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

McGahey - who they?

IO/RW/SW:
images.app.goo.gl/Visx5mQMtHBcJwTKA

(sorry that was supposed to appear as an image/gif)

I liked it! 👍

I think Cathryn McGahey was the QC that GCC instructed to write a report on whether AB had breached the Bar code of conduct.

Wednesday should be compelling.

She was, but GC(C) didn't provide her with Allison's explanation of the tweets so that's one of the things that BC will probably be addressing.

Delurking... I was away last Thursday & Friday and unable to catch up on the previous threads which covered those days. Given things have now moved on, is anyone kindly able to give a summary of JK's time? I think she took up most of those days?

Yes, and some of the maybe/maybe not type wording she used in her report was subsequently firmed up by GCC.

Wainwright seems to be an MB TRA henchman so I'm hoping for more of the rabid David Renton stuff from him.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what CMcG makes of Garden Court cutting and pasting her work and then changing key phrases.

Just to go back to Stephen Clark for a moment: when he said that with regard to why he thinks that women shouldn't have a right to single-sex spaces, he said he "approaches the subject from a human rights perspective" - hence proving that misogynists such as himself do not see women as human: only males are seen as human and hence only males have human rights. Women are some sort of sub-human servant class.

Women are some sort of sub-human servant class.

Unless you are Mariah Carey of course. Then you are important enough to be gossiped about with your Stonewall swimming buddy at the pool. But not important enough to be gossiped about in the clerks' room. Football only gossip in the clerks' room. Football I tell you. Nothing else.

Stephen Clark made his position clear, and it is an especially egregious one. He holds that women may be allowed to have a single sex space if he, a man, considers that their sexual abuse and trauma, at the hands of other men, is sufficiently severe.

It is a great pity that there will not be easy access to the evidence given in this tribunal. It would be good for people to understand the views held by these barristers/QCs, some of whom will be the judges of tomorrow (if not of today) and will be making the laws that bind us.

Delurking (and hours behind reading posts) to thanks @GCRich for pointing out how infuriating it is that the very people wielding the slur queer against us now see fit to reclaim it. Please forgive the derail.

Thank you all for the wonderful commentary and humour.

Thanks for all the commentary today, and the timetable for future witnesses, nauticant .

I think this is the case but could someone possibly confirm there are no more stonewall witnesses, just GCC?

Thanks all, watched intermittently today but Wednesday I am in meetings most of the bloody day!,
Can I ask what will happen on Friday if they get through the witnesses on Thursday? Will BC do a summing up?

Friday should be summing up from both sides which is why they want to finish witnesses by the end of Thursday

Yes, it's horrifying to think he regards this as the right approach to single sex spaces. Privacy and dignity just ignored. And how on earth does he think this lovely scheme should be implemented on a practical level? Is he thinking of applying it only to refuges and prisons or would he require women to show certificates of their trauma at the door of M&S changing rooms?

One thing I don't understand is this heavy emphasis of the "hammering" they were taking on Twitter and the "Twitterstorm" and yet none of the key Garden Court staff will admit that they read any of this storm on Twitter. They are all saying that they were only aware of the 7 complaints. If that was the case then why would they have accepted that there was in fact a Twitter storm? Particularly as they were worried about their reputation.

Its just not believable that they wouldn't have been aware of the abuse that AB was getting on Twitter but they are taking an extreme position on this.

Particularly if you are HoC and worried about reputation, if you heard there was a big furore on Twitter about you, of course you would go and read it, however near Christmas it was or even if it was on a Friday!

And the continuing insistence that there was absolutely no gossip about AB in Chambers is also completely unbelievable. I think they have shot themselves in the foot taking this line as it is so unlikely and hard to believe.

Never fear-whichever way this goes I dare say either Stock or Bindel will write a suitably pithy precis for the DM.

Well I have no words! It’s insane! I’m free Wednesday, reckon it’ll be a cracker!
Thanks ickky for the treads and everyone contributing.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/mumsnet_classics/2550904-Oh-Christ-I-have-done-something-incredibly-stupid-please-can-I-have-some-advice

can anyone who is in the know about these things tell me how the witness order is decided?

obviously some of it is to do with availability but e.g. is it Allison's team who get to decide after availability issue are accounted for, do defence have to agree the running order?

I suppose I'm surprised that MB is appearing at all and for her to be one of the last witnesses doesn't seem accidental.... like BC has been making a cake and she is the buttercream that will hold it all together.

😄I haven't seen that thread before - very funny. Loved the suggestion of a plasticine moat too!