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)

Wasn't it in a potty but then handed to the Mum in question? I'm not sure if that was 'handed in the potty' or simply 'poo put in hand'. I hope whoever it was comes back to enlighten us. Clearly said child was rightly proud of their potty success!

I would like to think that a million solicitors' offices throughout the country have knocked GCC off their "who-to-brief list . . .

I would also like to know how many people are reading these threads, and if I ran Mumsnet's Twitter I would definitely have tweeted some of the funnier comments.

Many thanks to all who contributed to these epic threads.

If Allison loses, I like to think some good will come out of the revelations in the form of more companies stopping to consider:

-what the fuck they are paying Stonewall for
-what the fuck their Digital Internet Important Sounding Modern Stuff Person is actually doing all day
-how their internal complaints process works
-how they understand protected characteristics

The "fairness" software that wasn't actually being used was probably the biggest shocker for me. If GCC start implementing it properly then Allison will have "won" anyway.

Yes, exactly.

If a judge is so blinded by an ideology they cannot judge effectively and have a huge blind spot / conflict of interest, it's a problem. CM's comments in this case should exclude her from being a judge in many cases due to a conflict of interest between her ideology and the cases. Any case with lesbians involved for a start. CM obviously believes 'lesbian' means same gender attracted but that's NOT the legal definition, nor what many lesbians themselves believe.

It will be interesting to see if this happens. (I am feeling depressed about it).

Delurking to say I have followed this thread (all of them) and thank you for your work).

I don't post anything GC on Twitter as I am also identifiable for work. Some people I interact with there are very TWAW.

However in real life, whenever I have quietly brought it up, everyone I have ever spoken to is GC. Because in real life in healthcare, we can see a lot of people have struggles in their lives, are victims of abuse and it isn't a game of top trumps.

That's impressive but 😳(why is there no vomiting emoji, MN?)

I generally just use this one @ifIwerenotanandroid !

@IcakethereforeIam Ah well, if you're going the Borders route, may I recommend their Collection, their lemon drizzle biscuits & their ginger & dark chocolate ones (two different types, I think: large, round & available vs thin, oblong & individually wrapped).

@BIWI I haven't got that one either.

Yes you have! It's a standard MN one - usually used for [ envy ]. (Just type that without the spaces before and after the letters.

What?

I thought you legal types didn't talk about such things, only football and Mariah Carey? (When you're not very busy, travelling or buying Christmas presents at 1.38am that is)

I guess they just kept adding more and more witnesses in, hoping Allison would crack, it would bump up the cost and each time they thought she'd pull out but she didn't.

They never, ever thought it would get to actually having to attend; and then went all out on trying to be as evasive, bad at technology, terrible at putting bundles together to try and outwit everyone and get it closed to the public. But the judge obviously expected it all and was prepared for anything. And she got it!

I'm a bit at sea today without the tribunal providing the soundtrack! Can someone recommend a good on-in-the-background podcast please?

If Allison wins, do you think MN will give us a dinosaur one as a celebration.

There were loads of legal watchers. Many with what one assumes were their actual names too.

We need a twix one too

DH fielded one like that many years ago when he selflessly threw himself between to product of our 2-year-old's bottom and a new carpet!

OMG 😂

I miss Ben.

Yum - thank you! I'll be getting those next time I'm in Asda.

This thread has not been good for my biscuit addiction, at all! I'm going to have a cupboard full of chocolat-ey, orangey goodness

As well as the millions of Twitter impressions, I wonder how many people have followed the thread on MN and not on Twitter or online? (Like me). So many people have been following this closely.
The reputation of the chambers is pretty tarnished by this. They appear to have totally gone along with the direction SW and influential barristers within the group have promulgated without reflection or curiousity. That alone is shocking in a profession where mature intellectual thought is so important. Plus constantly being too busy, travelling, shopping, on holiday to read key emails. Their treatment of a colleague has been very shoddy.
Even if they win this case that's a lose in terms of status and respect within their peers.
I wonder how many people at GCC will look for alternative places of work now?

I think that's right. I have no idea if there were any attempts at settlement but it would have to involve a financial element/damages/payment (even if that was zero) and some sort of statement of no admission/regret/apology/denial/acceptance/clarification/blah blah. It's difficult to see how the parties could agree a financial/statement formula acceptable to both of them that would totally extinguish any 'no smoke without fire' thoughts harboured by cynical lawyers and people on the twitter omnibus who know how workplaces work. GCC's only chance of that was, and is, in a clear tribunal finding that they didn't do anything wrong. So they had to go for it.

well you're right I hadn't seen that - omg.

To channel my mother "that's not very ladylike behaviour is it?"

I'm fascinated (not in a good way) by Michelle Brewer being a first-tier tribunal judge of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

She presumably decides on the crucial issue of whether this country will grant asylum to individuals on specific grounds, such as persecution in their country of origin because they are homosexual. (The rules talk both about 'sexual orientation' and 'homosexuality'.)

If Brewer hears a lesbian applicant say that she is 'same-sex attracted', and the asylum seeker will not deviate from that position, is Brewer more or less likely to be minded to grant the asylum application? Will she, at an explicit or subliminal level, regard the applicant as a 'sexual racist' or something along similar lines as per the opinions of Nancy Kelley and Cathryn McGahey?

Are applicants' solicitors telling their clients to say the magic words, 'I'm same-gender attracted'; or to go straight in for a gender identity narrative?

The figures relating to the success or failure of LBG and TQ+ applicants are already a mess. The process is secretive and arcane. This will not help.

I only managed to watch the last couple of days, but the things that stays with me are:

1. flawed investigation

2. The fact that they identified that women barristers were being disadvantaged, they put a mechanism in to monitor this. It didn't get used and no one at a senior level checked or bothered.

3. Their lack of care or concern about AB.

4. MB's force of nature personality and absolute belief that her own world view was correct.

I would say 1 to 3 are really common in disputes between employers/employees. If my memory is correct, at one point the person responsible for HR suggested the perfectly valid "do nothing" approach in response.

In every organisation you get management who are busy/on holiday/with their children/dealing with other issues etc. But a calm/objective head and a fairly clear diary is necessary to manage employee relations properly. If you don't heve either - best to leave it or enter into a dispute and then get the cheque book out.