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

‘I did not have a clue what she was talking about. I am still not sure.’

Also: I saw the words "Diversity Champion". I imagine that I deleted the email straight away.

Yeah, I also am wondering how BC is going to put holes in this witness statement. It does come off as refreshingly straightforward.

Her statement that is it patronising to women to say that they would be scared of speaking out is so revealing. She does not understand how structural discrimination works.

I think (speculating wildly here) this may actually be operating at the level of extreme cognitive dissonance. Subconsciously, she is aware that there are certain things that (to quote Mr Starmer) "should not be said." Therefore, in investigating complaints about Allison's tweets, only information that fitted her framework for what is acceptable appeared salient. Because paying too much attention to Allison's arguments might have led her to inadvertently agree with something inappropriate. It's all a bit "Watch the wall my darling as the Gentlemen go by."

At a second level, am I right in thinking that JK is herself, like Allison, a woman of colour from a working class background? I wonder whether, because of this, she was very invested in seeing her workplace as fair and meritocratic - because her future career success depends on her being treated fairly and not discriminated against based on her race or sex. When Allison started to raise concerns about her treatment at GCC, that could call all that into question - if she admitted Allison was being victimised, she would have to acknowledge that her organisation and colleagues were not fair or meritocratic. It would be far easier emotionally to blame Allison for not playing the game / being deliberately provocative than to admit that she could suffer the same fate if she stepped out of line.

So his argument is that her work was narrowly sourced, which was why it was an issue when she turned down work. It’s not a bad argument and he comes across as if he’s telling the truth. He’s a difficult witness.

I saw the words "Diversity Champion". I imagine that I deleted the email straight away.

I think that is a great example of the Pavlovian response. 😂

JAMES NESBITT

I knew he looked like somebody. It's not just me is it?

He wouldn't have to know about the diversity champion stuff to be influenced in clerking by the senior team though. If it was intimated by HoC etc that Allison should be limited the clerks understanding of why may well not matter as long as it is shown they did what they were told. They don't personally have to be involved in the stonewall stuff

He's a good witness, straightforward and it's going to be difficult to prove I fear. We'll see. Nice to have someone normal giving evidence.

Now you've said it I can't I see it.

BCQC is Ewan McGregor with his ObiEan beard to me 🤣.

Just back from work and have to get the housework done before school run. If you can see a woman in a suit hoovering in Bluetooth earmuffs, that’ll be me.

He does look like JN.

I can’t help imagining him on a booze cruise with the boys after this, saying, ‘They asked me all these f-ing questions about “diversity”, mate, I didn’t know what they were on about.’

That is actually hilarious.

I found his statement funny! Seems like a straight forward, interesting person to me.

I’m seeing his casting more as Danny Dyer

What's to his right on the screen? Charlie that is.

I wonder what the letter MF is referring to is about?

while it is plausible that AB (in turning down work) was playing a risky strategy is there evidence that they (the clerks or the seniors in GCC) talked to her about this. - It would seem strange for people to know that others were making mistakes and not help them - unless they wanted to edge her out?

I don’t think it’s that strange. Barristers work very independently. Nobody is responsible for their success except them, as I understand things.

I wonder if the chambers will agree to a continuing relationship with Stonewall after this? I wonder whether or not they would be willing to have a public opinion about it even.

I suspect they would not want the public to know any of their internal discussions about whether to continue the relationship, or not. Or why.

The issue of people being concerned about going on record about any of this is absolutely massive. I'm so pissed off when people pretend it isn't.

I would only get senior counsel to a bail app or similar if it was very high profile or they were very bored. So that point could land either way that.

has anyone been counting how many days RW & IO have been exclusively page monitors for now? It's no wonder they are feeling sleepy.

Is it plausible that the reputational damage caused by GCC tweeting they were investigating her caused briefs to dry up of their own accord, independent of clerking? e.g. Solicitors or whoever knowing she was to be investigated so choosing not to request/pick her?

Wouldn't it be ironic if following the rather patchy evidence from the GCC barristers and QCs, it's CT, the clerk, who saves the day for GCC?

CT is only providing evidence about detriment (i) and there are four other detriments.

His strategy is to make her sound unreasonable in her expectations of decent work. BC sounds certain that it’s not commensurate with her level of experience. And yes, it’s up to her whether she takes on a piece of work, but the point here is that she wasn’t being offered any decent work (or hardly any) at all.

The difficulty is that we can’t see whether other barristers were offered better work. Is it true that work was slow in 2019 for other members of Chambers?

Yes I think that could have been a detriment.

CT's eyes and eyebrows are weirdly identical to James Nesbitt's. I mean he looks like him generally anyway but if you cover his lower face, they are exactly the same. Uncanny.

I've always thought the clerks evidence will be the linchpin to this case.

I'm not sure that there hasn't perhaps been an overreach by Allison's team on the financial detriment claim.

She has them over a barrel on the other stuff regarding how the complaints were dealt with though.