Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 12

[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

Thread 11 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555145-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-11

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)
Katherine McGahy (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)

To come:

Colin Cook - clerk at GCC (24 May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, to continue on 25th May)
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge.

@GCRich my question was more how the ET panel would view it.

On the wider point, I agree should this be raised with BSB or even MoJ/Head of judiciary? I have no issue with people holding different views in private but as legal professionals they should be correctly applying the law.

Is there any good reason for NOT reporting people to chambers / BSB for being deeply misogynistic and homophobic? For being concerned that they are unlikely to be able to uphold the EA 2010 in their working lives given that they think people who believe in protections for women and people with a sexual orientation is hateful bigotry.

Obviously fear of being outed and shamed on social media by a TRA who sees the complaint, but other than fear is there any reason not to report these people?

Allison Bailey and the reaction to her aside, did you see the example of the Bar Standards I posted in the previous thread? (Reproduced below.)

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/

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

It would be interesting to see how they responded to complaints about their blatant homophobia...

‘If homosexuality is like apartheid, is heterosexuality also failing to de-segregate ones body for availability to others on an equal opportunities basis? 🤔’

Theoretically yes, but because males often fetishise sex with lesbians (sex with the unwilling made ‘willing’) it is an issue in the gay community in a way it isn’t for straight men, gay men, or straight women.

Combined with a belief common in misogyny that really female bodies are something that biologically male people have an entitlement to, and females being able to say no about this isn't really acceptable. Hence it only being very recent in law for a wife to be able to do something about being raped by her husband.

Where does the homophobia end and the misogyny start? All terribly tangled up.

Barbara Rich (barrister) has commented (in a limited capacity - she's always very restrained in her criticism but I picture her like this 🤨 when she does that) & what was said as part of evidence under oath might be privileged? So BSB may not take on complaints?

I have no clue tbh but found this at least interesting.

Link to tweet

Q asked: "I would be very interested to know if privilege of evidence notwithstanding, it is possible to ask the BSB to investigate some of the evidence given in this trial."

Barbara replies:

"I don’t know the answer. Evidence given in court is privileged against a defamation claim. If the BSB does agree to consider any of it in a regulatory complaint, I assume it will take its established approach to the exercise of freedom of speech by barristers and Core Duty 5"

It's reassuring that it's not just us casual observers who are all 'WTF' over this, but a fair number of actual barristers too.

And here's Martina Navratilova's take:

Link to tweet

"Cathryn McGahey is an idiot. And how about persuading a gay man to have sex with a trans man? Any takers?
Clearly Cathryn has no clue what the word Lesbian actually means"

I don't know if CM has any grasp on the shit storm she's created with her testimony today. When I listened to it, she seemed quite pleased with her analogy. Repeating it for emphasis & falling back on it to maintain her position that the Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling' workshop couldn't inherently be considered coercive.

I suspect this might rumble on a bit.

Artichokeleaves · Today 17:18

Things still unresolved here.

If homosexuality is like apartheid, is heterosexuality also failing to de-segregate ones body for availability to others on an equal opportunities basis?

Obviously the focus is on the LGB community - us heterosexuals are not the most victimized group going... but you're right. It is vital to remember that this sick ideology opposes the idea of sexual orientation, and believes everyone who is not bisexual is bigoted. In fact bisexuals are probably bigoted too, after all a poor innocent trans women might face literal violence after realising that the bisexual he just had sex with regarded PIV as straight sex not lesbian.

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder

Thanks... but my question was more "is there any reason not to complain?" as opposed to "do you think that there is any likelihood of a complaint being upheld?" When I hear witness testimony like CM I'm not sitting here desperate to see her starving on the streets after losing her job for extreme bigotry, but I would love to know that she'd had to sit in a room whilst people discuss the EA2010, the fact that it is the law of the land, and that sexual orientation is a thing and that men are not literally women.

I just could not get over TW(at) and the cotton ceiling workshop. I wanted BC to ask him, how is this not conversion therapy??

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

There really aren't any words for their behaviour, and the fact tha they happily say this is a court just beggars belief.

How can they not see it? It is so blatant I just don't understand what is so hard to get about lesbians who do not want to have sex with men and their penises. That is the whole point of being a fucking lesbian.

Grrr! Missed it. (Those support bottles won't buy themselves, unfortunately.)

I wouldn’t want to see people out of a job for no reason, but in her case she is vice Chair of the Bar Standards Council Ethics Committee and surely her views expressed in evidence today must cast doubt on her suitability for that particular role?

