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

You know though don't you when your colleagues don't like you and you're being shunned. And they haven't quite explored the point that she often decided to take time off BECAUSE she had no cases in the diary. It must be soul destroying to be available to work and have nothing to do.

@nauticant

"Look at the testimony today from the clerks and think about where the evidence of such a conspiracy could be seen."

Indeed. The thread looks as if leads to the TWRG, from which others in GCC are very keen to distance themselves.

‘Look at the testimony today from the clerks and think about where the evidence of such a conspiracy could be seen.’

There’s no evidence of an instruction.

Ben Cooper QC went through all the billing evidence with the GCC witness in detail, and even after the effects of the pandemic and time off and 'keep clear' were taken into account, there still remains an unexplained fall in income for AB and only AB.

I think she was unpopular.

It is vanishingly unlikely that her newfound unpopularity wasn't connected, at least in some small way as an absolute minimum, to the fact that she was apparently being treated like crap by seniors at GCC.

Personally I think the clerk saying 'we don't gossip' was a tactical error for GCC. It suggests something, I think. And the tribunal is allowed to draw inferences.

As lots of other posters have said, the evidence of Michelle Brewer will be very important - assuming she gives evidence.

It is vanishingly unlikely that her newfound unpopularity wasn't connected, at least in some small way as an absolute minimum, to the fact that she was apparently being treated like crap by seniors at GCC

I agree but I don't think her 'unpopularity' was newfound more that it became legitimised by how she was now being treated like crap by GCC seniors.

Allison had very good reasons for limiting what work she took but that made her 'difficult' to clerk. I think itooks like all bets were off when it became known amongst the clerks that the she was also out of favour with the seniors.

I don't think for one moment there was ever a direct instruction that she was frozen out. That's why the GCC barristers are furious they are being accused of doing something so deliberate when they didn't whilst ignoring that it didn't need to be deliberate to have an impact.

To a large part, I think it's what it often is. I think they think it'll get them laid. Women in their social circles are into all that equality shit, so it's a form of mating ritual. Signalling your self as a "nice guy".

Yes I think that's often part of it for the straight ones.

I think it would have been wiser to say yes of course we gossip, who doesn't in that sort of environment, but it would never have affected the work that we did.

I don't know, I just think it makes them less believable to say they don't gossip at all.

Yes I agree, it might undermine a witness's credibility. If I were sitting on a panel where a witness said that, and the witness worked in an area that I had reason to believe was notorious for gossip, I might wonder what was was really going on.

Maya has tweeted this.
Looking back on the time she had a chat with Dave Renton on his blog ...
Explains a lot about today.

livesrunning.wordpress.com/2021/06/14/resisting-forstater-and-the-push-back-against-trans-rights/

As a poster commented earlier, men don't think of their work chit-chat as 'gossiping'.
That's what laydeez do.
That's a 'mother's meeting'.

So when he said they only talk about football, he was kinda telling the truth.
Except he wasn't. Every single office in the known universe, gossips.

And MR wasn't having any of it.

Bindel article on Stonewall, including commentary on Allison's tribunal.

thecritic.co.uk/since-when-did-stonewall-side-with-bullies/

Look at the testimony today from the clerks and think about where the evidence of such a conspiracy could be seen.

TRWG/LoHo/MB

You have to read down to the comments, btw, to see Maya's comment and DR's response, including the predictable "I don't believe that what you've written is true." He seems quite muddled.

Just circling back to the discussion about single sex spaces = transphobia = dog whistle discourse on page 33 (19:30ish mark).

Whilst I think posters are spot on about their dismissal of women as secondary support people, I also wonder if there's an underlying male prejudice coming to play, in a DARVO style way. I don't care if a man wears make up and a skirt. Crack on. Be Sheila or Karen or whatever your authentic self is. That does not threaten me. Ditto FtM in jeans and short hair. What DOES threaten me is sharing a intimate space with an unknown man, without the right to risk assess and say "no."

Whereas for a lot of men; it's the reverse. The performance of feminine men - if not safely tucked into a label - could be more threatening than the risk of violence to women (who don't really count). Pantomime dames, transsexuals and ladyboys are fiiine. But a men who dares to wear a skirt* and still be a man? Nope.

"Men are afraid women will laugh at them.
When are afraid men will kill them."

*"Traditional manly attire like kilts are excluded. Hey, I never said it would make total sense.

I agree but I don't think her 'unpopularity' was newfound more that it became legitimised by how she was now being treated like crap by GCC seniors.

Related to your point, @exwhyzed, I do find it credible. What I find less credible, therefore, are the narratives of all the GCC barristers who in their evidence said on the one hand, oh yes she was awfully difficult, but on the other hand getting all emotional about what great friends they were with her, how fond they were of her, how she could and should have come to them at any time ...

Maybe there weren’t any direct commandments to the clerks to sideline Allison.

The general toxic behaviour towards her must have been noticeable, and given that GCC were tweeting that they were going to investigate Allison, it would be hard to miss.

It would be easier for the clerks to go along with the general feelings of those at the top, than to stick their necks out and give the decent work to Allison .
There would always be someone who does toe the line and who is in favour, whom would happily hoover up the work, which would previously have been passed Allisons way.. And I can quite think that no direct orders would need to be given.

Oh God I've been away today, I've watched pretty much ALL of the trial, I'm away this weekend, if anyone would be kind enough to summarise Fridays hearing, I'd be so grateful!! Xx

No I don't think any direct orders would have been given to the clerks, it wouldn't have needed that, just a nudge and a wink, a whispered hint - nothing provable.

BC mentions a witness statement from the director of clerking Colin Cook, does that mean he'll be questioned as well? I hope so, given he and CT were responsible for allocating work.

thanks to everyone who has posted. I can't believe how fast this thread is going.
I haven't said thanks for the new thread yet and it's nearly over. LOve the bingo card

Yes. And, maybe the EJ thought that someone who does such a thing may need a very careful reminder about not discussing the case with anyone which he is still a witness.

Thanks for the link - excellent article!

After recent events I am left wondering if the GCC trans rights action group (named people so far Michelle Brewer, David Renton, Tom Wainwright and Louise Hooper?) considered themselves to be at the forefront of social justice activism at GCC but actually had very, very little standing amongst HoC and influential colleagues, to the extent that honeslty - as my 15 yo says - no one cared.

But that when they stamped their feet over the 'twitter storm' they were rewarded with 'there there' twitter head pats. Like pacifying a toddler with a sweet or a blankie or a cartoon.

I hope Allison is able to rest this weekend and has support, this must be gruelling