Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 15

[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 Hochhause

r QC, senior counsel - barrister for GC (teehee)
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

Thread 14 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556407-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-14

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)
David Renton - barrister at GCC (20 May, 25 May)
Marc Willers - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Stephen Clark - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Liz Davies - Barrister at GCC (23 May)
Cathryn McGahey - Bar Council Ethics Committee's VC (24 May)
Tom Wainwright - Barrister at GCC (24 May)
Colin Cook - Head clerk at GCC (24 May)
David de Menezes - GCC, Head of Marketing (25 May)
Kathryn Cronin - barrister at GCC (25 May)
Michelle Brewer - barrister at GCC at time, now left and a judge (26 May)
Stephanie Harrison - joint head of chambers (26 May)

To come:

Curiously, Stonewall & GCC claim that Allison's tweets and the mere existence of LGB Alliance was creating a hostile climate for those who claim a gender identity, yet Stonewall & GCC deny that tweets / statements / posters about "No Debate" had no influence whatsoever over the creation of a hostile climate for those who wanted to discuss gender identity ideology.

Hmm!

No one has painted them as "primarily sex offenders"

Earlier MB was repeating that repeatedly, relying on it really (similar to substituting "assault" for "coerce" when talking about the cotton ceiling tweet). I missed part of MB's evidence, and I wonder where she got it from.
Can these people even try to make a case without twisting our words?

If I knew how to post that Edward Lear picture of the old man with a beard...
There's a support wren in there

To be honest I don't know whether transwomen prisoners are more likely to be sex offenders either than women or than men. I have no idea. I do have a concern about what MB (and bearing in mind she's a judge) was implying: that the very presentation of evidence for the purposes of drawing a conclusion that they are more likely to be offenders in that category than members of another group, is transphobic. Because what if it's the truth? How can presenting evidence for something ever be a form of bigotry, providing the evidence isn't presented in the knowledge that it's false?

Digestive biscuits and cheese for lunch here.
Thx as always for the thread/commentary.

It is very similar to Handmaids Tale now.

It is very scary to think these people are influencing our government and public bodies and they just lap it up with no scrutiny.

Am now wondering if Ben let her keep repeating that phrase because it proves how they didn’t listen to what she said and were prejudiced against her. It wound me up every time she says it and she repeated it constantly like that was her main defence.

I really hope he points it out when he’s summing up

This one?

@ickky Have you seen "The Pirates In An Adventure With Scientists"? I can't find a picture of the bit where Polly the Dodo is hiding in the Pirate Captain's beard, but that definitely reminded me of it.

Just having a look over the claimed detriments again now that we're nearly there (below). I think she might have done enough to prove 2, 3 and 4.

Detriment 1: withholding instructions and work during 2019 – Allison argues she was not properly clerked and her work suffered due to her gender critical beliefs.

Detriment 2: GCC publishing response tweets –
The GCC twitter account published two tweets in response to concerns raised on twitter following Allison’s LGB Alliance launch tweet. It is argued these were sent because of prejudice against Allison due to her beliefs and implicitly endorsed criticism against her.
Response tweet 1 We are investigating concerns raised about Allison Bailey’s comments in line with our complaints/BSB policies. We take these concerns v seriously & will take all appropriate action. Her views are expressed in a personal capacity & do not represent a position adopted by Garden Court.
Response tweet 2 Garden Court Chambers is fiercely proud of its long-standing commitment to promoting equality, fighting discrimination and defending human rights.

Detriment 3: Stonewall’s complaint to GCC. It is alleged this was solicited by barrister Michelle Brewer acting as agent of GCC in her capacity as a member of GCC and head of the GCC Trans Rights Working Group (TRWG).

Detriment 4: GCC upholding the complaint – this is argued to be a detriment due to inadequacies of the process and because it was influenced by prejudice about Allison’s beliefs.

Detriment 5: response to the SARs – it is argued that an inadequate response to the Subject Access Request made by Allison was due to her beliefs.

It’s hard to tell because obviously I have a bias but I think Detriment 1 is the only one that looks shaky now. I believe she lost work but I don’t know how far she needs to prove it.

I haven't paid much attention to 5.

I would also add that I don't know whether inadequate disclosure automatically counts as a possible detriment.

I think they covered five with yesterday’s testimony. But IANAL.

I missed a lot of MBs testimony - was there evidence that she did solicit the complaint?

There is evidence that she encouraged people to complain if that was what they wanted to do. She denied directly suggesting it to Shaan Knan over the phone (although that call was 6 minutes long and Shaan Knan directly contradicts her version of events). Ordinarily I might say that wasn't enough to pin down the allegation, but in this case there is enough evidence of her hostility to AB and her views that I don't think her stance where she was saying, 'I was saying, look, you can complain if you want and this is how' is credible.

Which witnesses are left to go? I'll be in training until 4pm and probably won't be able to log in to get the witness statements. This is like watching a whole box set and missing the grand finale.

I have a lot of thread reading to catch up on now - but my goodness thank you all so much for all the posts.

Funnily enough, my literal support posts and fence panels are now in my back garden. They are not easy to transport using a Ford Fiesta, I'm telling you.

Support cup of tea and homemade Paddington Bear biscuits are at my right. Ready to go again. I do hope SH's delivery is easier on the ear than MB and DMD's of yesterday. I have to turn them down to prevent headaches.

Stephanie Harrison is the last witness.

MB was clear. There are 2 sides, even if you don't agree with the views on one side.

There is a transgender side which includes vulnerable, BAME, LGBT minorities. This group need safe spaces.

And there is a gender critical side which includes vulnerable, BAME, LGBT minorities. This group do not need safe spaces.

Crystal clear that MB is prejudiced against AB.

I once crammed 3 bamboos, two children and a labrador into a Seat mii.

I had people pause what they were doing in the B&Q carpark to watch.

[successfully placemarks]

It's a bizarre argument to suggest male people of colour who identify as trans have not benefited from male privilege. The only way you would think that is if you don't think male privilege is a thing, and I don't think MB would say she thinks that. OTOH she might - she clearly thinks 'gender critical women' have benefited from white middle class privilege even when they are not white or working class, so who knows what she thinks?

I do have a concern about what MB (and bearing in mind she's a judge) was implying: that the very presentation of evidence for the purposes of drawing a conclusion that they are more likely to be offenders in that category than members of another group, is transphobic.

Indeed. BC even put it to her that it wasn't sexist to say men are more likely to be sex offenders than women and she didn't answer. It is as though she thinks class analysis is problematic in its entirety. Very worrying indeed from a judge.

Uahhh do we need to switch back on now? I want to nap! 2-4 is my prime nap time!!