AlisonDonut · Today 18:20

There really aren't any words for their behaviour, and the fact tha they happily say this is a court just beggars belief.

How can they not see it? It is so blatant I just don't understand what is so hard to get about lesbians who do not want to have sex with men and their penises. That is the whole point of being a fucking lesbian.

And - to be absolutely clear - the issue is not so much with the penis, the issue is the sex of the person, whether they have a penis or not. The penis is the physical representation of the sex of the person, but it is not the presence of a penis which defines the sex of the person.

@GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.

Apology not necessary!

I thought CMG was trying to salvage her career by doubling down on her statement that coercive control was not present in the cotton ceiling seminar. But seems she was playing to the Stonewall audience.
On the detriment topic. I find it jaw dropping that members of GCC seemingly were not aware of the Internet or social media before 2019.
surely they would have been aware that tweeting about Investigating Allison, would be news in their field. I know for one that if I were to employ a solicitor to write my will for example, I would Google them and read reviews, comments and relevant tweets . I’m sure the same thing is true for all legal professionals. I’m also sure that if I saw that a particular person was being investigated, I would avoid business with them even if I had had a good relationship with them in the past

Added to my wishlist!

Another interesting take on what CM said today, regarding her insistence of having a restricted interpretation of 'coercion', from Tom Farr (not sure if he's a barrister or a solicitor, but he's on Sex Matters advisory panel):

Link to tweet thread

"This is a very disturbing statement from the Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC. It is widely understood in law that consenting to sex requires choice, freedom, and capacity; further, it has been recognised that coercion can take MANY forms, of which "persuading" is one 🧵👇 1/9

"2/ Coercion may often be understood to mean something along the lines of "force" or "threats", but this approach has been expressly disavowed by the Courts, perhaps most impactfully in MC v Bulgaria, the leading human rights case on sexual autonomy."

"3/ In MC, the Court discuss the issue at length, e.g. para 145: "rapists often employ subtle coercion or bullying when this is sufficient to overcome their victims".

"4/ In the Kunarac et al case (heard in the Intl. Criminal Trib. Fmr. Yugoslavia), it was expressly stated that: "the terms coercion, force, or threat of force were not to be interpreted narrowly and that coercion in particular would encompass most conduct which negates consent"

"5/ The common thread in these cases and beyond is that it is widely understood that coercion must not be construed narrowly, and quite explicitly, should be understood to encompass conduct that negates consent."

"6/ Applying this to Allison Bailey's case, it is wildly out of step with developing norms and legal precedent to suggest that "persuading" somebody to have sex with you would not fall under the widely construed ambit of "coercion". Of course, persuasion can take many forms >>>"

"7/ for example, offering payment, offering to confer some kind of further "benefit" etc, but what is inherent with all forms of persuasion is that the original position of one individual - that they did not want to have sex - has been disregarded."

"8/ It has been taken to mean "convince me". If you have "convinced" somebody to have sex with you, then you have bartered their consent out of them, which ultimately negates the idea of it being "fully and freely given".

9/ Undoubtedly, "persuasion" is a form of coercion in the context of sex. Trying to separate the 2 - instead of viewing the former as a manifestation of the latter - exists on the same spectrum as "what was she wearing" & "she was asking for it". This view must be condemned. /end"

Finally caught up with today's events at the Tribunal.

Slack-jawed astonishment.

(Huge thanks to all contributors)

the original position of one individual - that they did not want to have sex - has been disregarded

The cotton ceiling in a nutshell. It is all about how to change that 'no'. It begins from fundamental disrespect and disregard for the other party's consent.

In effect, it's about how to extract a desired resource from an unwilling gatekeeper.

Blimey - have managed to catch-up from middle of Thread 10 to here. Equally fascinating and depressing to see what’s played out from the witnesses.

A quick technical question. There is a possibility I might be able to view part of the proceedings tomorrow. I’ll be using an iPad. Any advice as to whether to use Chrome or Safari? Holding email I’ve received re access says to ensure that Chrome is downloaded, but have a feeling I saw a few comments a number of threads back suggesting that people had done better using Safari.

Well today has been very interesting. I am wondering about an “informal” approach to someone on the Bar Council who is not necessarily neutral. Call me old fashioned, but most upholders of standards surely need to have high standards themselves, and that means, only accepting referrals thru the proper channels?

I have a really dumb question - what are we not allowed to tweet ? I am only following on here and Tribunal Tweets

I just use Safari when I’m watching on my iPad, Furries, and it’s been absolutely fine.