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

It is the blurring of the law and what it ought to be that is the problem with Stonewall and also the extent to which anyone, any employer, should bring in a lobby group to tell us about best practice and if that best practice which goes beyond the law is good or is not good. We including this chambers need critical thinking to consider these things rather than just following some trendy band wagon.

Eg you might bring in a lobby group which helps you spot modern slavery in your supply chain - nothing wrong with that, helping you comply with the law. If they have a stance that went further than the law and may or may not be wrong that is when it gets more difficult particularly as the law is often unclear. Eg positive discrimination is illegal in English law and I am not sure everyone giving talks on equality at work is always aware of that and may not make it clear. It is one reason it can be worth using lawyers for these things not people who are not qualified.

I had a similar issue with covid laws by the way - far far far too many people inculding the State were presenting guidance - recommendations as if it were the law and time and time again I would take myself off to read the statutory instrument (the law) and find the guidance was not the law and went much further eg distancing. People often muddle law and practice deliberately and sometimes accidentally.

Anyway good luck today with this. I have go off an earn a living so will just dip into the thread when time.

This is just a quick message to thank you ALL for posting in these threads. I'm following the trial as and when I can (under my real name) but come here daily for the commentary (and the fun!). Although I post very seldom, I love this commmunity very much. Virtual hug all!

Re BC QC. Maybe it shows how hostile the landscape has become for women when women end up feeling grateful for a barrister who hasn't been captured by Stonewall and knows the actual law.

Because many lawyers have been captured - including judges.

Does this mean my husband is actually gay as I have short hair and wear loose fit jeans and mens hoodies?

I had a similar issue with covid laws by the way - far far far too many people inculding the State were presenting guidance - recommendations as if it were the law and time and time again I would take myself off to read the statutory instrument (the law) and find the guidance was not the law and went much further eg distancing.

Adam Wagner was very good about that and had a substantial number of helpful Twitter threads where he elaborated on this.

Interested to read that positive discrimination is against the law in England. I'm aware of one large NGO that has outlined a positive recruitment strategy (as they're calling it) to increase the diversity of the make-up of some constituents of some of its committees.

These for example, are literal violets.

Which is also nearly literally like a negative book review that causes hurtiness.

Thank you again to Allison for your bravery, but also to all the tweeters and followers here with the witty and revealing comments and posts. Luckily I don’t have a job to do so can really appreciate what is happening.

Just catching up.

So members of the Chambers are absolutely mired in the bloody ideology. Never mind not knowing the first thing about it. Members of TELI, Gendered Intelligence, etc!

There may be the odd person who resolutely knows nothing about it, but I can't believe they know nothing about other peoples involvement in it.

can't wait to see Ben bringing it up.

(and yes of course he's a God).

Waiting to go in now...

Interested to read that positive discrimination is against the law in England.

In some countries, even collecting demographic information is against the law. This can be a real culture clash with Americans, who are desperate to discriminate on race and other things. In the UK, you're allowed to ask about race, but not allowed to act on it. In other countries you can't even ask about race or record data on it.

I've seen e-mails going around saying "we're trying to get more diversity data on our staff (except in countries X and Y, where it's not permitted)".

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

Does that only apply to the barristers and not anyone else who works at GCC? The HR lead seemed so much less prickly on the stand than the other GCC people and I was wondering if partly because she’s an employee and not personally liable.

I did get in early by accident, it was just me and tribunal members Left swiftly.

I thought I would just be in the lobby, waiting.

The HR lead seemed so much less prickly on the stand than the other GCC people and I was wondering if partly because she’s an employee and not personally liable.

Yep, that's something I think we were missing for a while. This is their livelihood as much as Allison's. If she wins, this could have devastating consequences for them as individuals.

And she's getting huge crowdfunding and celebrity support. I imagine they're feeling a little bit hard-done by.

It does make me wonder, why aren't they joining in with Allison to sue Stonewall?

Stonewall's actions mean that someone in GCC is getting ruined - either Allison or them.

Judy Khan's evidence will be followed by "the 3 clerks", and then more barrister evidence from GCC.

I dialled in to a meeting at work that was way, way above my paygrade!

Once i cottoned on, i slinked away quietly.

Oooh noooo! Run away, run away... 😂

“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 think Garden Court has set up a limited company as part of its structure - that used not to be allowed by the regulator but it is now and some chambers do. It makes it easier to enter into a commercial lease (for example) because the landlord is contracting with a company not a group of individuals. My chambers hasn’t adopted this structure so apologies for this slightly vague explanation.

Allison has I think commenced her claim against this limited company but also against Garden Court Chambers, which is an unincorporated association comprising all of its members (meaning the barristers but not its employees). The reason for commencing proceedings against both is to cover all the bases and prevent the entity you did sue claiming the other one is the only liable party.

You have form for this ickky. I still think you have a lawyerly sounding name or title and they think you're important (which obviously you are to us anyway as Master Thread Keeper).

😂Maybe I should set my pronoun as (Master Thread Keeper) in the hearing. 😂

EJ telling off the naughty boys for talking all at once.

We don't ask boys who call out!

Not enough data to tell. Do you also sometimes do the ‘manly’ household tasks? Taking out the rubbish? Anything to do with the car? Mowing the lawn? Anything involving the use of tools, particularly power tools?

It is rather clear Spindle that there are some posters who simply cannot understand the many aspects and layers of why many on these threads appreciate Ben Cooper. The list is very long.

All these barristers who don’t use Twitter and don’t understand Twitter - if they didn’t want their tweets to attract attention, don’t tweet at all, FFS. Or send a direct message to the 7 people.

Come on. Somebody at GCC knew very well how Twitter worked. The disingenuousness is staggering.

BC: if the goal in GCC sending out the tweet was to deal with reputational harm, surely you weren't only sending to 7 people were you?

JK: I wasn't thinking [about anything really]