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

Bluetooth headphones employed, Now off to angry weed the front flower beds.

Indeed, Penguin - i almost asked a question that would get me banned on here. 😬

"assume that this wording will find its way into the press, and that's OK" - surely that is incompatible with handling complaints confidentially?

Yep LipBalm. It has a whif of 'the people's priorities" and "levelling up" about it.

We didn't issue a general tweet....AGAIN.... the sheer lameness

😂

If they were trying to use twitter to respond to complainants in the same way they would an email complaint, why didn't they DM the people involved?

I'm going to be in training all day on Thursday. Please don't tell me that that will be Michelle Brewer day.

Isn't it a quote from some document or other in the case?

Ah, so the Twitterstorm is now simultaneously a storm and a small number of tweets? Or did I miss something?

I think you can demand that they put it on in the background. It is your support Employment Tribunal after all

BC: If you respond to a tweet that you're investigating a complaint, then if you're responding to a tweet alleging transphobia, then you're suggesting to a reader of your response that you're investigating transphobia.

MW agreed with this.

You do know you are going to look like a nutter, randomly shouting fuck off in your front garden. 😂

Missed it (cat demanded treats, not tweets). Have we now got Schroedinger's Twitterstorm?

😂

Ah, so the Twitterstorm is now simultaneously a storm and a small number of tweets? Or did I miss something?

I'm missing it too, but I have a feeling it's somehow vaguely connected to trying to tamp down a twitter storm with a tweet which is not really a general tweet for the public

Yes, and an earlier witness (perhaps MS?) tried to avoid agreeing with Ben on that exact point so MW might have slipped up there.

😂I am guilty of this. And the occasional 'well, no one agrees MISTER Hochhauser.' Restricting myself to the back garden and school hours now.

This is a very effective line of argument by BC: that the response tweet implies investigating transphobia, and this is so serious you would need to have checked out the "transphobia" before even contemplating making such a public response, while GCC's position is actually that they didn't bother doing that at all because their entire focus was the "hammering GCC was taking on twitter".

"... damage that David de Menezes had never seen the like before in chambers"!

Oh the hyperbole! It's biblical!

Had to name change for that- should be on the bingo card too

Hahaha at referencing what a « reasonable Twitter user » would understand. He seems to believe the people complaining about AB were « reasonable ». Major fail.

Interruption 10!

He's really struggling now I think.

Not really answering questions properly anymore.

AH intervenes again - I've lost count...