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.

Likewise starting some quiet stuff early so that I can tune in for 30mins later on between work meetings because work is frankly disrupting my ability to be witness to open justice. Work and the wretched bundle plus the restrictions on downloading it.

They won't do without a complaint.

Given CM evidence today, it's no longer a surprise why Stephanie chose her of all people for "informal advice" that would nonetheless ruin Allison's professional reputation for being a so called ""bigot"

Does CMs evidence give them a let out? An external (to GCC) telling them that Allison's tweet was problematic.

I don’t think so, as it was solicited by GCC, who failed to give her relevant materials produced by AB.

It shouldn’t give them an out, considering that CM was clearly biased.

I've been pondering. I haven't read bundles or followed live, only on here and some of the TTs. Feel free to ignore.

It seems to me that as soon as GCC decided to tweet they were investigating AB that they were culpable. They announced to the whole of chambers (including clerks) and solicitors firms that AB was not 'sound'. That would have impacted her reputation and thus being given briefs whether directly or indirectly. After all it would have been surprising if it had not - how many people deciding between AB and another barrister might think, oh AB's being investigated, I'll play safe and go elsewhere. So from after the tweet, GCC is culpable.

The lack of using their own database to record that they GCC were doing everything right in clerking leaves their ignorance open to attack. The fact that so many of the GCC witnesses still seem to think that being gender critical and standing up for the rights of women especially lesbians is wrong is astonishing giving the MF ruling. More than astonishing, outrageous. It is WORIADS but they are choosing not to listen, not to understand.

So how did GCC get to the point where they literally couldn't see/hear AB argue her case? Because of Stonewall and the STAG. They trusted Stonewall (if they hadn't they wouldn't have become part of its scheme). Stonewall betrayed their trust by teaching them (and hundreds/thousands of others) Stonewall law. Then allowed its Head of Trans to be involved in / instigate the 'Twitter Storm'. Stonewall knew the law, they were actively misrepresenting it. GCC was swallowed up in the ideology. So Stonewall are culpable.

However, GCC is meant to be full of intelligent, legal minds. They had one of their own (AB) shouting 'this isn't right', and yet they chose to cross over the barbed wire surrounding the trap and let Stonewall push them into it. 'There's none so blind as those that will not see' (or whatever the quote is).

IAMAL, but I hope the legal case is proven and that the tribunal throws the book at the whole lot of them.

And I hope AB finds a better chambers to work with.

All the heart eye emojis in the world.

@TeenPlusCat Personally I think your post from 07.02 there is an interesting and very good summary of what we’ve heard.

Yes. Me too. I also wonder if the flawed investigation will come into account.

I do think Stonewall will walk away from this, but, the reputational damage will be done. (I could be wrong).

If I get out my crystal ball, I think everyone, apart from GCC will call it a victory. TRAs because AB sued stonewall and lost and GC feminists for obvious reasons.

Whatever the outcome, I just feel desperately sorry for AB. She found a chambers where she thought she belonged only to be treated appallingly. A white man would never have been treated like they treated AB.

Also up early so I can get some shopping in and home by 9.30am. I missed yesterday so have to watch as much of today as I can.

I hope someone with the background and knowledge is constructing an official complaint to the Bar Standards Board or whoever about Cathryn McGahey's shocking views she expressed yesterday. Not WORIADS for sure.

Excellent - and I do like the thought of this becoming a "collective art project" involving every woman in Scotland, and later in the UK.

Let us ALL identify as the opposite gender and spend our spare time eating crisps and watching Netflix (or whatever hobby we prefer) rather than sewing nametapes into school uniforms and providing food and comfort for everyone else in the house as most women do in one way or another.

And, of course, make a nonsense of every census . . .

I intend to pop out and put the kettle on during that bit, myself. Mr Supportviper is under instructions to let me know when Tom o' Worms has left the stage/ screen - and the worms have been swept up, because we all know that once the worms are out of the Tom you can never get them all back in a again.

I think we are all up with the lark (5.30 for me) to get a days work done before 9.30. 😂I just hope my blood pressure can it.

can take it

Will you be selling posters of this? Asking for a friend

I have a day off today and have rearranged my v important engagements (a trip to the dump then collecting some tomato plants) in order to observe. I feel like such a wet and a weed admitting this, but last time I watched I found it quite disturbing and stressful. My respect for Allison's grace under fire is immense.

Huge thanks to everyone posting here with wit and intelligence.

For anyone wishing to learn how to identify wren song, I recommend Lev Parikian's series. If you scroll past the robin, blackbird and great tit here, you'll get to the wren:

levparikian.com/index.php/twitter-birdsong-project/week-1-robin-to-chaffinch/

I found it really disturbing yesterday and last Friday. I cannot begin to imagine the stress Allison is under, hopefully she will feel better when it's done on Friday. Then it's just a waiting game.

After reading her statement, she has overcome greater obstacles and abuse. She really is incredible. I watched her Keynote speech for LGBA, I think she seems quite prime ministerial. It's a good watch if anyone fancies it.

If anyone is minded to contact The Bar Council, here are the details.

Oooh! Thank you, @@Lio

We have a wren in our garden and he often spits abuse at the cats.

Let’s not let Stonewall off too soon. They are possibly liable for the actions of their employees and network members. They did nothing to prevent them, and did nothing to make restitution for them. Evidence has been presented that this was not an isolated case of their complaints and monitoring of people they perceived to be ‘terfs’ either.

Thank you @ickky just watching that keynote speech and only wishing for a Prime Minister with a tenth of Allison's abilities and character.

Yes, that letter from Kirrin Medcalf is a problem for SW, as is any involvement in incitement to create the very 'twitter storm' that led to GCC 'investigating' Allison and causing detriments.

‘Yes, that letter from Kirrin Medcalf is a problem for SW, as is any involvement in incitement to create the very 'twitter storm' that led to GCC 'investigating' Allison and causing detriments.’

In a way the case against Stonewall is easier because it’s so much less complicated. Is there evidence that someone from Stonewall sought, in their professional capacity, to have GCC disassociate themselves from AB? Yes. Did this contribute to the GCC response? Yes. Did Stonewall subsequently retract their complaints or try to mitigate against their effects? No.

I don’t think it’s particularly opaque.

I may be wrong, but didn't Michelle Brewer ask Shaan Knan to rally the troops and then they posted on the Stonewall Wall to get complaints sent to chambers?