Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 14

[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

Thread 12 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4555687-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-12

Thread 13 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556235-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-13

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 - Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
Colin Cook - clerk at GCC (24 May
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, to concluded on 25th May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC

To come:

Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge.
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers

Shortpoet

To MB, gender identity is innate and objectively in existence, not a construct.

EJ struggling to make sense of her evidence!

I don’t know how EJG is going to make sense of all this waffle

MB being very rude to the EJ grrrr

EJ I'm trying to make sense of your evidence 😂

MB getting sharp with EJG, which can't be a good thing to do

EJG is a mighty, mighty woman, isn’t she? 😂

I don't know how hot it is in that room or whether it's Ben's laser stare but they've all gone quite red a few minutes into questioning haven't they?

Apart from poor LH, who just became paler and paler until he eventually merged with the alcove and entirely disappeared from view.

EJ getting a bit testy

MB is becoming quite flushed. She’s finished one bottle of water. EJG is interrupting her monologue and asking her to repeat herself numerous times.

it’s all going terribly well.

Haha good luck with that.

so much sunlight on this nonsense.

Just want to add something about yesterday.

In cases where twitter or any other social media is key, the judges should ask for an independent expert witness to give them evidence (ie a quick training session) on how it works. It could be someone who teaches 'introduction to twitter' classes. Guidence for judges should set this out.

AH was negligent going into this case without understanding twitter himself. How could he defend properly if the claimant's team had been spouting crap? That is, if it was true that he was clueless.

I am enjoying watching MB trying to appear reasonable today despite the insane views she was so proud to discuss in her little echo chamber

single sex space should not in her view remain single sex but should be 'trans inclusionary' but possibly with some exclusions?

Says she does accept that the equality act exists and she never sought to change it and accepts that it does allow of single sex spaces.

However anyone who wants to keep a space ss is 'on the wrong side of the argument'

She does seem to be contradicting herself?

Urgh. So her view is 'single sex provisions are fine, but they should be trans inclusionary, but not wholly trans inclusionary [so presumably case by case trans inclusionary??, or trans inclusionary normally and case by case trans exclusionary??]

I think Ben is asking this now.

Yes, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, too much!

MB has said some really bad things, from what we know has happened, i just don't see how she is going to be able to refute all the things Ben is going to put to her?

I am also looking forward to seeing the reaction of TRAs on Twitter

I know you won't agree with the argument but do you understand it?

😇

BC: if you make it harder to tell who is a women, because it’s whoever identifies as one, you make it harder to enforce do you understand the argument

mB: yes but…

EJ is being scrupulous about making correct notes.

Seriously, if these people would all use proper microphones plus noise cancelling software, it would be a contribution to easier understanding of every one who is speaking and there would be fewer stoppages.

The money being spent on this through fees and they won't use readily available and affordable technology. They could download a version of the noise-cancelling software and have it running in under 5 minutes.

MB - Waffling. And yes you are being obtuse.

"I may be being obtuse in this".

Yes. Yes, you may be.

You may also be being deliberately awkward.

So she is saying that the provision of gender identity in the equality act applies to anyone regardless of whether they have a GRC

And she is definitely trying to avoid answering