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

"Every barrister is just as important as every other barrister." Yeah, right.

Cough luxury beliefs and social class cough.

I'm not out at work at all. I'm a coward and terrified of repercussions. I make subtle efforts at resistance, don't have pronouns and I point out politely everytime sex/gender are confused.

I am not even out in my personal life. DH, my family and a few friends all know and I have a couple of Terven that I exchange real discussion with but I also have friends who are full on TWAW and we steadfastly avoid all conversation in the knowledge that it could go very wrong if we did.

Well it's a political answer if nothing else. He's talking to barristers who know the reality 🤣

Exactly. People in better paid jobs with richer parents are dominating a discussion that needs to be nationwide.

But it can’t be both: AB’s statements can’t be both unobjectionable and deeply divisive/controversial/provocative unless GCC is prepared to acknowledge that they have far too much weight to the views of the extremist activist class.

Exactly.

Everyone thinks it's nonsense, but somehow have to go along with it. They're apparently not scared to speak out, but when they do they end up in a tribunal.

It's all so obvious.

But that’s hard, because GCC was founded as a ‘radical chambers’. They are that class.

I really hate the word "provocative". It's a word like "inappropriate" that won't come out with what it means and sneakily conveys all sorts of disapproval without forcing the person using it to come clean about, and stand by, exactly what they disapprove of. I associate it with school where "inappropriate behaviour" always meant something to do with either sex or class but they wouldn't own it; "provocative" always meant something to do with challenging things legitimately and logically without being rude or cruel but they considered the challenge to be uppity.

More bundle problems. 3 minute break.

Being very cynical it could be tactically useful to have the clerks say they broadly agree with Allison whilst the head honchos try to stay aligned with right think.

It would have the benefit of disproving the allegation that she wasn't being clerked properly for her beliefs yet reassures Stonewall etc. that the important people are still very much their allies.

I'm not watching the proceedings though and have no idea how sincere or not everyone is being.

Yes, ‘provocative’ says nothing at all about whether a view is correct.

3 minute break...she's really taking 'short' to mean 'short'.

Are we allowed to quote from witness statements verbatim? (I think prob not.) Love what Charlie Tennent says about Stonewall

Does anyone know where in the main bundle, or elsewhere, the Michelle Brewer email Charlie refers to in his WS is please? Today is the first day I've looked at the bungled bundle.

Sorry how do I get Tennant's witness statement?

True, albeit I don't think clerk disloyalty would be seen positively either. That said, I suspect GCC and Stonewall's working relationship is a bit fucked now regardless.

oh don't worry got it

I suppose I’m not allowed. MNHQ might delete?

"Mr Tennent, what is a woman?" could trigger a very amusing discussion.

It's painful. I mean I've got a copy.

But i am doing my best to Trojan horse the fuck out of getting rid of them.

I've written a few times (using an alias, of course) and been given the brush off by the ED Director. She told me ' I have read your correspondence and my colleague X has responded, and there is nothing further to add'.

I've written 3 times since then and had precisely zero responses. Now i am biding my time and waiting for the judgement of this hearing before i write again, but to the CE directly, this time (attaching all the ignored correspondence).

I'm like a dog with a frigging bone with this.

But i digress..

Probably not great for Allison, his witness statement? His straightforwardness and seeming lack of capture (not even aware of the hunt, so to speak) accord with GCC's narrative of no detriment.

.**

I laughed at 'I probably deleted it straight away' in CT's WS!

If only everyone had that attitude, Charlie.

Let’s see what BC does with him. He should keep it short and sweet. Whether or not CT did stop giving AB the same quality of work, there’s nothing in the evidence to prove this was because of her beliefs. It’s all suggestion.