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

Delurking to thank all those with access to the tribunal for helping the rest of us keep up. Very illuminating.

I think it was Kirren Medcalf (sp?) because of the extra temptation of chatting to his mother, emotional support friend, dog, and the rest of their entourage.

Can't keep up with the thread so this might already be shared but I hope this is a share token for the Times article as I'm a subscriber. It was 5 sexual assaults and then 2 by Karen White that took the total to 7. So this doesn't read to me that they were all by the same person and they were in several prisons which would rather suggest they weren't.

Article

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

Soooooo pissed off that I watched all day but had to leave just before DR

Calling GC concerns 'dogwhistles' doesn't make sense either.
A 'dogwhistle' is when someone says they have X concern, but really they mean something else that they don't want to say. E.g. "I don't want thugs moving into my neighbourhood" when "thugs" means Black people to the person saying it and that's also how it will be understood by like-minded racist people but on the face of it seems like a legitimate thing to say.

But saying "we don't want male people in female prisons" can't be a dogwhistle unless the TRAs admit that that statement isn't transphobic in itself and that we really mean something else - perhaps "we don't want trans people in female prisons" which we all know is rubbish as it's not anyone's trans status that is in question, it's their sex. It's either outright transphobic to say that, and it's not a dogwhistle, or we're lying about what we are demanding.

Misuse of terms really bugs me.

Dog whistle now means a tweet I don't like which may attract more tweets agreeing with it.

I think TRAs call GC ideas "dogwhistles" because the idea of anyone giving a shit about women genuinely confuses them. They simply cannot wrap their minds around it. If they ever did begin to grasp the idea that women actually matter they'd have to acknowledge what awful human beings they are, so they never will.

So obviously anyone who does care about women is insincere and just "dogwhistling." They don't actually really care about women; that's not even a thing. This allows TRAs to sustain their sense of moral superiority in the face of all the evidence.

Yeah, it's sort of come to mean something that 'sounds reasonable, but I know that it isn't because the people saying it must be lying'.

That only makes sense if you think the thing being discussed is indeed reasonable at face value, yet they say it isn't (or is, depending on how you phrase it).

I suspect TRAs do genuinely think that GC statements are "dogwhistles", e.g. that if someone says "single-sex spaces are important", TRAs think that we mean (and that other GC people hear) "transwomen are dangerous predators".

It was clear from DR's evidence today that it genuinely hadn't occurred to him that GC women might mean what they say. He is completely convinced the real view being expressed is transphobia, and the stuff about single sex spaces is just a socially acceptable / plausibly deniable way of expressing it.

Like ‘talking points’, which means something like ‘things I don’t like that other people seem to think with alarming consistency’.

It is typical of men, in how they relate to women, and narcissists and toddlers, in how they relate to everybody, to assume that the Other's intentions and concerns don't actually exist, and are solely about how the narcissist/man/toddler feels. So if women saying no makes them feel bad, obviously that's why the woman is saying no, they want the overinflated solipsistic ego to feel bad, so the woman is a terrible mean person being cruel on purpose.

And that is how we get Dogwhistle Discourse.

I hope Michelle Brewer is going to be interesting. Renton isn't really, he's a ten a penny misogynist. The really dedicated handmaidens (who are actually intelligent, not mediocrities desperately riding a trend to get ahead) are a total mystery to me.

Yes, I can’t (and I’ve tried) get inside the head of a Michelle Brewer. I understand all the things they say they think.

I’d love someone to engage in genuine good faith to help me understand how they got from ‘there are female people and male people’ to ‘it’s fine to stick a woman in a cell with a rapist because gender identity’.

Can’t do it.

Delurking to say a massive thank you to all that have posted updates, comments and links during the hearing. It's been intense, but time very well spent. Following these threads has raised many emotions for me: anger, disbelief, despair, frustration. I can't get my head around just how toxic AB's working environment must have been and what she's gone through just to get this far. But I also have hope that publicity on this case, and others like it, can shine an ever brighter light on the erosion of the rights of women. And it gives me strength and determination to "be more Allison". Every day. She is one incredible woman and so strong.

I think EJ Goodman is a model of professionalism and will decide the case based on the facts (I’m actually full of admiration for the way she handles herself). I am also reassured by some of her language in the full Appleby judgment.

