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

Hang on …. Don’t you actually log in every morning anyway? I mean we are expecting you at 9.30 and I think EJ will be miffed if you don’t turn up without a very good reason! 😉

I have seen the TRA argument that as a lobbying group, Stonewall is absolutely right to be campaigning for the law to be what Stonewall wants rather than what it is, pointing at things like gay marriage.

What they don't point out in that argument is that what they are ralking about is open, honest campaigning. Debate. Pointing out that existing law is flawed.

Whereas what has actually been going on recently is training sessions and propaganda that states, or at least implies that the law is already what they want it to be.

Yes @AnnieLou12. In Mortlake.

I have seen the TRA argument that as a lobbying group, Stonewall is absolutely right to be campaigning for the law to be what Stonewall wants rather than what it is, pointing at things like gay marriage.

Indeed. And that in itself wouldn't necessarily preclude them also having a commercial service wing to fundraise for their lobbying.

But they needed to be very careful to have a firewall between what they wanted and the services they were providing, lest they get themselves and their clients into trouble - just have they have here.

One example of a campaigning+service group I'm aware of is the Electoral Reform Society - a long-running campaigning group to sort out the UK's electoral systems.

They actually conducted elections for all sorts of organisations, including political parties - and presumably brought their advice on voting systems along with them. But they certainly couldn't afford to mess up the elections and say "well, this is what the result is under the electoral system we think you should be using, rather than what your constitution says."

(Apparently this has now been spun off - they sold Electoral Reform Services Limited, and that's now Civica Election Services, and they're running from a capital fund from the sale. But it was a good campaigning+service example, for about 20 years).

Exactly. Completely reasonable for a campaign group to lobby for their preferred law changes. That's what most of them are for. The problem with Stonewall is they've blurred their campaigning and their legal training. If they were doing training saying the law requires this but we would like it to change because we think it causes X problems, and we want organisations to be aware of that, and everyone was clear about what was being offered and purchased, fine.

you are so right, Alison! 🤣🤣🤣 in fact, I think you have delivered quite a ‘gotcha’ yourself with that post! 🤣🤣🤣

IANAL - Question:

Does the fact that GCC is a limited company and they are acting as Heads of that company affect their liability for claims against them as individuals?

I know that in the NHS, we were always told that the Trust assumed vicarious liability as long as we were acting in good faith in accordance with our role. I.e. if we stuffed up a drug calculation they were responsible. If we administered a drug to a patient who wasn't prescribed it, deliberately, we were responsible.

Could they rely on the fact that they were acting on behalf of GCC to make the organisation foot the bill?

I also have a soft spot for Mr Hochhauser. He's not in the god category but he is gay so am not sure whether this passes the unofficial mod test of impartiality?

I said on a previous thread that this tribunal is a triumph of diversity and a clash of ideologies that the LGB(T) is fighting out for itself. I think it's fitting that the lawyers are mostly from these backgrounds. Makes the whole thing more authentic and important.

Stonewall's approach of deliberately giving false information when advising organisations was given a lot of sunlight in the University of Essex report regarding the deplatforming of invited academics.

'Firstly, the findings are damning of Stonewall, who they blame for undermining the “university’s obligations to uphold freedom of expression” and giving an “incorrect summary of the law” and “misleading policies”. In short, Stonewall annually reviews the University’s ‘Supporting Trans and Non Binary Staff’ policy, and it seems that they advised the university that gender-critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution. However, this was an “erroneous understanding of equality law” — gender identity is not a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010 — and the examples of harassment suggested in the policy were not actually unlawful.

One of the university’s subsequent recommendations is that “the University should give careful and thorough consideration to the relative benefits and disbenefits of its relationship with Stonewall” and should “devise a strategy for countering the drawbacks and potential illegalities.” Stonewall’s flagrant misrepresentation of the law is a cautionary tale for those who champion them, and will be another blow to the charity, whose reputation is in free fall.'

As pp have said, if Stonewall want to lobby to change existing law then they are at perfect liberty to do so. Instead, what they are stating when they advise organisations is simply untrue.

