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)

Seemed pretty clear that if you want asylum and you get MB as a judge just say you're trans and you're in

@McDuffy apols if this has already popped up, but I recommend Gender: A Wider Lens - the hosts are brilliant

Might not be the most non-distracting actually. In the background, maybe something less controversial like Off Menu (unless you have strong feelings about cheese boards or desserts!)

@ifIwerenotanandroid I have to stay away from the Border chocolate ginger, I have no control. Would definitely have them and a mug of tea for my last meal. And, if I could, every meal between now and then.

This software they were not using - just lip service. Window dressing to avoid actually addressing a problem.

Chrysanthemum5 · Today 10:41

I was thinking about this case last night. In Mayas tribunal one of the witnesses said they had been trying to limit reputational
Damage and BC said something along the lines of - it would be unkind of me to ask how that worked out. The implication being that the tribunal was wrecking their reputation far more than being associated with Maya.

So, if GCC saw that - why did they go ahead? Surely they must know other law chambers are laughing at them now? Not to mention the damage done by exposing their madness to the world?

What were GCCs options?

(1) Try to bully AB into giving up? Tried and failed.

(2) Settle? Admit defeat. This would leave them embarrassed and exposed to massive amounts of criticism from TRAs and Stonewall, but leave gender critical people unsatisfied as well. And it would cost them.

(3) Fight? This could lead to a win (which works for GCC). If they lose they can still say -

(a) We did our best for the trans community, not our fault.
(b) Stonewall mislead us. We have a legal case against them for the way they influenced us to break the law. (Not sure this will fly - how can a barrister claim that they were mislead by Kirrin Medcalf on the law).

Another thing - is it possible that they genuinely felt that this needed to be heard, either to shine a light on the problem with the insane TRA position (which they have realized over the last year or two), or to shine a light on the way the law is still so far behind where it should be in terms of allowing men to destroy women's rights?

I'n case anyone else here is suffering withdrawal symptoms (I certainly am), I'd recommend Helen Staniland in conversation with Helen Joyce and this part around 21 minutes in when they move onto discussing the hearing and some of the "highlights". It's a joy to watch and in a way takes you back into the room.

This video was recommended before but the link I've included takes you straight to the action.

Yes. It's almost like they're used to bullying women into submission.

I don't think they ever - in their arrogance - thought it would get to trial in this way. You could HEAR the outrage. They were utterly and totally convinced they could get their own way and shut it down. And that's partly why they ended up with such weird behaviour as witnesses. They weren't going to admit they were wrong but their actions don't stack up so they had to evade, deny, pretend they couldn't remember.

Good on Allison. Even getting this far, having the case open to anyone who wanted to watch, that's a massive win.

The Borders biscuits are in a league of their own, aren't they?

The lemon drizzle are fabulous, too. The ginger biscuits come in both milk and dark chocolate, with and without orange. The viennese whirls just melt on your lips (and adhere to your hips) and all other are also just beyond delicious!

I have never seen him move so fast!

😂😂😂

He's very cockley, too - I through he was going to ruin the carpet himself by throwing up on it.

@Emotionalsupportviper stop it! Please, I'm begging you.

At heart, isn't it a failure of management.

Who was running GCC? QCs more interested in earning money, taking on the task for a few years by rotation, irrespective of aptitude? Outsourcing ED&I to Stonewall because they would provide a check list and a certificate to prove that all was in order.

I think there was a way out. There is nothing to suggest that AB is unreasonable. A good manager with solid management experience would have reviewed the material early, tested the "evidence" etc and talked to the people "investigating" and making recommendations. If it appeared clear that there was a problem, they talk to Allison. What would she want to make wrongs right. Changes in approach, ditching SW, use of the software, work with the clerks about any footie/lads culture, a word with some of the SJWs about the importance of diversity of opinion.

Another thing - is it possible that they genuinely felt that this needed to be heard, either to shine a light on the problem with the insane TRA position (which they have realized over the last year or two), or to shine a light on the way the law is still so far behind where it should be in terms of allowing men to destroy women's rights?

That’s a really interesting idea. If it was like that then they’d need to admit it fairly soon in order to save their reputation.

Having seen how toxic things were in GCC and how much influence the true believers of the ideology had exerted, GCC's approach to the litigation makes sense.

They could have apologised. But you only had to have watched part of the GCC witness testimony to see that that could not have happened. These people have as a key part of their identity that they are on the right side of history, and it would have been unthinkable for them to have admitted they'd behaved badly and especially to AB being a living embodiment of overlapping protected characteristics. To make things even more unthinkable for them, they would have had to have made clear they were deviating from the gender identity ideology. It just couldn't happen.

