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

EJ: could you focus MB and give snappier answers and not enter into debate.

The possibility of their actions (in actively promoting self ID etc) causing offence/harm to AB still never seems to cross their minds, does it?

Never mind that she’s a woman, a marginalised herself - a black woman, a lesbian, a survivor of male violence/sexual violence - she’s still not someone whose feelings and dignity they have to worry about.

They have convinced themselves so utterly that there is a clear line here, and that they are on the right side of it while AB is on the wrong side of it, that they don’t feel themselves obliged to give her or her arguments even the most basic consideration, recognition or respect.

They’re the goodies. She’s one of the baddies.

And that’s it. They didn’t, and don’t, trouble themselves to examine or investigate any further, or to ever ask themselves if their actions were truly in line with their supposed ethics.

Like so very many others.

MB looked completely done in then.

And now getting told to 'keep it snappy' by EJG!

358 watching now...

EJG making clear that the format should be Q&A rather than a debate, and asks MB to give snappier answers, but acknowledges that the questions aren't snappy.

MB asks BC to avoid compound questions.

BC says he will do his best.

EJ asking MB to keep her answers shot. MB then goes on the waffle some more. and asks BC to make his questions shorter.

Long-suffering sigh from MB. No doubt thinks she’s being completely clear and why don’t people understand?

Ha ha ha - EJG just told her to be snappier in her answers.

Judge asking for snappier answers.

MB doesn't want to monologue.

Waiting for a 'let's break it down'

I also want EJG as a friend - I think garden drinks would be nice...

“I don’t want to monologue at anyone”

Well you could have fooled me!! 🤣🤣

Thank you EJG for asking MB to give more focused answers- MB responds that Ben's questions are too complex so EJG asks Ben to ask shorter questions...

She’s doing it again. Answer the question, FFS.

BC asks MB about her email, where MB refers to AB referring to SW having gone rogue. Asks MB whether she understands that many people think this - SW are putting women and children at risk.

MB says she doesn't know the basis for that point or whether AB sets it out elsewhere.

BC says it's about women being put at risk because self-ID makes safe spaces more risky, and that's the view.

MB says it's hard to respond without seeing the tweet MB is referring to in her email.

BC says he doesn't know either - it's her email.

BC says the view is that gender affirmation is thought to be dangerous to children.

MB says her issue is the comment about Stonewall, that was her concern.

What do they use, Wookey? Speaking as an old fart myself….😂

I'm not clear why MB's clients - she specialised in immigration and asylum - would feel unsafe in a space shared by gender critical feminists?
The suggestion could be made that since MB's clients are traumatised, her female clients in particular MIGHT be more likely to share AB's support for single-sex vulnerable spaces, rather than MB's support for vulnerable spaces inclusive of self-id transwomen. Hence perhaps it would be MB's views making them feel unsafe, not AB's.

youve got to say something snappy. soooo thats why none of them use twitter!!

No MB don't tell us about what Twitter is for you don't understand Twitter remember?

MB: 'The problem with twitter is that you have to say something pretty snappy'

You can see why she doesn't bother with it herself

Becomes clear why MB doesn't use Twitter. Your comments have to be 'pretty snappy'.

Gender critical arguments are legitimate aren't they.

MB Yes!

Could someone repost the bundle? I had to leave and share my screen at another meeting so couldn't keep the documents open

Yes I am too @Zeugma !

It's all about Insta (with an occasional reference to TikTok).

Mentioning Twitter however is tolerated, whereas Facebook is social death.

An actually useful interjection from Hochhauser there.

BC asks MB about her email about a tweet in which AB refers to there not being high levels of violence against trans people in the UK. AB was making point that there are not high levels of violence against transwomen but there are high levels of violence against females. AB is addressing efforts to shut gender critical women down.

MB isn't sure. Twitter is a snappy medium. Hard to know someone's rationale from a tweet. It might be her position but I didn't know. Was taken by person who sent it to her as dismissive of violence against TW.

BC suggests all MB's points in that email are just AB making legitimate arguments from a GC point of view.

MB says yes, recognises freedom of expression is fundamental. Says she mentions this in her email (BC says that's in another email). AH intervenes and says she does say it in the email. MB quotes her statement that AB is entitled to express her views.

BC asks about HoC saying they didn't do anything about MB's email.

Some questions about MB's telephone records.

TW are sending MB tweets and comments made by AB. Would be interesting to know how much of this was going on.