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

Yes it struck me that the only complaint Stonewall had was the male bodied comment. Nothing about the substance of the Cotton Ceiling.

I wonder what evidence CMcG has for thinking that the workshop was about bringing groups together?

Break, I think Wainwright is up next.

Peter Daly re not being able to access the witness statement

"I am stumped I am afraid Madam".

I'm claiming that line for the film. We can cut away to a harried solicitor swearing at the IT system.

Thank you, that worked!

‘It could be worries by the lesbian that she would be letting down lesbianism in general tabbycatstripy and thus risk criticism from her fellow lesbians.

I don't make the rules, I'm just wondering how CM is reasoning.’

I don’t find that credible in the context of “cotton ceiling” and Stonewall’s constant refrain about lesbians who won’t sleep with males being bigots. Even CM’s testimony showed that she understood this to be about overcoming ‘discrimination’. She just refused to accept that this was coercive.

AH has forgotten to turn his camera off. JR has just realised

Mr H is doing his bit with a drop down screen behind him - is there some really dodgy art behind him?

Reminds me of a colleague who blurs her background when she only had a cupboard behind her. Led to quite a bit of speculation as to what might be in the cupboard that she didn’t want to risk us seeing.

Does anyone know if I can be logged into two devices simultaneously?i want to watch but also need to do chores

She has the explanatory blurb Planned Parenthood Toronto provided after the workshop to show how there was nothing untoward Signalbox. That's the magic document that, if you read it, you suddenly have no desire at all to read any other document about the Cotton Ceiling.

The institutional capture has been going on for years. They're like boiled frogs the lot of them and only now they're having to clearly articulate what's happening (they're in the pot, the water is boiling) are they realising. But they can't admit the truth now as they're too invested - they can't admit that they're wrong and that the whole ideology is homophobic and specifically very, very lesbophobic.

A general question about practising law:
If you are a barrister asked to take a case you are morally against are you allowed to conscientiously object? Or do all cases fall under the cab rank rule?

I've logged into both phone and laptop before.

Thank you @Signalbox!

CM: The workshop 'overcoming the cotton ceiling' was about strengthening relationships between the two groups and nothing to do with coersion.

So i) CM does clearly understand that there is a difference between women and men who call themselves women
ii) CM cannot see that this a workshop has anything to do with coersion
iii) does CM not think a better title for the workshop to indicate that is was about building bridges (as she claims) could have been found compared to one which a quick search will tell you refers to forcing lesbians (sorry, lesbians born female) to accept men (or would that be lesbians born male?) as sexual partners

Tom Wainwright to start.

QCs can choose their own cases I think.

And, believes that same-sex attracted people are like racists. So any opinion that acknowledged the right of people to be exclusively same sex attracted would be deemed hateful.

Is this person suitable to be on an ethics committee?

Homosexuality is apartheid.

I mean, we knew all this, we've been pointing it out for bloody years, but it's coming straight out now and it's as helpful as it's very ugly to see.

We've had two witnesses who proved themselves unashamedly misogynistic . This one is unashamedly homophobic and believes it is perfectly appropriate to try to coerce (albeit nicely) homosexuals into abandoning the wrong of their sexuality and doing hetero sex like what nice people do.

Whether this is specific to all homosexual people and is all about a prejudice against homosexuality, or whether it's entangled with misogyny (because God knows this place seems drenched in it) and is a belief that females have no right saying no to male people who want sexual access to them, remains a bit foggy.

FWR have been telling the world for years it was this bad. We were not kidding. But no one can play the 'no, that isn't really what they mean' card any more.

Yes, they really do mean it just the way it sounds. Women's rights and homosexuality can get in the bin, they're wrong and shouldn't be allowed. I'll open the book now on whether things around safeguarding are proved to be really as rotten to the core as FWR has thought.

I would not want to be a female or homosexual anywhere near these people as colleagues or as barristers, poor Allison. And yet they're so bloody proud of what they fondly think of as their values of inclusion and righteousness.

EJ now trying to retrofit the hearing to get around her order having led to today's non-open justice. Her solution is for more reading of relevant text from documents from BC, AH, and IO.

She is aware that holding a public hearing based on documents that she's prevented the public from having access to could cause quite a stink.

I wonder how many of the witnesses and indeed viewers of this tribunal will go away and rethink their opinions.

I really hope they sort out the links before tomorrow as I really want to read Michelle Brewer's statement.

I hope they can sort the bundle out, otherwise we'll run out of time.

Anyone else find JR un-listenable?

That tone of voice JR is using when reading out AB's statement is disgraceful