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

But he's never seen it! Therefore it doesn't exist.

Given that the EJ is a woman, I think she will have a very clear memory of that.

Thank you for these threads. I work in a job with no internet access and it's been great to catch up on here.
I'm a very surprised that Allison's room mate recorded her conversation and passed it on. I used to work in the security industry and we always had to tell clients that it was illegal for civilians to record another party without their knowledge. You had to inform them,even if it was a conversation that the recording party instigated. This was 20 odd years ago,so maybe the law has changed since then?

Does anyone have any insight into how this case and GCC's reputation is going down in the legal industry? I'm sure that until it is concluded,that many will keep their powder dry,but to someone who is outside of that sphere, it looks like an absolute bin fire.

Does anyone have any insight into how this case and GCC's reputation is going down in the legal industry? I'm sure that until it is concluded, that many will keep their powder dry, but to someone who is outside of that sphere, it looks like an absolute bin fire.

If they're anything like GCC, aren't we meant to believe that everybody is too busy for a single legal person (even with a free day) to attend any part of the hearings, and, even if they did, they'd keep it to themselves and never mention it to anyone in work?

It's not the impression that I've picked up from Roll on Friday.

That reflexive response if a man walked into the women’s loos

I suppose if you truly believe that TWAW, there is not a man walking into the loos, to them they really are a woman.

I cannot understand how they truly believe that though, it is illogical and I don't think any of them really believe it. They are lying.

OT: but even by Roll on Friday standards and this particular case, this is quite the humdinger. A very different area and different people but I've had glimpses of such attitudes and amnesia in the last 2 weeks of the tribunal.

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/ex-dechert-partner-committed-deliberate-acts-wrongdoing-court-finds

Yes I though recording phone calls was illegal too.
only just caught up but re the prisons discussion, isn’t the whole point that these days there are no ways to record the number of men who identify as transgender who have a GRC and who assault women, so the figures are clearly off when men cannot be recorded as women.

‘I suppose if you truly believe that TWAW, there is not a man walking into the loos, to them they really are a woman.’

Which they are entitled to believe. But GC belief is protected and AB doesn’t. All these ‘prejudiced’ statements Renton supposedly heard her making are entirely natural outgrowths of her protected beliefs.

However much or little they have had done, women still recognise males instinctively for very good reasons, and the suggestion that we ought to attempt to suppress those instincts is abhorrent. I’m sick of it. We organise our lives to avoid being alone with unknown males because they can harm us, and even so when it happens and we are raped or murdered we are still blamed. Any man who cannot understand this is a problem to women.

Bloody hell!
"A former MET police officer...." "rubbing his hands and saying 'right boys, I’m in rape mode'" ... "Bouts of global amnesia"....

""Trust among partners is integral to any partnership, and throughout this litigation, Dechert has always acted in good faith in reliance on the assurances given to us by our former partner", said the firm, gently lowering Gerrard into the path of the speeding bus."
haha!

But that isn't believed.

The minute women start to point out their problems with this, what they get told is:

• You have a silly, prudish thing about penises that you need to get over
• NAMALT
• you have unreasonable expectations of your own privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy
• if you're traumatised, disabled, of a culture or faith etc that makes this impossible for you then you need to just abandon those parts of yourself and not expect anyone else to care or support you because of them
• you have no business interfering with or criticising what a male TQ+ person does in your space until you have actually been assaulted
• if you're assaulted you can always call the police

All of this is heavily evidenced all over the place - on threads here, on Twitter, in articles in a wide range of press, in interviews on tv and radio. Pretty much word for word. It's quite blunt that everyone is fully aware this is about a male person.

It's all about 'there is a male who has desires and wishes to use this space (which involves using the females present as props) and you have no equality of rights with that male, and must submit either to co operation, or submit by losing access to public space'.

It just is flat out binary sex based thinking where one sex has rights and entitlements above the other. It's dressed up in a lot of incoherent word salad to try and disguise it, but this bit (the removal of sex based rights from females) is all it is.

I wonder if DR is so upset at the idea of women legitimately being able to say no to males because he’d have to examine his own actions/history? Women have to just be being hateful bitches, or maybe he isn’t quite the ‘good’ person he thinks he is.

He certainly comes across as someone I wouldn’t want to be alone with.

