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

Isn’t her work email in a standard format? [email protected] or similar?

This! I was just thinking it's a bit 'DARVO' for them to have been so insistent there was soliciting of support by AB going on while MB was contacting what seems to be her entire trans directory to solicit complaints against AB. Did Khan or anyone else know she was contacting SW/GI/LGBT Consortium & asking them to send in complaints?

<<wonders if can afford to throw a quid into Allison’s fund-raiser whenever a bingo ‘number’ comes up>>

(For the bingo card, a trump category for "Oh here we go!" and/or witness's mum?
Other potentials: I was travelling / working on a big case / etc; IT crisis)

It's really easy to find out these things by googling, I've had to do this kind of thing for work before (unrelated industry)

There’s been loud and disruptive drilling at JK’s end, Mallo. I suspect BC is (understandably) somewhat pissed off.

I don't think the drilling helped.

I think it’s interesting reading this thread how one poster, clearly a lawyer, gets very upset at the suggestion that some lawyers come across better than others. I’m in a profession that gets hammered far more often than lawyers but I’m still well able to say that in some cases both praise and criticisms are deserved.

Obviously the barristers giving evidence are a long way out of their comfort zone whereas the advocates are firmly in it, which might well explain their poor performances, as giving evidence is very different to cross examining.

However, I work with lawyers every day, I instruct them, I’m cross examined by them. I absolutely know full well that there’s a difference between them and that some are very good whereas others can sometimes be a liability. Sometimes that can even vary depending on the case or the judge!

You should still be able to get in - I just requested access earlier this week. I had to chase it though, they didn't send it the first day I asked.

No I got mine this week. Can you try again?

JK seems to think that the whole thing is a conversation rather than a cross examination.

PMed you

I needed a name change…

A slow case-building section by BC this morning, to demonstrate that right from picking up the complaint GCC had cast AB into the role of bad person, trouble maker, obsessive, dishonest, etc.

For the sake of their Sys Ad, I would hope so.

He's been interrupted a lot, and is probably aware that AH needs to leave and is under pressure to finish. JK won't let him finish a lot of his questions which is making things more difficult.

Don't forget angry

JK - Not here to pander to any particular view point.

Thanks, I get why BC is looking a bit annoyed now!

EJ asking for BC to wrap up.

It’s not reasonable to stop BC asking the questions he needs to ask.

It does feel like she's being allowed to filibuster.

That’s another bingo moment. ‘The question is too long so I don’t understand it’’

EJ telling BC to wrap it up, times awasting.

AH wasting more time reminding everyone that he has a funeral at 11.30!

Pointed from EJ. She knows JK isn’t answering the questions.