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

I rather presumed 'recording' Allison's phone calls meant taking a note of them, not actually using a recording device like a phone or dictaphone. Still an unprofessional and sneaky underhand thing to do.

If I heard a colleague saying something on a phone call I thought was out of order, I would challenge them there and then, not go behind their back and bubble them to management. Nasty man.

Renton comes across as a nasty piece of work, doesn’t he?

Thanks, ickky.

Contemporaneous notes are better than recording a telecon without the subject's permission since there are rules around the latter which make it inadmissible. Is this true, oh lawyers? or are the contemporaneous notes without asking AB's permission (though she noticed) also inadmissible?

Thank you nauticant and the others who cleared up the recording issue. As I hadn't seen the notes,I wasn't sure which meaning of recording was being used. The notes make it clear that it was not on a device.

Thank you for your posts. I’m working but dip in and out of this thread supposedly discretely whilst at work. I must admit that a couple of times I have burst out laughing at some of your comments. The wren, the cats, the QCs. Reading some of the comments made by the witnesses is mind blowing. How can these great legal minds believe TWAW? Is it the possibility of money? Future money? Have they lost their morals? I suppose it’s equivalent to the surgeons who operate on young women and men.

If I heard a colleague say something terribly racist then I might go to HR or my manager. The difference here is that Renton must know perfectly well that his is the minority view, and so-called “GC” opinions are just what everyone thought until about five minutes ago. He knows exactly how the power to bully and silence people who disagree with him is exercised using vicious shaming tactics.

Welcome! I like it when lurkers delurk, as it's not only good to have new people I think it shows how Allison is getting more women aware of the issues and they want to stand up in solidarity with her

I'm always at the round up emails that say (for example) 41,308 views of a thread when there are only 100 posters posting on it! I don't know whether it's because I joined when MN was so so much smaller and I still think of it that way, or because FWR feels a bit like a closer group with less NCs or more "recognisable" posters?

So lurkers, come and de-lurk, this is a great corner of MN and we are all fucking fantastic

But when you have literally posted a tweet saying that someone is being investigated, you'd want to help HR out like a good boy?

His attitude of not understanding why women don't want men in their spaces is completely disingenuous. It is the Talcum X approach of 'but they are women, what can you possibly find objectionable about it'. As we all drop our jaws and think 'WTF'.

Although, I do agree with (I think it was @ickky who said it? Apologies if I've got the wrong person) not being drawn in by PMs (unless it's a long term poster you "know") and being careful not to give out too much personal outing info, as there are lurkers who lurk with bad intentions, sadly. (that sounds like an album name or something, I could just say there are lurkers who hate women and don't like them speaking up, basically!)

So lurkers, come and de-lurk, this is a great corner of MN

We're a subaltern counterpublic and why "the answer is Mumsnet."

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4512657-The-answer-Is-Mumsnet-I-believe

Furries I’m sure the virtual twixes will be very much appreciated 😁

I've been following these threads avidly, alongside Tribunal Tweets, throughout Allison's case so far and just want to add my thanks for all the insights, comments and laughs which are bringing the tribunal proceedings to life for me. Like many others I'm too feart to log on myself in case I inadvertently disrupt the process.

His attitude of not understanding why women don't want men in their spaces is completely disingenuous. It is the Talcum X approach of 'but they are women, what can you possibly find objectionable about it'. As we all drop our jaws and think 'WTF'.

This.

Thanks for the new thread, once again @ickky! And also for the discussion, debate and general intelligence and wit here. It really tickled me that we were all being told off for making lighthearted comments. Like we can't be considered and serious as well as witty and lighthearted.

Was that more telling us women off, by any chance?!

I think Maya very effectively exposed him for, what I see, as his prejudice against women.

Even aside from the substantive issues, his/her peevish reply that he was put out Maya replied on piece using her name in the title was ridiculous.

Thank @ickky and all contributors

Sales of Twix must be through the roof off the back of this tribunal. Wonder if we could get them to sponsor the next LGB Alliance conference? I'm not a huge fan of Tunnocks.

Have just caught up on yesterday's events.
Another jaw dropping day.
BC is building up very clear picture of the atmosphere at BCC. While the clerking/ financial detriment is looking most difficult to prove, I think there's enough of a patchwork of incompetence, unconscious bias, very strongly held views, proof at least 2 of the TW group did not think AB's views were WORIADS- in combination with the very unlikely assertion that no one gossiped- that BC can invite tribunal to draw inference that reason for financial detriment due to actions flowing from her protected beliefs.
I may be wrong of course! If it was "bad luck" a female, black, increasing out of favour barrister was getting less work statistically than everyone else, the clerks would be able to point to actions they took to mitigate this bad luck. There's nothing is there?
Thanks to all the posters for such incisive and irreverent commentar. For the meet up, we can identify each other not with a rose in the lapel, but a visibly displayed support Twix.

I think Maya very effectively exposed him for, what I see, as his prejudice against women.

She did.

Could be any time I think?

I wonder if they are holding back the maya decision until after Allison's case has concluded?

You won't disrupt it all, and believe me we've had some hilarious examples.

One of my favourites was the Taxi driver who left his phone on his dashboard and didn't realise his camera was on.
Then he took out a comb and brushed his beard. 😂

tabbycatstripy · Today 13:38

If I heard a colleague say something terribly racist then I might go to HR or my manager. The difference here is that Renton must know perfectly well that his is the minority view, and so-called “GC” opinions are just what everyone thought until about five minutes ago. He knows exactly how the power to bully and silence people who disagree with him is exercised using vicious shaming tactics.

I would certainly consider HR if my colleague's private chat was racist. I would also do the same if it were transphobic (eg advocating for bullying a trans person for being trans).

I see no evidence that TRAs think they are in a minority view, not least as Stonewall is still pretty much "government approved" and the internet and mainstream media seem to think that trans people are the most stunning and brave people in history.

I also have a bit of sympathy with the idea that there is no such thing as a private conversation in a room with someone else. Obviously it is common courtesy to try not to listen in, but that can be very hard. If concerning things are heard you have a right to be concerned. If the speaker wants a private conversation they should go somewhere private.

Obviously the big problem here is nasty bullies and bigots thinking they are the good guys whilst behaving in a despicable way.