"Dog-whistle" is a dog-whistle

I’d also be very interested to know how judges are allocated to cases. I’d assume it was random?

*Iknowitisheresomewhere · Today 17:09

I actually think he was a reasonably good witness for his side. Because you have to be VERY up with this debate to understand what he is actually saying.

For example, on the issue of gender neutral toilets in schools, an observer would presume, I think, from what he said, that schools were introducing gender neutral toilets alongside single sex toilets. He made it sound as if Alison disagreed with gender neutral toilets as a standalone concept.

Which, I presume, she doesn't. None of us do. Unless there are ONLY gender neutral ones. It is the loss of single sex ones that is the problem. But someone listening to him may not pick up on that.*

I don't think it's the loss of single sex toilets that is the issue, or the existence of gender neutral toilets in place of them. The issue is gender neutral toilet blocks which share communal lobbies/washing facilities.

I have no issues if any school wants to add individual standalone toilets, with sinks, that are gender neutral. Crack on. I do have an issue if my girl has to use the toilet with, potentially, a boy sat next to her, separated by a bit of contiboard.

‘I have no issues if any school wants to add individual standalone toilets, with sinks, that are gender neutral.’

I’d have no issue with this with regards to this debate. But overall I would have an issue with it because it’s less safe for kids than communal toilets for males and females with a gap at the top and bottom of each stall through which - in an absolute emergency - a member of staff can check on the child or access can be gained. Floor-to-ceiling doors and walls are better for privacy but worse for detecting bullying, substance abuse, self-harm, sickness etc.

It’s not right that such a change should come about because of the demand for an end to single sex spaces (IMO).

I'm sure there was on a thread something about how to I'd fellow GCs. May I suggest 'support' or 'emotional support' biscuit, cup of teas, etc?

The framing of Allisons view as every time an accommodation is made for transwomen she objects. NO! Every time she points out how this impacts on women and girls. She is pro women not anti trans. And he just cannot get his head around it.

I think he can't get his head round the 'pro woman' bit as how you can be pro something which is put on this earth to serve you?

David Renton left the SWP in 2013 at a point when he was ostensibly still supporting women. Something happened to DR between 2013 and 2018.

I do wonder if it might relate to the Great Zealotry Realignments of 2015-16.

How easily swayed so many left-wing men have been to dismiss and condemn a whole sex class.

Just on the basis of hearing the various witnesses as I'm not able to access the bundle my thoughts going into the weekend are:

It's not in any doubt that the complaint was handled badly and Allison was thrown to the wolves by GCC on twitter.

It's not in any doubt that some members of staff at GCC were very upset and offended at Allison expressing her GC views.

It is not in any doubt that as a consequence of Allison's legal action that a lot of people are GCC are very very upset with her and have taken it very personally

Then there is a whole stuff that's very unclear in the middle that might become more clear the higher up the tree we go next week.

But I think that there is enough convincing testimony that Allison was 'picky' about cases, that she had a lot of time off due to sickness and leave even without taking into account the times she put 'keep free' in the diary, that she was genuinely unlucky with how cases progressed that year as well as a general downturn.

I suspect that Allison was out of favour with the clerks so wasn't getting as good access to the good work when it was available, but I don't think there will be smoking gun to prove this and I believe that generally the senior people in chambers didn't provide any direction to the clerks around this.

I actually think the clerks just didn't like that Allison was 'picky' about cases generally and knowing she was getting some heat from the rest of chambers about the GC stuff just gave them the green light to not work as hard for her knowing they were unlikely to be pulled up on it.

exwhyzed

That’s possible, but she was always picky about cases and there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that her time off during that year was unusual.

So that doesn’t explain why her income fell so much more than the other barristers’ income during a period of general scarcity.

But in general I don’t disagree.

Delurking to say thank you to everybody for their contributions.
As a suggestion , could the next thread have the dramatis personnae and links to previous threads in the second post so it doesn't take up half of every page and take an age to scroll past? (and i would have put 'second' in bold but i don't post often enough to remember how and the bloody instructions that used to appear at the bottom of the page have gone - another triumph of the upgrade - Grr!)

Broadly, exwhyzed, I'm with your reading on how things look so far.