Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 16

[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

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

Thread 15 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4556803-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-15

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

Closing arguments for AB, GCC, and SW (20 June)

Thank you Allison for getting to this point . Your bravery is stunning.
horrifying that so many women caught up and actually involved in bullying having swallowed SW ideology. Would have liked to see SW taking more responsibility for the mess we are in.
thank you vipers for the brilliant threads which I have finally caught up with. Please can they go in MN classics in their entirety?
and thank you to all of us who contributed to Allison’s crowdfunder. Money very well spent.

Don't forget "fiercely intelligent" and "empathetic to client's needs" and "fearless in pursuit of the truth" , can see both sides of every argument" etc etc etc

This on the news today made me think of KM

Court fight looms over Sainsbury's cat ban www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61596623

I know that many who have posted on these threads have legal backgrounds - and I presume that some are barristers? What's the view now, in the legal world, about GCC and Stonewall, and Allison's case?

Also, can we all recognise how brilliant IO and RW were? Freezing the screen so they could nip out for snacks, "no, no questions from us". Old rope.

You can buy those "service support animal" jackets online.

I don't think any animal should be admitted unless the owner can show that it has been PROPERLY TRAINED to provide a service eg guide dog, dogs trained to alert owner to impending epileptic seizures etc - it's far too easy to just claim your animal is your emotional support (of course it is - my dogs and cats support me emotionally - I wouldn't take them into the supermarket).

How long before people are taking in any and every animal? There re some tays you ca't get round the blocked aisles to start off with, never mind having to negotiate dogs, cats, pigs and chickens (because it will come - there's always one attention-seeker who will be in the paper sooner or later with a sad face and a "they wouldn't let me bring my support donkey into Waitrose" )

Also the GCC ‘Do right and fear no one’ motto. I’m reminded of the Fawcett Society using ‘Courage calls to courage.’ Both seem to fit their users equally well.

Both seem to fit their users equally well.

Feeling that you have to actually publicly declare such a motto is probably a bad sign to start with.

I think they watched before they gave evidence. That was certainly the impression I got yesterday when SH was referencing CM's testimony (or did she mean her witness statement?)

Thank you everyone, especially Allison. I accept that the judgement will be based on evidence and the finer points of relevant employment legislation, but feel I got my donation worth in terms of the sunlight shone through an organisation, spotlighting the damage that can be done when a small group of activists can push for the capture of an organisation whilst others are napping. I hope that senior executives at every organisation take a clear look and consider whether this could happen/has happened to them. If they employed an Allison, or a Maya, or a Kathleen who had strong, perfectly legal, indeed popular views, would they too be silenced, bullied or driven out.

I hope ultimately it helps herald the end of "intersectionality" in so far as this suggests competing special interests. Fine to be concerned about trans refugees of colour, but the better approach is to treat everyone with dignity and respect. Allison should have been listened to, because she is a person and a colleague, even a friend. Her protected characteristic flag up that she is more likely to be ignored or dismissed, but no one should have been treated as she was. More generally women should not be required to budge up because another group are playing top trumps. Equally means treating everyone equally and fairly.

I am also astonished at how few senior professionals use Twitter. Not particularly to tweet, but I had thought it pretty standard to follow other professionals and thought leaders in your field. So my 20 something DC, the first generation to grow up with social media consider it naff to actually post on Fb or twitter, but follow medics and economists respectively. One link follows another so they are pretty well versed in current understanding and debate in their fields. DH does the same, but also includes political commentators he likes and sport...you need to keep up with that football chat!

I find it astounding that QCs rely on Pink News rather than even the Times. I would have hoped that intelligent curious people would actually look at a variety of sources, even if only to test their own views. Staying within a safe bubble of similarly minded people means that you are not reading the wider room. Why was the LGBA formed, why did a respected colleague feel so strongly, how was Allison able to raise over half a million pounds, largely from small donations, why is a mumsnet thread attracting over 15,000 posts. When I was a Civil Servant we used to consider "The Sun Headline Test". A policy might make sense to our narrow group, but what would the wider world think. The narrowness of the information sources, and the lack of curiosity amongst supposedly intelligent and educated people is astonishing. As is the arrogance and assumption that they know better and are justified in their "activism".