Sorry should say “when men can be recorded as women” not cannot …

Right, I have to stop fannying about on the internet and do some actual work. 😒so here is the next thread.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553754-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-10

If they're anything like GCC, aren't we meant to believe that everybody is too busy

This constant refrain of 'we were too busy' -

is this supposed to be a reason saying basically 'yes, we admit we messed up'? In the real world not many people providing a paid service get to say to their customers or HR that they're dropping balls everywhere and not doing things properly but that's all ok because busy.

Many thanks Ickky so appreciating these threads and links.

Thanks ickky, can't believe how quickly these threads are filling up. Good work everyone!

It just is flat out binary sex based thinking where one sex has rights and entitlements above the other. It's dressed up in a lot of incoherent word salad to try and disguise it, but this bit (the removal of sex based rights from females) is all it is.

Yes.

I know! I've got several reviews to comment on this weekend and stuff to write and I'm having too good a time here and on the Roll on Friday site. Any GCC lawyers taking a break from their busy lives, yes, like many people here, I'm doing this as an integral extension of my day job; I have family who need attention and some actual care; I've got fence panels to replace and a freezer to defrost; there's stuff going on in my life but, like most women, I'm cracking on with it and, apart from this thread, rarely mention it.

I should make a pot of coffee and snap to it.

@PrelateChuckles You chose the standout bits that are still with me. That was quite the 😱

Just to add my support for this. I don't follow live but this is a discussion thread not an accurate report and to find and post every tweet by TT to every reaction would be beyond onerous.

Whilst I don't always understand what caused the reaction the speed of replies and the emotion of posters has meant this thread reflects better what is happening in court. Really appreciate everyone's posts thanks

Can anyone give me a hint at the timing of the discussion of the phone recording so I can track down the relevant tweets on tribunal tweets? (Or here). Thanks.

I wonder whether "too busy" is a catch-all way of saying something like "suck it up"?

My job is busy, but I'm rarely working at 1.30am. I think a lot of the other GCC QCs have had to sacrifice a lot to attain career success - and the job seems very all-consuming, even without added extras. JK seems to have accepted having responsibility for an investigation (that eats into either billable hours or time with family) as par for the course. Even though this is arguably an example of workplace sexism - why is she doing this not DR for example? And Michelle Brewer seems to have become a judge partly to get a better work-life balance (www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/bar-to-bench-moving-on-up).

Is there a sense that everyone at GCC was supposed to just manage whatever work responsibilities came their way for the greater good - possibly while feeling grateful for being afforded the opportunity? So then Allison doing anything that created extra work for GCC (dealing with Tweets, complaints about transphobic etc) was seen as undermining the firm / making everyone's life more difficult. And that created resentment about all the things they each individually sacrificed, which gets projected at Allison - "why can't she just put up with it like I did?"

On the commentary and gossip point in general, this is about the case I mentioned above, the discussion forum is very insightful. Particularly the commentary from Muttley.

www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/enrc-v-decherts-and-neil-gerrard

This is exactly it.

they genuinely can’t get their heads around the fact that GC views are genuinely and solely based on thinking about women.

Everything in their minds revolves around T, so it’s inconceivable to them that ours doesn’t. They genuinely ant wrap their heads around it

Also on gossip, having slept on it, further to my cyncism last night about the 'we don't gossip' stance from the GCC criminal clerks' office, I am now firmly of the opinion that it's untrue. Or call it dissembling. Or whatever. But it's bullshit, potentially intended to deceive.

Funnily enough, the Guardian's unusually entertaining article today on defamation law acknowledges the prevalence of gossip in legal circles:

People in government and prominent lawyers not involved in the case have been keeping a close eye on proceedings – partly because, like many of the rest of the public, they are voracious gossips

I hope the EJ and the panel spot this dissembling (I think MR was there) and draw a reasonable inference from the clerk's evidence.

Source for quote: www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/20/wagatha-christie-puts-englands-legal-system-on-trial-in-the-social-media-age

I do not think there is say suggestion that Renton recorded Allison's phone conversation on device. In her witness statement it says he 'reported' the conversation he overheard to brewer, and obviously related what he heard, and Allison thinks he misrepresented it. Then:

"(443) In the Bundle, there is also a note apparently written by David Renton

recording a conversation with me (Bundle Page 3626). I think it is extremely

odd that my roommate would make an attendance note of a conversation in

this way."

It's an attendance note about the conversation, recording (ie making a written record) that it had happened.