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:

'It is as though she thinks class analysis is problematic in its entirety.'

Not quite in its entirety. She is happy to weaponise a distorted class analysis to further the causes she cares about. She leans on the notion that trans people are traumatised and marginalised because the trans people she has worked with are usually persons of colour and often refugees (that doesn't tell us anything about a white transwoman who has spent thirty years climbing to a senior position in a UK bank, for example, but am I splitting hairs?). She leans on the notion that gender critical feminists are privileged because they are white middle class women wearing Birkenstocks (that sounds both misogynist and possibly homophobic to me, but what do I know?).

But if women want to lean on an analysis that centres the needs and historical marginalisation of female people, that's illegitimate.

Clown-judge.

Of course, tabby. I forgot about her lived experience of working with the most marginalised / vulnerable group. That is definitely more reliable than the (admittedly limited) stats produced by the DoJ.

And we’re back in the room

We're back...

I haven't paid much attention to 5.

Remember Stephen Simblet QC's incredibly unpleasant letter and KC twisting herself inside out to justify it yesterday? It was excruciating to watch, kind of a slow-motion car crash, and made GCC look unprofessional and nasty.

Back in with SH starting now

'Of course, tabby. I forgot about her lived experience of working with the most marginalised / vulnerable group. That is definitely more reliable than the (admittedly limited) stats produced by the DoJ.'

I have no doubt that trans-identifying refugees often are marginalised and vulnerable. I wouldn't want to see them treated worse than anyone else. But this isn't what gender critical feminists want and it outrageous for her to suggest otherwise because AB (in my view rightly) points out (rightly or wrongly) that the male people currently being housed with female people in prisons are more likely than those women to be sex offenders. That has nothing to do with refugees and their vulnerabilities (it's to do with women and theirs).

BC looks like Shere Khan stumbling open the lonesome Mowgli

'Remember Stephen Simblet QC's incredibly unpleasant letter and KC twisting herself inside out to justify it yesterday? It was excruciating to watch, kind of a slow-motion car crash, and made GCC look unprofessional and nasty.'

Yes. It looked like victimisation to me. I assume this is what the detriment of the SAR is about?

Does anyone know what is happening tomorrow? This is the last witness.

AH: I need to take you down

(I know he was talking about down the email chain)

Bit of an annoying volume difference between AH and SH.

everyone keep up the sterling work i may just sit back with my eyes closed for ten minutes. easier to concentrate that way.

I will not be nappinzzzzzzzzz

Yes, SS's nasty communication was at the core of detriment 5. KC lowered herself to trying to argue that SS having an incontinent rant at AB's solicitor would in no way have any impact whatsoever on AB and her case.

Ahh, SH is going to be about the handling of the complaints.

You made biscuits out of Paddington Bear?

Closing submissions? Is tomorrow the last day of the scheduled days?

SH starts off with a whopper. Her recusal from the investigation because she was active in trans rights law had nothing to do with impartiality.

Stephanie's witness statement is very neutral and objective. It claims that she thought AB's tweets about Stonewall breached the BSB guidelines because barristers shouldn't go about making accusations of abusive/criminal conduct.

Anyone have a view on that? Does the matter hinge on whether the allegation is true, or a genuinely held opinion, or is there anything in the claim that barristers - as a matter of course - can't make allegations against organisations?

Not a great day for succinct answers. Tick tock...

SH identifies herself as a trans right campaigner and not simply someone practising in the law in this issue.

I think it was said yesterday that closing submissions will happen in June - was in June 30th? I hope not because I can't take that day off...

Yes it was a simple yes. The question about you have been involved in high profile trans cases. She is still going as I type this.

June 20th

SH has had a long history of activism in this area and was around over the period when "transsexual" became "transgender".