Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 9

[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

Thread 8 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4552521-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-8

Allison Bailey - claimant

Witnesses for the claimant:

Nic Williams - Fair Play for Women
A Woman's Place
FiLiA
Kate Harris - LGB Alliance

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC
Kirrin Medcalfe - head of trans inclusion Stonewall
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC and in charge of writing report on AB/complaints
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC

Current Witness - Charlie Tennant - Clerk at GCC

To come

Luke Harvey - Clerk at GCC
Louise Hooper - Clerk at GCC
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge

As soon as any man, even those who claim they are not a man,
enters such a space it is a mixed sex space.

No-one has mentioned the issue of consent.

Women do not, have never and will never consent to any man of any description using their single sex spaces.

I've had the misfortune to know a number of privately educated men with SWP allegiances. DR seems like he'd fit in well. I think there is a huge gap between the empathy displayed for a theoretical victim of sexual violence and a real-life survivor who challenges their party political line.

(A lot of SWP-style solutions to crime/assault/abuse go something along the lines of "After the revolution, we will ensure fair and equal access to resources. Therefore no-one will live in the circumstances of poverty and deprivation that cause them to commit crime. Therefore we will not need police/prisons and other instruments of oppression." Huge allowances are also made for bad behaviour by fellow activists.)

I'm intrigued as to what he thinks about the Equalities Act, given that it explicitly allows for single sex spaces for sexual assault survivors.

I find DR's take on the statistics difficult to believe.

Surely you'd put someone in isolation before they committed 174 assaults? At what point is the state liable for these crimes?

And if even 1 TW in the female estate can commit 174 offences AND NOT BE MOVED then this seems like quite a good argument for single sex to be honest.

Fairly sure they all know how truthful that statement was. Practically everyone involved in this case is a legal bod of some sort.

Catching up here after a ridiculous day in the ‘office’. Thanks as always, Vipers, for the analysis, comedy and company. Have had the tribunal on in the background, but missed DR’s input so far. Sounds like a piece of work alright. Hopefully BC QC will destroy him (in a legal, non literal violence sense, of course) on Wednesday. Something to look forward to.

That may be true of some crime but I don't see a link between sex crimes and poverty and deprivation. Unless he thinks wealthy men with status are never guilty.

He probably does think that tbh. A number of men on the left and the right seem to think sex crimes aren't actual crimes.

Please let Julie Bindel or Sonia Sodha write about this testimony. Basically AB’s ‘crime’ in this man’s eyes is to be angered by the removal of the rights of women and girls to safe spaces.

Hang on - is DR really saying that 174 sexual assaults plus five times as many other assaults were all carried out by one TW prisoner? So something in the region of a thousand assaults, all carried out in prison by one person? Have I misunderstood, because this doesn't sound credible... At least, I hope the prison authorities would take action long before the thousandth incident!

A number of men on the left and the right seem to think sex crimes aren't actual crimes.

Like the latest Westminster scandal?

It was 7 sexual assaults:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg

He hesitated over what he was saying, which was he thought either all 7, or 6 out of 7, had been committed by one person.

Sorry I don;t have a share token but just the first part will show you what they were talking about.

So many men are very invested in the feelings of trans people, but seem to completely disregard the rights of women and girls to privacy, dignity and feeling comfortable and secure and free from the harassment of the male gaze.

They're telling on themselves with this attitude though, it shows that they don't actually believe TWAW. If they did, they'd sneer at TW and dismiss their concerns and fears in the same way they do to us.

I may have misunderstood but I thought the stats were relating to sexual offences which led to the TG being put in prison, not relating to sexual offences which were carried out once they were placed in the female estate.

I would want to know where he got the information from about who committed which offences as I thought the police didn't keep a record of sex only gender identity?!

I heard the 174 assaults part as '(1)74 assaults, 24 out of those were committed by one person' but I seem to be the only one!
I think I would make a bad witness if there was background noise in any conversation I was supposed to recall.

This (screenshot from twitter) sounds more like what I heard, but it went too fast for me to take it all in, esp as I was unfamiliar with these stats.

Quite.

DR seems to have (accidentally) conflated different data collections and their purpose.

I'm gutted I missed this afternoon.

They're telling on themselves with this attitude though, it shows that they don't actually believe TWAW. If they did, they'd sneer at TW and dismiss their concerns and fears in the same way they do to us.

YY.

There’s that old joke,
”Q. How can you tell the difference between a Transwoman and a Woman?
A. Men listen to Transwomen”

I wasn't there for much of it (work) but I was wrung out for the bits that I did manage to attend.

I don't know how BC was still on his feet and so focused coming up on 17:00 on a Friday after the various lively performances of the witnesses during the week and the sheer number of them today.

the gender people also equate women asserting their boundaries, for SS spaces for example, as wanting harm to come to vulnerable trans people. Its such an unnecessary, ignorant and scare tactic level leap to make. DR was saying this about Allison - he read "sexual offenders will transiton" as AB saying "all trans people are sex offenders" & this is not the first time we've hear this twisting - why would you deliberatly do that unless your intent was to twist & manipulate what gender critical people are actually saying.

Women can want to have SSS, and not want trans people harmed. Both can happen, if SSS are protected and we look at other solutions to trans safety. But they insist on accessing womens spaces irregardless of the effect on women and girls and painting any objection as hate. We've seen time and time again how affermation is the most importatnt thing.

Sorry I know we all know this - I'm just ranting now.

There's some confusion over the 174 sexual assaults statistic. Tribunaltweets gives an account that tallies with my recollection:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1527675244227461121

OvaHere
That may be true of some crime but I don't see a link between sex crimes and poverty and deprivation. Unless he thinks wealthy men with status are never guilty.

I never said it made sense ...

Is this true - that one male born prisoner identifying as a woman and in a women's prison committed 174 indecent assaults on other women prisoners? If so, that's a scandal of unbelievable proportions.

Delurking to say thanks for all the commentary.
Today has been jaw dropping.
Interesting how the defence is all about not knowing, too busy, etc, but they're all quite sure AB is a terrible transphobe. For intelligent people there's a lack of curiosity and robustness of thinking. Not at all what you would expect from barristers.