I think the case also highlights the minority who use twitter not just to follow, or to disseminate constructive information or views, but those who want to push their opinions or to troll others. It can be a form of arrogance, and all too often shows up the shallowness or narrowness of their thinking. Lawyers seem particularly prone. The fox killer, the golfer, Jon Holbrook, my brother. Xenia's posts about professionalism should be circulated. We all have deeply held beliefs. Broadcasting yours without allowing a response from others, can only undermine relationships. Allison had concerns about SWs cotton ceiling seminar. If her colleagues had allowed her a respectful discussion which allowed her to articulate her strong reservations about an organisation that would promote overcoming the cotton ceiling, they might have understood and perhaps fed back to SW. (Which would have been good for both GCC and SW.) Instead we seem to have had doubling down, Pink News and some obscure Canadian site as an information source, and what appears to have been palpable anger towards Allison. I suspect many of us can think of someone who, either on Twitter or Fb who constantly broadcasts their, perhaps woke or perhaps reactionary, views signalling their membership and inclusion of what they believe correct thought. Others probably won't disagree, but may end up thinking less of them. For example DH has a relative who I like, who has just finished midwifery training and who has swallowed the Kool Aid by the jug full. Lots of posts about inclusion for transmen. Nothing, it seems, about the real problems of including refugees, disabled, or from hard to reach populations. I usually seek her out at family gatherings. I will be more wary next time.

My first post, hence the length. Thank you Allison. You are so impressive. I hope, whatever the outcome, that the ripples from this case spread far and wide. I also hope that at least some of your colleagues and perhaps people like AH now understand why you brought the case, how brave you are, and the service you are doing LGB people. Flowers and forgiveness would be the minimum.

I've read every thread. Not grasped all of it. Some were just brain-riddlingly intense. I'm getting a brilliant education thanks to you all and finding the detail helps to articulate what we fundamentally know. The explanation matters but the conduct ... wowzers. Feeling emboldened and thankful for this community. Can not wait for the dramatic interpretation to hit our screens.

Not a legal mind, but I was talking to a close friend who is also a judge. A lot of legal profession have WhatsApp groups and whilst they can't watch directly (due to their workload), they've been following the case with dropped jaws.

Just catching up on the train to work. Have only been able to watch bits so I have really appreciated the commentary. I’m moved by knowing that I’ve been part of a dispersed community of women following the case as they go about their business because the rights of vulnerable women - of all women - and of children matter.

It's moments like that that have to go in the TV drama. That and the MNers clearing up after poorly children and tending to them while following along.

At the end, I thought, perhaps wrongly, that AH and EJG saw the comments in the chat box. I thought I saw a moment of being genuinely taken aback by the responses there with people thanking the legal teams and the judge for this (to me) case study in Open Justice. And then EJG/whomever terminated the connection.

I don't know what the legal profession is making of crowdfunded support for cases like this and the very obvious interest in following the proceedings. I don't know if they now regret that the lack of fuller live-streaming, open access to a bundle, and a recording/transcript means that we didn't get more contemporaneous coverage and commentary. (They are plausibly very relieved because I should think going ahead with a tribunal in those circumstances is a very different proposition.)

I hope that, as individuals, we never need it for ourselves. More than ever, this case has convinced me that we need Open Justice. The letter to Lord Linblom earlier this year was a start but I'm wondering if there needs to be another letter based on this case led by Sex Matters and LGBA.

I am a barrister. Like many I have been reticent about sharing GC views at work, particularly having been following what happened to Allison contemporaneously from when she was tweeting about LGBA. Over the last year or so I have talked about it more and, while this is only anecdotal, I have been amazed at how many say they are GC (and how often I got it wrong and people I assumed would be TRA turned out to be the absolute opposite). A friend who specialises in sports law who I assumed would be 100% right-on amazed me with a lengthy diatribe about how VO2 uptake doesn’t change post transition. They’d read all the research. They said as much as anything else they were unsupportive of TW in women’s sports because they were offended by the shit disingenuous arguments.