You're not alone in the thoughts I suspect you're having.

No. Not those thoughts, the other ones.

Re: RMW and the Practical Guide

No, it's definitely the book review cuttings.

It seems to be references to, or quotations from, Legal Feminist's review that attract the desire for a moderator's intervention. I'm at sea as to why because the review seems eminently reasonable and has been a handy pocket observers' guide for this tribunal, in many ways: it effectively pre-warned me about the state of the bundle and other such matters.

The book’s defects of structure, clarity of purpose and editing might have been forgiven if the authors had been able to offer helpful insights on some of the undoubtedly tricky problems in this area. But the book is equally disappointing in almost all matters of substance. The chapter on data protection and confidentiality (Chapter 7) provides a competent summary of the law, as (for the most part) does Chapter 3 on the GRA; but the rest of the book suffers from a pervasive tendentiousness, coupled with legal analysis that is either weak or simply absent.

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

Slight derail: in
my head , Michelle Brewer has a touch of the Lady Mary about her, so am pencilling in Michelle Dockery for the role

I think gay men do have a stake in this case as they are not attracted to transmen. It’s an important case for homosexuals of both sexes as well as women.

Anya Palmer is a barrister. She was Maya's sole counsel in the first tribunal but they decided to get a QC on board for the appeal and subsequent tribunal. She then acted as junior to Ben. She is excellent.

Peter is instructing solicitor in both cases.

BCQC doesn't have a junior in Allison's case as far as I can see but I may be wrong on that.

Embarrassing, I can only imagine how quickly the references to the book reviews would have been deleted if this case wasn't currently ongoing! * *

As one of the many who did some modest gardening, I’ve been lurking on these treads from the beginning. Thanks so much for all the commentary and comedy!

It would be really interesting to know how many of us are following the case on here. Presumably @MNHQ could share stats?

waitwhat23, where is that quote from? It might be useful in pushing back against what stonewall have been telling schools.

Slightly mind blowing. Waves at RMW.

Practical equality www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3850166-Practical-equality

IAAL (although completely different area of law) - I confirm how I feel personally about my client or their position(s) doesn't affect the job at all. Of course there's some I get on with better than others, but they're all just pound signs in the end ££££!

In fact often it's easier without all the niceties and just to get on with the business, time is money after all.

You often come up against the same lawyers on the other side, again its nothing personal we both have a job to do in terms of representing our clients interests but nothing more than that. You do get the occasional arse but that's life. Usually we get on fine and can have a decent chat. The lawyer world is very small as well so you don't want to make enemies of anyone as they could end up your boss! And word does travel around. Sometimes if we come up against a great lawyer on the other side we even try and poach them for our firm.

Just my twopence! :)

My apologies, I'm usually scrupulous about including sources! Quote from here -
unherd.com/thepost/the-university-of-essex-exposes-stonewalls-toxicity/

Other sources -

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-gave-bad-advice-to-university-in-free-speech-row-z6b27jdkh

www.spectator.co.uk/article/stonewall-and-the-silencing-of-feminist-voices-at-universities

womansplaceuk.org/2021/05/18/why-its-time-for-universities-to-break-ties-with-stonewall/

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jul/04/essex-university-makes-further-apology-in-trans-rights-row

The author of that University of Essex report, Akua Reindorf, has since joined the EHRC, which no doubt has helped contribute to their change of tone.

Here's the Tribunal Tweets Substack on the tribunal. Easier to follow from here.

He said he was gay in Maya’s tribunal. I’m not sure what your point is here. He’s a defender of women, a gentleman and has a fab ginger beard. What’s not to love? Did you really think we were literally hoping to marry him?

I used to be a planner and I had to argue cases for planning permission for things that I really disagreed with. And it is just a job and I did it trying to get the best for my clients but it's utterly soul destroying if what your clients want clashes with your own values. I left that career as a result. I wasn't able to pick and choose clients but if I'd stuck at it and become more established I might've had more choice over which clients I took on.

Did you really think we were literally hoping to marry him?

Everything is literal. Like, literally.

On the vicarious liability issue - the barristers ARE GCC - they're not employed by a company.