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

Good morning. I hope my early morning mention on the last page did not wake you up. 😁

Your appearance does add credibility to your name.

I suspect that only this tribunal is keeping RMW off here.

I do continue to wonder about that.

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

Did you know that the term “mansplaining” is a portmanteau of “man” and “explaining”?

I haven't been on mn much over the past few years. I do remember Whittle from the past. how funny and interesting for you all to have a familiar player in that room! I was not able to follow the Forstater case as closely but I see you are all very familiar with Ben Cooper from that. Are there any other recurring characters?
I am not sure that this is actually a film, so much as a long running series / set of series with spin offs a la Buffy and Angel. But I'd like to see it shot in the style of Dallas. There should definitely be an opening titles sequence where each key player gives a characteristic look (macho grin? Quirky wry glance? Noble look of determination?) to camera

I think some people dont get jokes or just never had a sense of humour.
Also blatant observational jokes go whoosh over their heads. And a lot of the funnies on these threads are observational. And the dry wit is outstanding in general across mumsnet. I'm only here for the gc and the droll humour. .... mostly.

By the way BenCooperisagod. I don’t think that sorry is one of your true believers.

You cannot win them all.

That was the same lawyer who has written a book including the question “But a gay woman or a black woman are still women, why not a trans woman?”

Yes you can - my chambers looked into it and it was prohibitively expensive (bearing in mind chambers are quite small and members will have to split the cost). It also has a lot of exclusions - for example you have to show you followed your company policy to the letter - so in this claim they would potentially be in difficulty because of publishing the fact that Allison was “under investigation”. I am interested your organisations had it - it’s not a cover that I am asked to advise on frequently so my sense is despite the enthusiastic “everybody has this” advertising that it remains quite rare!

I think Jane Russell represented CGD on the philosophical beliefs test case (WORIADS) for the Maya Forstater tribunal.

Do we know when she's on?

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

That's a great summary of these threads EmbarrassingHadrosaurus Looking forward to reading the collective summary of today's events later. Thank you all

I think Jane Russell represented CGD on the philosophical beliefs test case (WORIADS) for the Maya Forstater tribunal.

Yes she did.

Also I think Anya & Peter were Mayas solicitors too?

They haven't revealed the order of the witness's, I think Stephanie Harrison is after Judy Khan IIRC.

@Sorrynotsorryyeah"Honestly, some of the comments on here are quite embarrassing"

I know maybe you'd like to stop writing them now before you further embarrass yourself?

And at one point was heavily pushing their own book which is very much along the lines of Stonewall's 'the law as you you wish it to be, rather than the law as it is' as well as being almost immediately outdated by the result of the Forstater case.

Waitwhat23

And there is always a flurry of deletions around when they visit to plop down their drive by admonishments. Could be just careful moderation though.

And there is always a flurry of deletions around when they visit to plop down their drive by admonishments. Could be just careful moderation though.

No, it's definitely the book review cuttings.

Is the tribunal sitting today? I actually have some time free of meetings so might be able to log in.

*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.
*
😂😂😂😂

Also Sorry - try to bear in mind that the women on this board are taking the piss in an effort to lighten the fucking load we have been carrying since this trans activism shitshow started nearly 10 years ago. So we would appreciate it if you would piss off and take your patronising ignorance with you.

I dont think i should log in with my mumsnet moniker tho

'he's gay' isn't the gotcha that it used to be now, is it? Thanks to Stonewall and their redefinition. It could man he is married to a woman with short hair and a natty collection of slacks.

You mean the mere mentioning of book reviews necessary?

Yes. It is quite interesting to see the low bar some people have before they write about how they are ‘abused’. Yet some people (venn diagrams come to mind), who are in the legal profession claim that Allison was not abused and that her treatment was not abusive.

Abuse, coercion, all seem to be up for redefining to a very high bar when it comes to Allison.

😂😂😂

No probably not. It is starting at 9.30am today.

Isn’t it today that AH has to leave at 11.30 for a funeral?