This includes several barristers who are active - and prominent - on Twitter but do not comment on trans issues. I have realised over time that their likes and the people they follow are often an oblique indication of their views.

Chambers may appear the same as one another to an outsider but they do differ significantly in terms of their atmosphere and ethos. What I have learned about GCC strikes me as not typical and pretty extreme. It makes me incredibly glad I am not there as it seems to be really unpleasant and politically homogenous (also not typical). The thing that friends have been appalled about more than anything else is the idea that your roommate would be willing to eavesdrop on you and then snitch. Those I’ve talked to have all mentioned that and have been universally appalled by it. It’s totally contrary to the ethos of the Bar, I’d say.

I also know that several senior members of the judiciary have been following. I attended a social event where behaviour in online hearings was discussed, and I made a joke about support dogs. They knew what that referred to, and it transpired they’d been keeping up. Of course, none of them expressed a view as to the merits, but I thought that was - interesting.

Talking of intersectionality; my take away from all this way the complete and utter reliance on the Stonewall Diversity Champion checklist.

And if they followed what they said and box ticked, they could feel good about themselves.

Whereas when a colleague pointed out that this approach was not actually inclusive but was actually exclusive; they just could not see it. They could not deal with having to balance a black lesbian's needs with those of trans people. Who were the main focus of the ticklist.

The inability of the legal profession to not be able to think things through, or even to speak to colleagues to look for a way forward and how best to manage situations, was an impossible ask. They literally folded like a desk chair.

And if they, with all their experience, qualifications and legal minds can't, what hope does every other Stonewashed organisation have?

It isn't good is it?

It's moments like that that have to go in the TV drama. That and the MNers clearing up after poorly children and tending to them while following along.

I hope there are film directors reading this - I know one excellent woman film director, however the industry does tend to be woke.

Nothing shows why we need women's sex based rights more than the thousands of women watching this case whilst doing all the jobs that women disproportionately do. The childcare, the picking of rice crispies out of the carpet when a child's been sick. Juggling work, sick kids, elder care. So many MNetters doing all of this and listening to AB's case in the background knowing that is it vitally important if our rights and our daughters rights are not to go backwards.

@DelurkingLawyer This includes several barristers who are active - and prominent - on Twitter but do not comment on trans issues. I have realised over time that their likes and the people they follow are often an oblique indication of their views.

This is why they target 'likes' and 'follows' on Twitter.

The film could start with women trying to decide whether to donate to Allison's crowdfunder or buy their kids a treat. Times are tough. There were lots of small donations from women who couldn't afford more. But we donated because we knew how important it was for ourselves and our children.

I hope Allison wins and I thank her so very much for bringing this case - because win or lose it's provided valuable sunlight and a clear message to those in positions of influence who are minded to be GC but staying silent out of fear. That their inaction has consequences and that consequence is a judge who compares lesbians being attracted to their own sex and not to males to racism. That condones conversion therapy. The most blatant lesbophobia.

It cannot have been easy, the absolute rage from the employees at GCC that AB had the temerity to bring this case was clear to see. She is an absolute shero and someone I will be holding up for my daughters as a brilliant role model.

But this is the problem as it suggests that you only follow people you agree with.

I don't have a twitter account but DH is signed in on our iPad. I often looked at something, eg Adrian Harrop in the olden days, to note that several reputable journalists and political commentators would be following. I took this to mean that they were looking at a range of sources before coming to a view. Isn't that the argument for humanities at top Universities. The ability to look at a variety of sources, employ critical faculties and forming your own opinion.

Well, we know that! But it doesn't stop activitsts trying to get people cancelled or sacked for 'liking' a tweet.

Does anyone remember who the two 'senior' barristers whom SH mentioned did support AB were?

It's MB I'm struggling with. How a judge can come out with the stuff she said - and she's got children. I would like to know if she really believes it, or she just sees it as the new income for herself

Was it Marguerite Russell (and possibly Liz Davies?)

well that feels weird. I was not previously familiar with India.

An opinion is only an opinion. But when certain opinions get to change laws to the detriment of especially women and children, they are not only opinions.