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

I'm living in hope now that Mariah posts a picture featuring a le creuset and a knowing look.

If that was the case then why would they have accepted that there was in fact a Twitter storm?

It looks like David de Menezes is going to be the fall guy for that. He was in charge of that side of things and they relied on him for what was going on. (Because they didn't know what was going on themselves and for many reasons were not able to check for themselves.) But then he was sending Chicken Littlesque emails to his superiors in chambers.

Welp. One of my clients cancelled tomorrow so I'm not working until 3pm UK time, and on Wednesday I have a day off.

I am very much looking forward to the next few days.🍿

Not just a human rights perspective: an international human rights perspective.

Because we silly women are such blinkered, parochial little souls. We need Stephen to elevate the discussion to the level of statesmen.

Haha, have you all seen this?

I’m working Wednesday. Bollocks 😡

Link if it's easier to read

twitter.com/Loolovestea/status/1528816522197667845?s=19

.

Wow that tweet has literally just been deleted!

Good job you did a screenshot first 😎

Thanks all for the updates. Sounds like it was an interesting day.

I love that graphic... 😂

That’s a brilliant tweet, wonder why it was deleted?

Thanks for the updates. I had to go out with the dog before her bladder exploded after Mariah Carey man. What terrible witnesses lawyers make. Next few days should be juicy.

Thanks for the LOLs - MN is certainly a never-ending source of information. "Amazed that sex Lube and a fish slice didn't work - that's always my go to combination for kitchen emergencies!"

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?

It's straight from Planet Batshit in its unworkability.

Who is going to decide the degree of specific trauma that warrants female people being permitted consideration? Both in setting the specific bar for the general standards to be applied plus the person on the door making the decision? I'm guessing it will not be an exceptionally misogynist male with no training or specialist knowledge whatsoever on the subject for a start.

How exactly does this fit with the human rights of this female to have to disclose extremely sensitive, distressing and personal information to a total random stranger, in order to be allowed an accessible facility? How does this fit with terms for example like degrading or humiliating treatment? How much detail will they be expected to go into? Is there going to be some kind of ticklist?

What qualifications is every single person on this door/curtain/changing room/behind a desk going to hold to hear a traumatised person disclosing to them? And what resources will they have to pick up the pieces of someone they have just triggered or retraumatised in compelling this conversation?

How will this be done without outing this female person and quite possibly making them a target for harassment and abuse for being non compliant with male-centred politics?

How will this exceptionally sensitive information be recorded or kept? By whom? To what purpose?

What in fact will then be offered to this female who has disclosed and proved they have a need for accommodation?

And how is any of it provable anyway? Anyone can claim anything at all.

And how (taking in mind one of the favourite arguments) does this gentleman plan to prevent anyone male using this protected space once he's sufficiently established that a female exists who in his venerable opinion deserves this consideration for him? Because if he has the answer to that one then wouldn't it be far less batshit and equal to the expected treatment of TQ+ people to just provide an accessible female only provision for those who want it, that does not out anyone, requires no training, no massive sensitive personal disclosure to access needed resources, no challenging or debate on what is or is not true? And do this alongside mixed sex provision?

I mean, if this is unacceptable for TQ+ people to endure then it's unacceptable for females too. Females not being a subhuman underclass species who should only subsist on whatever crumbs the master race nobly choose to lob in their direction.

Because if that is the belief, then it's a binary, sex based belief. Being used to prop up male privilege and power over females. Which kind of makes the whole argument of 'it's complicated' fall apart really.

lt would have been great if someone in the tribunal had read it out as an example of the commentary on Twitter.

I'm still chuckling at the idea that slurs take years to be reclaimed.

Oh how the internet has speeded things up. A support twix became a thing in a few hours. The Dinosaur insult was reclaimed, repackaged and incorporated into the movement in probably less, and will haunt Lammy for the rest of his career. Beggar about not with female types for they have a sense of humour and what they lack in power they make up for in ability to take the piss. And they are hydra.

And it would be so much simpler just to put checks and balances on the other side ....

Thinks Icky for the fantastic thread management, and to everyone for all the insighful and witty commentary.

Glinner's excellent show, The IT Crowd, is all I could think about when the clerks and barristers kept saying that they don't gossip, they just banter about football.

"Did you see that ludicrous display last night?"

Haha! This is EXACTLY it.

Basically Stephen Clark's view of gender critical feminists is that we are either mentally ill or irrational. So that's nice.

It’s absolutely unbelievable no one gossiped about the “Twitter storm” or read the tweets in response. GCCs co ordinated response of sticking to the party line just makes it look more unbelievable and confirms probably they have all discussed what their response at this tribunal should be. It’s all too obvious now. No variation which is extraordinary.

Gah, finally just caught up and see someone got there first with the Bluffball clip. These threads are so fast-moving it's hard to keep up!

Gah! I'm working Wednesday. But should be free on Friday for the summing up. Quite how BC will condense all the wild content into a cohesive summary by then I have no idea.