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

We’ve just had a MISTER cooper from JK
learning from Maya Sikand there

All this "yes, it's very easy to criticise, we might have done something else under ideal circumstances, we were under too much pressure to do the right thing" stuff seems like an enormous admission of culpability. No one cares whether this was because GCC were incompetent out lazy or malicious, we just care if they did the right thing or not - if they didn't act properly because they were too distracted, and recognise that now, why the hell didn't they settle OOC?

JK is getting rattled.

EJ getting tired of hearing about all the other stuff that was going on that made it too hard for JK to check before tossing Allison under the bus. "If you just say crisis, we'll understand..."

JK is sent an email with 13 pages of twitter posts and she didn't bother reading it? I find that hard to believe.

Would they take this level of evasion from a witness in a case they were working on? Seems to be a parade of 'I don't remember' ' I was busy'

BC is making a good point here that GCC wanted to act against AB in response to the complaints but hadn't studied the complaints carefully enough to understand exactly what they were.

BC: It's only when you go on what's on the surfact that prejudices come in isn't it?

Subconscious bias isn't a thing, then?

She doesn't accept they 'had prejudices kicking in'.

Bull.

You would have thought they might have reflected and settled. This is much worse re reputational damage.

So we have three joint heads of chambers - Judy Khan, Mark Willers and Leslie Thomas all cooking up the "actions" to take, in response to their head of comms and PR saying they were "being accused" of transphobia. And the strong inference/direct admission is that none of these three ever looked at any of the attachments, supporting docs, tweets, etc?

Pull the other one...it's got bells on!!!

PS If there were so many joint heads of chambers involved, why is Judy Khan the only one up here on the stand? Are the others still to come?

Thank you for the new thread and insights/analysis, wims.

If her only excuse for treating AB like this was that she was busy/disinterested, it might help her a little because it allows for the argument that it wasn’t because of AB’s beliefs, but the rest of the case demolishes that idea, surely? The business/disinterestedness permitted the evolution of a situation in which AB’s beliefs were lazily/ideologically dismissed as transphobic by some barristers (and Hr/marketing) and she went along with it because she was busy/disinterested. It’s not an excuse.

@Xiaoxiong we had LF last week I guess MW may be later?

Mr BC just moistened his lips with some lip balm. This is just for his admirers. 😉

I thought the same.

Is that meant to be insulting to BC, in some way?

JK stumbled but and corrected but she nearly said: We would do anything to protect chambers from reputational damage.

Ooh the diversity champion scheme punch!

She's basically saying that they will align themselves with whatever politics keeps them in favour reputationally. No integrity then.

As to why they didn’t settle (at least earlier), it’s possibly relevant that Forstater changed the landscape. They didn’t think her beliefs were important.

They clearly favoured the opponents of AB's views over AB and her views - they never even bothered to read or understand what AB's views were! They ignored her views, and accepted as unquestionably right the views of SW/Kirrin Metcalf/Knaand/trans activists on Twitter/vulnerable David Neal/David de Menezis etc.
They had predetermined the case when they condemned AB with the tweet publicly saying they were investigating AB, then set about justifying their condemnation of her: interpreted things in twisted ways that no reasonable person would (eg that cotton ceiling doesn't mean what it clearly means etc) to condemn her, etc.
Shameful.

"I didn't mean to talk over you, but I'll carry on...."

😘

Oh dear