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

That's correct, @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Cross post with @SpindleInTheWind

Righteous outrage mode duly activated

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus yes, it was whether anyone was overseeing the working group - a really good point and I hope an insight as to MR's thinking

To be fair to him, he’s been saying for ages he has to leave.

he seems to me to be a really good lawyer, he clearly has points he wants to make that he doesn’t trust his junior with.

not making any points about BC or him being asked to be cut short or whatever, but seems to be stressful for all involved this morning

AH has to get to a funeral so he can be excused.

I believe JK that she didn’t instruct anyone to remove work from AB.

What was the question that BC intervened on?

I cannot recall a single funeral in my life that has not stressed me ahead of time and on the day of the event.

Even when I knew that the person was ready to die because of the preceding gravity of illness/injury, death is still an emotional ambush and I've been deeply apprehensive about making the service on time and other matters of logistics.

I've noticed that her hand isn't anywhere near her mouth now.

and leaning toward the camera.

I had to duck out for an hour, so grateful to be able to catch back up on here! Is everyone already drunk?

BTW outstanding* *work on the bingo card @chilling19 👏

‘Offensive and disempowering’ to suggest women might be afraid to speak out, on an issue that, when they do speak out, results in this?

Not convinced, JK.

She'll have rehearsed this bit.

Roughly 50/50 men/women at GCC. I wonder how many of them are following this and of those who are, what they make of the Cotton Ceiling and how according to some of their colleagues, there's nothing wrong with teaching transwomen to "overcome the Cotton Ceiling".

That email sounded cold as fuck even with AH reading it out and trying to present it as sympathetic.

Didn't GCC actually contact the Police themselves when another member of chambers had received threats or was in danger? I think it was earlier in the year of 2018.

Ooh, suggesting that women at GCC were scared to speak out is really offensive and disempowering because they are not weedy fragile cowardy custards like all the women who are actually scared to speak out.

JK says no woman in chambers was scared to voice her opinions.

However in reality, when Allison voiced her opinions there was a massive TRA pile on and she was investigated by her own chambers.
If I was in GC chambers I’d definitely be seeing that as a message to me to keep silent, on any non-Stonewall approved thoughts

It is inconceivable to me that she would have given a direct instruction.

It is also inconceivable to me that the general aura of anger, mistrust and why won't she just shut up-ness didn't filter down to the clerks - who always know everything - and have an effect on who was being put forward, and clerks' readiness to ask whether AB's "KC" was a real KC or would she be interested in ...

JK says no woman in chambers was scared to voice her opinions.

At least no woman said they were...

So she knows nothing about trans issues, hasn’t bothered to read the abusive tweets, is in the middle of a trial where a woman’s career is in terrible jeopardy for GC tweets, describes said tweets as provocative, but it’s ludicrous to think women would hesitate before speaking their minds on this matter. Right.

I've just rejoined - JK doesn't seem to be having trouble recalling these emails and the motivation behind them for AH when compared to BC. Are these also from 2018/19, which she kept mentioning as being a long time ago when BC was taking her through some yesterday?

This case makes me think of Alistair Campbell and "you must never become the story".

A version for barristers would be ""you must never become the defendant".

Re the clerks being instructed or not to withhold work.

It reminds me of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (bare with me).
Richard Feynman wondered whether there was external pressure to launch because the President was so involved with the 'teacher in space' stuff. However he surmised that everyone knew it was important, so no need for any direct commands.

Similarly if all the clerks knew AB was out of favour then they wouldn't need to be told not to give her work, they would just 'know' that it wasn't considered desirable to encourage good briefs to be sent her way.

‘It is also inconceivable to me that the general aura of anger, mistrust and why won't she just shut up-ness didn't filter down to the clerks - who always know everything - and have an effect on who was being put forward, and clerks' readiness to ask whether AB's "KC" was a real KC or would she be interested in’

Is that keep clear?

It’s possible (and I think probable) but we’ll hear from the clerks today.