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

FWR made it to thread 8 before getting told off. Must be an actual record.

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

it’s not to do with his sexual orientation, it’s the fact that a bunch of people create a fantasy image of a lawyer in their heads (one where he is a straight married man). It’s reminiscent of boyband members needing to hide that they are gay because their fans need to think they can date them. You do realise that some lawyers receive death threats for who they represent and it’s this sort of behaviour that encourages that. Lawyers are never their clients.

What is it about some of the legal minds that post on FWR that seem to need to patronise people?

It is a good thing that other legal minds who are regulars on this board don’t and much discussion is had.

But some do.

Oh no. Sorry has told us off on at least one other thread.

I bet you're a barrel of laughs on a night out @Sorrynotsorryyeah

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

Yes! The ability to set aside and not react to the anger, circumlocutions, and various digressions of the witnesses and their team is well worth modelling. For BC to do that, retain his laser focus on where he was going with his questions, to break matters down, retain people's answers and weave them into his overall narrative on his feet, that is a remarkable skill.

Professionally, and plausibly elsewhere, I think a lot of us are seeing a model of professional decorum and unflappability in BC's courtroom performance. To some extent, it's being shown in stark contrast to the behaviour of other lawyers who are participating in their various capacities and that has been eye-opening and informative.

He is gifted with a great voice, indeed. And I heard in teaching online that one of the most effective things one can do is buy a very, very good microphone.

So I take it that you don’t think Ben Cooper is a god! then Sorry.

I am sure that we shall take a note of that.

After all we are just silly women, who don’t know anything about human nature, and being able to assess that human nature during the interplays of a tribunal.

Sorrynotsorry I missed it, Hell

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?

It did yesterday, but not much was made of it.

Yes, BC is a skilled lawyer, as are all the lawyers in this case.

Although one of the lawyers in this case foolishly thought they could interact with AB on Twitter about this case. Shockingly unprofessional behaviour IMO. AB quite rightly pointed out to that person it was unwise to continue.

fantasy image of a lawyer in their heads (one where he is a straight married man)…You do realise that some lawyers receive death threats for who they represent and it’s this sort of behaviour that encourages that.

Yet again, demonstrate that you haven't read a thread without stating that you haven't. As above, there are impromptu scenes, screenplays, musicals, and football matches here on quite a regular basis.

You do realise that some GC women receive death threats for expressing a belief in the material reality of sex? To be honest, I doubt it's TRAs riffing scenes based on the well known childhood favourite Mr Ben or similar animations that encourages it. It's women talking that seems to be a sufficient trigger or any of the 10 Rules of Misogyny.

Anyway, early start today, Tribunal Watchers.

I think it is remarkable that some posters cannot see the many, many layers of why people on this board have so much respect for Ben Cooper that he has been the target of hero worshipping posts.

But then I guess there are people in the world to which women are simple, and single dimensional humans.

😂

Did sorry just compare Ben C with a member of a boy band?

Can I suggest he is more Ronan or Robbie rather than H from steps or Barry Garlow?

Shockingly unprofessional behaviour IMO.

I know. If I was drinking a cup of tea when I read sorry’s question about ‘who?’, I would have spat it out so explosive was my laugh at why anyone would think all barristers are immediately believed to have this professional aura.

I don’t have a kimono either.

"White has been posting on this board for years" - what, what?!

@Helleofabore sorry my last post was to you - has Robin White been on mn?

Oh yes RMW regularly comes on these boards to chastise us and misrepresent the law. I suspect that only this tribunal is keeping RMW off here.

It’s almost like someone outlawed jokes, isn’t it?

The thing I am taking away from this case is just how good barristers are. I could never have stayed as calm and as unflappable as Allison and Ben have and I do think that is something I wish I could learn to do. I get too emotional and then cannot argue my case effectively.

And how big their brains must be - the level of information Ben must retain and his ability to question in very precise detail and not get distracted: I am so impressed by these skills.

It’s an argument for open law - I am much more impressed by the legal process now I am watching it in action.

It is peculiar that.

There really is many reasons for BC to be ‘godlike’ here. Albeit being very very human.

He also seems to be able to defend this case seemingly without anyone else in the room. Maybe that wren is actually someone in the room with him feeding him messages in code rather than just being a support wren that we like to listen too for our own benefit.

Yes. Before that it was Whittle and there are plausibly others that have slipped my mind.

You mean you have missed it???

Well. While advanced search is not up to scratch at the moment, Google could work.

You do realise that criminal lawyers convincingly defend rapists and pedophiles (sic) right, cross-examining their victims?

Are you saying that those lawyers are NOT rapists and paedophiles? Who knew.

We really don't need your finger wagging and telling off. The majority of the women here are very intelligent and I am certainly well aware of the bias we have shown.

Also I'm pretty sure none here have sent anyone death threats or incited anyone else to do so. If you had RTFT, I'm sure you would have seen the condemnation of the threats some of the witness's and panel members have received.

We need a bit of levity sometimes, especially in a serious case like this one.

Anyway, I know I shouldn't have bitten and will say no more.