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

tabbycatstripy · 19/05/2022 13:19

I think it’s telling that several of them claim their position has nothing to do with an anti-GC perspective or pro Stonewall stance, but they take issue with the phrase ‘trans extremism’. Would they be similarly critical of any other use of the word ‘extremism’? If AB was campaigning against the far right (race extremism) or making an argument against religious fundamentalism (religious extremism) would they have been similarly unsympathetic?

Or is it a tacit admission that an attack on "trans extremism" is an attack on the entire trans movement because every last aspect of it is extreme, from forced language (pronouns), medicalisation of kids, sexualizing and fetishising of everything, "penis havers" in women's changing rooms and lesbian dating apps?

Disgusting.

you're right Xiaoxiong and this is what has got us into this mess with Stonewall resetting society along its preferred lines.

Well yes.

The whole point of safeguarding is that you don't rely on trust, everyone is under scrutiny, no matter who they are.

As is so often the case, it isn't kind to be permissive to the point of being a doormat - it isn't kind to have no boundaries, because if you don't step up and be an adult (assuming you are an adult) then the backlash against whatever will be better than having been effectively balanced and moderated in the first place.

@GCRich very good point

Also, nobody seems to be allowed to say, thus far & no further: everyone has to accept all of it, even when it changes from day to day. Everyone has to toe the line. So there is no 'extreme'. It's all or nothing.

@ifIwerenotanandroid · very good point

Even if we argue that most aspects of the trans movement are "centrist" and uncontroversial then we're still massive transphobes for not believing the other stuff.

Thanks for the new thread @ickky, and also for the invaluable commentary and discussion from everyone else

thanks for the new thread

👏👏👏 new thread

They bought into this as they thought they would get work from Stonewall.

So not biting the hand that might potentially but never did feed - is my reading of it.

Extremely insightful, Senseless.

Placemarking

Question for those watching: from reading the tweets, EJ seems to have moved BC along a few times this morning. Does she seem impatient with him, or is it more that she's conscious of the limits on JK's availability?

She doesn't seem annoyed or anything. Just says we think we've heard that point shall we move on?

I think it is more that EJ is very aware of time pressures as they have to get through all witness's by 27th May.

She didn't seem grumpy.

Catching up on this morning's info, it's reading more and more like a garden variety serious case review into a major safeguarding failure. All the hall marks are there.

Was there a failure in sharing information properly?
Was information taken on trust that should have been properly fact checked and verified as opposed to blindly believed?
Was a narrative fixed and ahered to from early on without anyone questioning it as other facts and voices started to emerge?
Were things rushed through, skated over or avoided due to fear of/lack of skills in dealing with the challenging behaviour of difficult adults in the situation?
Did you permit needy/demanding and vocal people in the situation pull your focus onto them and away from the person/situation you should have been considering?
Did you fail to think the unthinkable - that perhaps this group were not being wholly honest about the law or representing it in an unbiased way for example - or to ask the difficult questions? Such as all these people like Simon Fanshawe who started Stonewall - have they really all just suddenly gone insane with prejudice or should we explore what they're saying?

Bit embarrassing for barristers to be facing up to this kind of thing.

Thanks! I wish I could see it to catch the nuance.

I haven't even been able to check in today. Has BC continued to be awesome and have GcC dropped any balls?

Senseless & Clitterati's posts are really good insights, I think.

I see there is an Alex Sharpe in the chat - is this the person who was sending the Terf tweets?

Question for those watching: from reading the tweets, EJ seems to have moved BC along a few times this morning. Does she seem impatient with him, or is it more that she's conscious of the limits on JK's availability?

I only saw little bits of it, but it didn't seem like impatience when I saw it.

My feeling was that if she can very quickly grasp the implications and relevance of everything BC is asking about, it's more of a good sign than otherwise, but it's probably irresponsible to speculate like that!

Though there was one instance yesterday with the HR person, when she was definitely impatient.

David Bellamy joins the proceedings.

Of course he has been awesome. 😁

JK has admitted that tweeting about investigating AB should not have happened.

Mostly excuses, too busy, IT issues, not interested in this subject etc.

Yes, it is, Chrys.