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

She's doing a better job of defending Stonewall than the Chambers. Saying their decisions was nothing to do with them that they were shit just by themselves.

BC: You do have Equality Act experts in chambers, don't you?

JK: You don't understand

EJ calls for a break to reduce the temperature a few notches. Back in 5.

chilling19

I find it very hard to believe that GCC have not carried out a series review of every action that everyone took about this situation leading up to the tribunal.

So, for me, the 'I can't remember bullshit' is a deliberate strategy to cover up their appalling failure of process.

Is it not possible that all that will come when this is over? I would imagine that delving deep and knowing exactly where you went wrong is not something that is ideal before cross-examination.

I think that they have four questions to answer -

(1) What are we going to do to ensure senior staff have sufficient time to meet their responsibilities?

(2) Why did we trust Stonewall and how can we make sure that we only place trust in people worthy of our trust in future?

(3) Why did we not consider that AB might have had a point? Why were we so quick to assume that she is a bigot? Was it 100% due to the trust we had in Stonewall, or was part of it misogyny, homophobia or racism towards AB?

(4) Is there any way we can sue Stonewall for letting us down so badly, or do we need to keep quiet? After all it'll look pretty bad if we're claiming to be legal experts who took legal advice off of an organisation clearly misrepresenting the law and itself represented by senior staff of dubious quality (eg Kirrin M).

Breaking: barristers chambers specialising in discrimination, equality & human rights law had no idea whether the Equality Act applies or not to Twitter 😳

How will they ever have any clients in the future after demonstrating that they are so incompetent in so many ways?

Definintely juice break time now

Succinct but apposite, Eelicks. 😀

JK keeps mentioning the reputational damage potentially caused by AB but all I'm seeing here is how incompetent GCC are. And they're doing it all by themselves.

Over 200 barristers, and no one they could just ask to check that.

Or worse, perhaps it didn't occur to them to check...

And biccies?

I agree with your point Tabby but to be clear, AB's original tweet on the start of LGBAlliance included the phrase "Spread the word, gender extremism is about to meet its match.'

Not 'trans extremism'.

I think the difference is significant.

Stonewall has, in recent years, become a solely gender-based organisation which posits that sexuality is rooted in gender and identity.

LGBAlliance was formed as a sex-based organisation for those whose sexual orientation remains rooted in sex.

They have a different target audience.

The fact that some of the best legal minds in GCC couldn't appreciate this then and have remained steadfastly incurious over the intervening years is... perplexing

Missed that, what are they doing now?

5 min case management hearing.

Private case management discussion, did EJ say till 15.20? AH and IO had discussed something and will ambush BC with it.

I have just googled Marc Willers - human rights and discrimination one of his specialties, particularly around the Gypsy and Roma communities. Leslie Thomas - specialises in civil wrongs and human rights. Judy Khan - in addition to her impressive work on VAWG, was recently on a panel entitled "how to understand and confront racism in the justice system". Both LT and JK appear from their pictures and biographies to be BAME.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this in the context of @SenselessUbiquity 's post above and I just can't - these aren't old white guys harrumphing about not being allowed to say anything these days. It doesn't make sense to me.

GRich - maybe. But if it was my chambers I would want our stories straight before getting on on the witness stand because if not, we would have exactly this show of sheer incompetence in full view of the public. Given that these are supposed to be highly educated and competent people, I can only assume that looking unprofessional, appearing defensive and downright combative, is preferable to the truth.

@Xiaoxiong isn't that exactly why they are so outraged? They haven't realised that they themselves are carrying prejudice and that thought is hard for them to swallow.

I agree, this seems to be far deeper rooted than ‘Middle Aged middle class white men think…’

The chambers seems very diverse, in fact.

so what is going on, and how is it so ingrained and insidious?
and no one can answer the question, even the people involved can’t answer it!

AH/IO haven't told BC what it's about yet. My guess is it's something to do with availability of witnesses and they want a re-jig.

I'm sure BC is perfectly capable of looking after himself but I had a strange feeling of the playground bullies ganging up on him there with AH and IO having a chat but not finding time to let BC know anything

Also another derailing tactic as BC hones in like a laser

Or one party wants to settle?

Just placemarking. Had to go out and was itching to get back! Thanks for the great commentary. As I said upthread, I have worked with Judy in the past and so am not really going to comment on her testimony.

Given that these are supposed to be highly educated and competent people, I can only assume that looking unprofessional, appearing defensive and downright combative, is preferable to the truth.

Seems the only conclusion. The truth must be fucking terrifying.....

drwitch oooh, that would be good if Allison wins

Is anyone else listening to this and thinking ahead to Stonewall etc... challenge to LGB Alliance's charitable status? We've Had JK agree that there was nothing inherently transphobic about LGB Alliance, nor with what AB was tweeting or her concerns.

They clearly favoured the opponents of AB's views over AB and her views

Yes, and ignored the support coming in for Allison. Seemed that it didn't matter how they looked to the gender critical side, weren't worried about reputational damage there, they were concerned only with what the 'gender/tra' side thought.

But they hadn't picked a side, oh no, absolutely not 🤨