing the camera close to them, and using physical presence (and standing, which Ben does often) can be so effective in examination. The wide angle showing messy desks is so prosaic! That is one lesson I am taking away int my teaching job.

Having watched most of this tribunal, I hold few illusions about the professional behaviour of QCs.

I believe I have also said along the same lines in the past as: ‘ Do you think lawyers can only argue convincingly if they personally agree with their client? ‘

I now believe that there are aome QCs who would not be able to exhibit the level of professionalism as BC has, if he abhors the perspective of his clients.

I also pointed out how he has a depth of knowledge and understanding of the nuance of Maya and Allison’s stance. And that some barristers, lack that understanding. Maybe some even spend years reading MN and still cannot understand the perspective they disagree with.

But do keep on with the patronising. I mean, it is not like we haven’t seen that before on this board.

And by ‘he abhors’, I mean if BC abhors.

I still suspect it is the ‘power’ of his voice….don’t you?

More embarrassing than someone who demonstrates that they haven't read the thread and seen where BC's previous mention that he's gay was acknowledged? Plus, yes, in this and earlier threads, there has been discussion that individual lawyers will act for either party in a particular area and that BC is in the same chambers as RMW and IO so is likely to be on congenial terms with them.

As a matter of interest, what were we supposed to take from your admonitions and general disapproval? You're not a contributor who engages with the content of FWR nor the spirit. You don't seem to understand that FWR has typical social media (and personal 😚) digressions into Support Twixes and impromptu plays/musical/film drafts and casting discussions.

You may have noted how interested we are when the various solicitors, barristers, tribunal judges amongst us chip in with observations from their knowledge and experience to answer questions or highlight the significance of something for us.

I should think a number of us are genuinely fascinated and learning as we go: collectively, we're a subaltern counterpublic and equivalent of the Working Man's Institute all in one fabulous FWR subforum.

I now believe that there are aome QCs who would not be able to exhibit the level of professionalism as BC has, if he abhors the perspective of his clients.

and how have you reached this conclusion? Which QCs are they (presumably not all)? The very core of being a lawyer is representing your client to the best of your ability, never allowing your own feelings to get in the way. The elevation of a person to some sort of god-like status simply due to who they represent is not a good thing. You have created a fantasy of this man, of who you think he is and what he thinks, which likely bears no resemblance to reality (see the speculation about a ‘wife’). It’s stuff like this which also then causes backlash against lawyers who represent unsavoury people. Lawyers are just a mouthpiece. Yes, BC is a skilled lawyer, as are all the lawyers in this case. He’s not better or worse than the others, he just happens to represent the person you like. If any of you are legally trained, I’m surprised that you’re engaging in this stuff.

Plus, I doubt that his sexual orientation has any impact on whether Ben Cooper is a god or not.

I reckon I could be a lot more ‘Ben Cooper’ish in my life. I doubt I am the only one.

Ben Cooper is a god!