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

Charlie Tennant is SENIOR CRIME TEAM PRACTICE MANAGER

IO wakes up, thinks Charlie T hasn't been sworn in and interrupts to say so.

High comedy!

as if EJ Goodman would allow that to happen

"He hasn't been sworn in!"

EJ: He literally just affirmed.

She has the patience of a saint that judge

I'm thinking this is our most likely Joe from This Life character.

Oh god this is dragging me right back to the clerks room 😭

Tell the Tribunal that you're not paying attention without telling the Tribunal you aren't paying attention.

Succinct chap, Mr Tennant.

EJ goodman sounds knackered

We should club together to buy EJ a massive bottle of gin.

Agreed! Thanks for the new username btw 😉

😄 And some tuna for her support cat.

Two LH's coming up. Can Louise Hooper be LouHoo, or will that be too close to the elusive call of a distant support owl, borne on the breeze?

I'm 'scared' to say anything about the Stonewall shite at work, so i keep my powder dry

Ditto. My workplace is a SW champion and there’s an explicit agenda to ‘queer the workplace’. After seeing what’s happened to other women speaking out in a similar work area I’m not saying anything.

Ameanstreakamilewide · 20/05/2022 11:46

Tell the Tribunal that you're not paying attention without telling the Tribunal you aren't paying attention.

It would be funny if it wasn't so outrageously poor behaviour

There's a week to go. No mention at all has been made of calling Michelle Brewer, I suspect deliberately. I get the feeling the clerks won't take a huge amount of time, not least because they won't be trying to cross lawyerly swords with BC. Stephanie Harrison was mentioned as being on next week. I can't see she's going to take all week.

In his WS, Charlie T says (about Michelle Brewer email): ‘I did not have a clue what she was talking about. I am still not sure.’

Funny. 😂

Horrible isn't it. I'm "out" at work with two or three colleagues and I have actively avoided pronouns. It's interesting to see who has them and who doesn't. Helps guide who I make tentative vague comments to to start gauging their view.

Would that be construed as an attempt to prejudice the outcome tabby? 😉 (She definitely deserves a break after this madness. Are all tribunals this long-winded and chaotic? At least it's almost the weekend...)

CT is very succinct but I do feel that he's going to walk into answers he doesn't want to give. He doesn't strike me as a game player at all.

Perhaps LuHa and LoHo for the two other clerks?

Haha. He seems alright!

🤭😂🤣

Maybe offer round some dinosaur cookies, MsM?

And again, overall, CT says he and the rest of the clerking team tend to agree more with AB than with Stonewall.

How does this tally with JK’s insistence that AB’s statements were ‘highly provocative’? It seems nearly everyone (all of a sudden) agrees with her.

Now we know that’s true, don’t we? Most people recognise that what Stonewall want us to think and say is ridiculous. So why is it so provocative and controversial to say so? What are we missing here, if not Stonewall’s influence over the professional sphere in the UK?