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

Wasn't it just?

Maya's reply was so polite and well-reasoned. She pointed out very calmly that he'd misrepresented her views. Renton is very highly educated and supposedly clever, so I wonder: is he deliberately misrepresenting the opposing view? Or has he genuinely misunderstood it? Neither reflects well on him.

Thanks for the new thread @ickky, but I see that DR is listed as "Still to come?" rather than under "Witnesses for the respondents" (though I suppose he's both now that he's halfway through).

On Renton misrepresenting or apparently nit understanding the opposing view. There is a tendency to not look straight at the issue. It's common with lefty people talking about this subject. For us it's about the needs of women and how policies compromise our needs. They can't look at that with full light and in full focus. They have to look off to the side - it's about stopping men wearing women's clothes in the ladies robing room (!) or it's about putting trans women into harms way in mens prisons. It's never about the thing it's about for us. They can't see it.

It reminds me of when you look at a bright light by mistake and the middle of your vision is temorarily replaced by a patch in that shape. If you try to look at something it is obscured. To see it you have to look next to it instead of at it. Not a perfect illustration lol.

Having had a quick look at DR's literary output I feel he may be coming at this issue from far left and global perspective. The right-wing Republicans in US had 'bathroom bills', therefore the only acceptable left wing position is to oppose any attempt to restrict who uses which toilet. As Necessary said earlier he's a bigot, and I would add a zealot. He's steeped in Marxist theory and anti-fascist history, and treats women who don't want males in their spaces as 'fash-adjacent' in his mind, ie not worth engaging with. I get real echoes of LOJ here. And Soviet propaganda - just deny what's taking place in front of everybody, and what everyone knows to be the truth, in order to build 'the bright future' till you're blue in the face and hope that works out.

Just for info, I'm the person who PMed Tabby at the end of the last thread . I don't post loads on this board, but am around a lot on education / SN threads. Quite understand why she didn't want to reply directly.

TeenPlusCat

I’m sorry we have to do this. Talking about women’s rights shouldn’t come with the risk of losing your job.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure all of the criminal lawyers at GCC are defence barristers (that would include Allison).

DR is an employment lawyer but I'd like to see the criminal defence barrister TRAs in action, I think this would be Michelle Brewer and Tom Wainwright...

These are the people who work to keep people out of prison - many of whom will have experienced social inequity.

Criminal defence barristers should have no problem understanding the exact vulnerabilities of the women's prison population. Huge over representation of women with traumatic head injuries, vast numbers who have experienced DV/SA.

I would like to see the likes of MB and TW explaining how comfortable they are with making one of the most vulnerable populations in the land even more vulnerable. I want to hear them say it out loud.

(IANAL) But does anyone else feel that there's a conflict / tension between the 'we all had so much work we couldn't be expected to do our jobs properly' and 'not our fault there just wasn't enough (appropriate) work for AB' lines they're trying to sell. Clearly the vibe here is quite clearly characterised as my sex has most certainly impacted my life and the way others treat me on occasion

I totally think that the interplay of sexism, racism and homophobia were responsible for that perception of her as an angry, scary and not at all nice sort of invulnerable meanie.

sweetliketoxic

I think cognitive dissonance on the 'who's the most vulnerable' question must be like deafening white noise in their heads

Women don't count so we're easy to ignore.

Placemarking. Thanks Ickky.

Having had a quick look at DR's literary output I feel he may be coming at this issue from far left and global perspective.

And I do hope he never claimed to not know what was going on on Twitter like the rest, he seems to be the sort of person that lives there.

Manderleyagain · Today 15:43

On Renton misrepresenting or apparently nit understanding the opposing view. There is a tendency to not look straight at the issue. It's common with lefty people talking about this subject. For us it's about the needs of women and how policies compromise our needs. They can't look at that with full light and in full focus. They have to look off to the side - it's about stopping men wearing women's clothes in the ladies robing room (!) or it's about putting trans women into harms way in mens prisons. It's never about the thing it's about for us. They can't see it.

