Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 11

[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

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

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)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)

To come?

Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
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

CMcG seems to be getting annoyed.

I do think this witness is being quite clear and direct. A fair amount of arse covering but I get the impression she isn't trying to cover anything up.

Its called the cotton ceiling! there is the substantiation you don't need any more. - If it was not coercive they would have used a different metaphor

I know, it is very annoying. These fucking bundles.

EJ has just asked for a link that works for her statement.

Wouldn't it be up to the tribunal to decide whether that's likely or not Tallisker?

It's up to the committee to decide what is more likely than not (balance of probabilities) after hearing all the evidence. They can make an assessment of the credibility of witnesses etc.

Oh...how helpful. 😐
The Translation Document is working.
We can't read any of the witness statements, but, y'know...this is essential. If it wasn't balls-ed up in the first place, it wouldn't be necessary.

I wondered how long her smug little smile would last.

Today, with the public not having access to the documents that are forming the basis of the case, is a good example of why the restrictions on documents imposed by EJ right at the beginning are onerous and harmful to open justice.

Jaw drop at that statement .....
Overcoming cotton ceiling doesn't equal coercive sexual behaviour???

CM - The CC is the reluctance of lesbians to have sex with a trans individual.

'Individual' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there!

‘Overcoming the reluctance of lesbians not to have sex with a trans individual.’

Not a trans ‘individual’ - a male who identifies as a female but isn’t.

Strategising about how to ‘overcome’ someone else’s sexuality is coercive sexual behaviour.

I agree with this. I don't think there was any grand conspiracy on her part, but I do think that the lack of info passed on to her (not including AB's explanation), plus tainted that. Plus the fact that there was likely rampant gossip about "transphobia" and knowing the Champaign Socialism of the chambers likely subconsciously biased her.

That's my take anyway. but IANAL.

What other possible interpretation is there?

That's not an expression of opinion Cathryn! If there were no coercion involved, why is there a workshop?

X-post, Tabby...

Nice question Ben!

It means precisely that the workshop supports ‘overcoming’ someone else’s sexual boundaries.

CMcG says that the coercion was "just Allison's opinion", becuase what is important isn't the description, but what was actually said in the workshop.

The title cannot accurately state the substance of it.

Apparently.

According to her there's nothing in the blurb of the workshop that there's any coercision.

"Lesbians born female" she says.

She's a true believer.

Millions of relationships are based on coersion ffs.

It does not mean the workshop promotes coercion?

YES IT DOES

the blurb says 'strategise ways to overcome these barriers'

It’s about how to OVERCOME their boundaries and yes, it’s odd, Ms McGahey. That’s why AB is fucking objecting to it.

Listening to CM follow the gaslighting from Planned Parenthood Toronto and justifying their position is excruciating.

Completely agree nauticant. It's hard enough to read witness statements and follow the tribunal simultaneously, now the current witness statement isn't available while the witness is speaking at all.

Do you remember the final court room scene in the film "The accused". - Kelly McGillis is prosecuting the men that just stood and watched. Their defence was that they did not know what was going on. -The defence here is a bit similar imo

It's not coercion as it's just encouraging lesbians to have relationships with transwomen. WTF?!

At least she acknowledges coercion is not about force.