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 guess in GCC you have various groups of barristers that specialise in different areas. - so you have those helping travellers, those working on modern slavery etc. - I guess there is the perception that they are all fighting different battles on the same side. - As each barrister does not know the nuances of things that they don't specialise in they are happy to be led (and not question) what they are told.
Hence the non questioning of the TRA position at the top perhaps?
Is it as simple as the fact that they would not have a grouping to help female victims of male abuse and violence as this is probably best done by a) changing the law, b) working in the CPS and c) not through the law

GCC did not disclose AB's 32-page explanation/substantiation of the tweets to CM

I find it interesting that CM did not ask if any explanation had been requested or provided. tbh, I find all of this even odder given the recent case of the barrister who was cleared of breaching any code:

www.legalcheek.com/2021/08/cancelled-barrister-cleared-of-misconduct-over-tweet-that-got-him-kicked-out-of-chambers/

The problem with the ironic uses of "terf" is that Allison is trying to establish for the panel that "terf" is indeed a slur, when this might be the first time they have heard the term because for the vast majority of people it is an unfamiliar word. It is not well accepted as a slur in the wider culture in the way that other reclaimed slurs were.

Allison has to make the case that "terf is a slur", so it was wrong for (eg) AS to tweet it. At the same time her own supporters are using it about themselves. It is more difficult to persuade a panel that a word is an insult if you also have to explain that not only is it an insult, but it has already been reclaimed and repossessed by the victims before you had even registered that it existed. It makes this part of her case less straight forward.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

That is truly shocking

Can't someone just direct the panel to MN and let us testify that terf is a slur?

To me 'terf' is like 'dyke' or certain racist terms - the people who dislike gender critical feminists, or lesbians, or particular racial groups, use these terms to denigrate those groups. However it is simultaneously true that these groups themselves 'reclaim' those terms and use the terms about themselves in an ironic way. The latter in no way removes the denigrating nature of the use of those terms by those outside these communities.

I have my support tea and a support cat. Just had some support chocolate, and now I'm all set.

Isn't it just. You will see that Holbrook prevailed with his appeal.

jonholb.com/2022/03/28/speaking-freely-just-got-a-bit-easier/

And that the BSB has had to pay damages to Holbrook.

The Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers in England and Wales, has paid undisclosed damages to Jon Holbrook, a former practising barrister who was fined by it last year.

rozenberg.substack.com/p/regulator-acted-irregularly?s=r

Well it's not difficult really.

I'd suggest a 30 second google of the term with any search engine of choice.

If you come up with pages by any organised movement naming themselves as trans exclusionary radical feminists, with explanation of terms and aims, or any indication of the grassroots women and feminist movement using the term in explaining their chosen names, terms and objectives we'll have one answer.

If you come up with a whole lot of hits about rape threats, death threats, punching, blood stained t shirts, baseball bats, froth and quite exceptional nastiness towards a group that really hasn't been identified beyond 'female not doing what I say', we'll have another answer.

I wonder which one in reality is very easily demonstrable? We could conduct a real time experiment and compare notes. Or as pp says, accept that it's rather like conducting a real time experiment into whether Brexit was a calm and neutral discussion between two respectful sides, or whether children prefer chips to cabbage.

Name change, would also like to add , I can join ktotally see that ironic use of the word terfs may not be helpful to Alison ,

Yes. We could do "we are the nest of vipers: ask us anything".

Crammed a week and a half's work into four days and I am finally caught up.

Did I read right that SC basically said that a woman must first be violated by a man to a level that he considers high enough before he will allow her to have her rights upheld? And this man is a human rights advocate?

Surely anyone with half a brain (let alone two) that has taken five minutes to do a bit of research would have come to the conclusion that TERF is most definitely a term meant to insult and denigrate.

Yep, that's what he said, Rocket - in a nutshell.

Can anyone access the bundle, saying link expired.

Nope. I tired, Peter Daly said clear the cookies and cache so I did that. Even tried opening them in a different browser. All saying "expired".

All links are expired for me too.

Nope. no-one can access the E bundle (unless I think they left it open from yesterday).

Artichokeleaves
Well it's not difficult really.
I'd suggest a 30 second google of the term with any search engine of choice.
Yes your post is all true. But the panel are not allowed to do their own googling afaik. They have to go on the evidence presented.

Mr. Daly will look at it in the first break

Can someone briefly outline to me what role this witness (Cathryn McGahey) allegedly played?

Vice chair or Bar Standards Council so advised GCC on whether AB was in breach of their code of conduct (is my understanding).

Pretty much @RocketPanda . He will concede that women who have developed PTSD or a different mental health issue as a result of sexual violence may have a subjective reaction to a male body in sss, but any other women, if having any kind of reaction, is irrational.

Wow! CmcG is a person who can remember things from 3 years ago.

.