Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 10

[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

Thread 9 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4553181-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-9

Allison Bailey - claimant (4-9, 11-13 May)

Witnesses for the claimant:

Dr Nicola Williams - Fair Play for Women (29 April)
Dr Judith Green - A Woman's Place (29 April)
Kate Barker - LGB Alliance (3 May)
Lisa-Marie Taylor - FiLiA (4 May)

Witnesses for the respondents:

Stephen Lue - barrister for GCC (3-4 May)
Zainab Al-Farabi - ex Stonewall (10 May)
Kirrin Medcalf - head of trans inclusion Stonewall (10 May)
Leslie Thomas - barrister at GCC (13 May)
Sanjay Sood Smith - Stonewall (16 May)
Shaan Knan - LGBT consortium - on STAG (16 May)
Rajiv Menon - joint head of chambers (16-17 May)
Maya Sikand - barrister at GCC (17-18 May)
Mia Hakl-Law - HR senior for GCC (18 May)
Judy Khan - barrister at GCC (19-20 May)
Charlie Tennent - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Luke Harvey - clerk at GCC (20 May)
Louise Hooper - Barrister at GCC (20 May)

To come?
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, to continue on 25th May)
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge.
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing

GCRich, i think that t-shirt is referencing Dave Chappelle's support of JKR, as he said he was Team Terf.

Pink News will report on the opening of an envelope and are a very niche publication. How would MW - who apparently knew so little - even know who they were, or whether this was a big deal or not?

BC is definitely earning his money having to plough through this bundle. Does anyone with tribunal knowledge know if this is an unusual bundle? Are they all this huge?

😂😂😂

MHL again trying to inject some sense into how GCC was to handle the complaints.

MW is detailing his ability to use/understand Twitter while he is under oath.

I don't think it's the size of the bundle that is the problem, it's the quality. No hyperlinks, wrong page numbers etc.

His heavy handed use of the scroll button is getting on my nerves - the constant whirring as he goes up and down. Has he even read this stuff in advance

Interruption 9?

I've given up counting, there are so many.

I'm really struggling to follow Tribunal Tweets on Twitter. I don't have an account and I get so far then Twitter exhorts me to sign up to read more. Is this a new thing? I thought it was open to all to read. I managed it last week.

I'm trying to read the tweets then read the comments on here so I have a broad understanding of what's going on.

And thanks for everything, all of you.

MW is disputing BC's argument that GCC needed to have kept confidential that they were investigating a complaint against AB.

He's struggling.

Nice use of "quibbling" by BC.

It's like getting blood out of a stone, we all know that GCC breached their own confidentially policy. Many a blink, trying to work out what to say other than agreeing.

a lot of bluster here to avoid saying that tweeting 'yes, there was a complaint against AB' was a breach of confidence.

Are they trying to say that they think that Twitter is some private communication tool?

I don't think he can really believe the argument that he's trying to make about confidentiality being a one-way street.

Are you able to use this link Tallisker where if you scroll up the tweets will auto-refresh to include the most recent:

twitter.com/search?q=(from%3Atribunaltweets)&src=typed_query&f=top

MW trying to frame the confidentiality clause in complaint process as not covering naming AB on twitter & confirming they are investigating complaints. I don't think his framing makes sense, but it makes sense they thought there's no breach. But he's now pulling in the tweets into the complaints - forgetting that the tweets weren't part of the complaints investigated.

To be fair @IdisagreeMrHochhauser they seem to have a unique form of Twitter so maybe theirs is

MW has tried to say before as now again that a tweet as a reply is not a general tweet to the public

Not quite the same. When Gender Criticals like Glinner "reclaim" the word TERF it is a little cheeky of him, because, though he is a "TERF" for the purposes of the TRA vs GC debate, he's not a radical feminist.

Yes good point. I was making a general point rather than focussing on him.

does he think tweeting back to people is private? If they’d wanted to discreetly acknowledge complaints they could have DMed, no? (Genuinely not on Twitter...)

He's drowning on this, trying desperately to find a loophole that means he doesn't have to admit that the tweet naming AB and saying complaint was being investigated breaches confidentiality.