I disagree entirely.

People on the left have a natural desire to support the underdog, the most vulnerable in society, and make sure that everyone is at least safe and comfortable. In contrast the right care about their right to do what they want and to get rich and pay low taxes.

It is very easy as a person on the left, therefore, to jump to support trans people, many of whom are very vulnerable. It is that desire to protect the weakest which drives it, alongside an assumption that the T really is just an extension of the LGB movement.

But just as it is easy to jump to support trans people as a left winger, it is also easy to take a step back and consider all women, not least muslim and disabled women, consider that trans women have and / or do benefit male privilege, consider that child safeguarding trumps everything, and regard the entire trans movement as a disgusting bigoted hateful, bullying disgrace.

TRAs are promoting a right wing individualistic and capitalist agenda, however much they might think they are socialist. The right might support women's rights to exclude men from women's spaces, but the right does not support women more generally in the way that left wing gender critical women do.

Furthermore I would argue that it is the left that is fighting trans rights extremists - the right are fighting for a conservative binary sex based world which does not benefit women.

So many threads 😀Place marking x

(IANAL) But does anyone else feel that there's a conflict / tension between the 'we all had so much work we couldn't be expected to do our jobs properly' and 'not our fault there just wasn't enough (appropriate) work for AB' lines they're trying to sell.

Very good point, and one that I must admit to missing.

It's clear to me that the company has no excuse for senior people doing a bad job. Senior management doing a bad job are by definition incompetent or overworked, which is the fault of senior management! But to moan about too much work whilst justifying why someone they hated didn't have enough is a little odd!

It is so sad really that it came to this. Years and years of women saying politely can we just think about this a bit , only to be met with a barrage of abuse. And here is brave Allison standing up to be counted, only to be met by even more virulent abuse because they know full well that they were wrong, DR and LH2 excepted, cos they still think they are right.

Just checking in to the new thread (thanks @ickky ) and agree with PP that it's the blend of observation, commentary, wit, etc. that makes the thread so supportive to all who are rooting for Allison.

From thread 9 -

Giving LH the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he doesn't really understand that talking about colleagues when they're not there is gossip - I'd like him to have been pinned down on that point with a different label to gossip being used.

Maybe the disparity between JK's version of AB being free to express her opinion and DR/LoHo stating that AB's views are offensive will be explored further with DR, MB and other witnesses.

PP said DR made the hairs on the back of their neck stand up. I had that reaction to LoHo. I can imagine they have a very forceful personality.

I would have thought that GCC could refute Allison's claim that she was poorly clerked by showing the cases that came in in 2018/19, who they were offered to and who they went to and why.

Now time to catch up with thread 10!

I think that's an excellent point from @awkwardoldlady that GCC is claiming on the one hand that they were all just swamped with important work and busy, busy, busy; but there was no important work for Allison.

(I think what they mean is that there was no longer any important work for Allison because no-one could be fucked to arrange it properly, because she'd fallen out of favour for blasphemy.)

There are a number of internal inconsistencies in its strategy like this.

.

Being a Head of Chambers sounds like a complete pain in the arse. No one really wants to take it up.

Did I hear correctly (in the tribunal) that the senior members have to take turns being a HoC?
So they are obliged to fulfill the role?

And, thank you, ickky, by the way. 👍

Has there ever been a subject that fills up 10 threads so quickly??

JK said being HoC is a ‘duty’, basically. They have to try to find people to do it every few years. None of them is really in charge, and I think that’s been one of the issues in this case.

It's fine, @Furries, I know I will try to add a bit of context if/when my typing speed allows; I'm sure people will if they can, and if they can't we know everyone likes the assorted asides and commentary anyway!

If it is Zanda then accusing BC of using "babyish" language when he was asking about "bad men" is a bit rich.