They assumed they could outgun and outspend AB and she would probably give up. As they would have seen it, this could ruin her financially and so it could be assmed that at some point she would have realised that and would have given up.

When that didn't happen and the case proceeded, they started to become aware of the nightmare awaiting them in GCC emails and documents and fought dirty on that point with a strike-out application, and SAR shenanigans, but they failed there.

Once they were heading towards the hearing, they knew they were looking at a major incident of corporate self-harm but they had no way of avoiding it. It would have involved a grovelling apology at the very least and their narcissism, self-righteousness, and self-delusion were completely in control at that point.

I'd like to think it was an act to show up the TRAs. If it was some were so method even Daniel Day Lewis would think it was a bit much.

<slowly unwraps chocolate orange ginger biscuit>

<waves it in front of face and goes>

MmmmmMMMmmmmmMmmmmmMMMMMMmmmm

<provocatively licks biscuit>

<LOSES CONTROL AND RAMS WHOLE THING INTO GOB SIDEWAYS>

<chomp, gronff, slurp>

I agree with @Needmoresleep and @nauticant. I was very struck by the management side of things, when I was able to listen and then to catch up. I think it's the management side that failed. They could have nipped it in the bud before it got to a position whereby they (felt they) couldn't back down.

But even then, you end up going round and round again. Settling a dispute is what lawyers advise on a lot. So why didn't they settle? And that's where - because it wasn't de-escalated - the: "was this the new income stream AB got in the way of" comes up as a question.

The whole episode shows the legal profession in a poor light. And that impression diverts from SW, which might be what SW aimed for in these proceedings. Who knows.

I imagine GCC look back with fondness on the days when a Twitter storm involved tweets from 7 people

@Emotionalsupportviper I'm genuinely laughing and crying....fuckit I'm only human. I'm off to Waitrose. Don't need shoes or coat. I'll sell them to support my biscuit habit!

re the lack of intellectual curiosity - it's so strange isn't it?
When I first encountered the sex/gender thing I didn't understand it.
Back in 2015/2016 I didn't know there was now a difference between sex & gender and I wanted to find out what that meant.
I wanted to know if it was important & if so what impact it might have on the world, and more specifically the world of women including my Mum, me & my daughters. I asked lots of questions. I read lots of articles.

When there is something I don't understand, I don't start making grand statements and calling people names. I ask questions, I engage intellectually until I feel I have enough of the handle on the situati on to understand it & form an opinion. If something is important this is a process worth going through.

And when so many people are calling people who believe in sex & its importance many horrible names, I want to be even more sure I've got a handle on the topic. It makes me even MORE curious.

I also accept that there are many many things I don't inately know, but if I am intellectually curious I am blessed with being able to do more research from the comfort of my home than has ever been possible before.
I get some people might do much reseach and end up at a different place to me.
On this particluar topic I do find that someone can do much research and end up a TRA calling women names, but i can accept it becaouse humans usually do have different opinions.

But so see so many barristers, so highly educated & presumably expert researchers, fail to engage in the basics of intellectual rigor & inquiry, especially with something so important to so many people including those they are purporting to support - well its shocking.

I miss all my friends and their support animals in the boxes on the laptop screen. Had to have a name change.

Yes, well put.

They must have been so aghast and upset as thousands of normal women and men kept putting 5 or 10 quid in the pot and got AB up to her half million.

It must have been totally galling. They SO believe they're in the right and know better. To have such a clear, factual demonstration that so many women and men are willing to put their money, what little they have in many cases, towards the case because we were on AB's side

We are so lucky that Allison is so brave and strong enough to see it through.

They assumed they could outgun and outspend AB and she would probably give up. As they would have seen it, this could ruin her financially and so it could be assmed that at some point she would have realised that and would have given up.

Absolutely this - never under estimate the power of many women and a crowdfunder campaign. We've got to keep going, donating where and how we can. When one of us is brave enough and able to put her head above the line, we will rally behind her, and create a platform of support.

The gender vs sex thing is really difficult. DH was filling in a form for our DD the other day one field was 'gender' - the options were male, female, other and prefer not to say. I put prefer not to say, because the question makes no sense unless you have all 422 (or however many there are now) genders. DH put female. I said to him 'gender isn't the same as sex,' and he said 'oh but that's what they mean'.

Honestly I'm so tired of trying to have the argument with him about how important this is. He just doesn't see it. (male privilege).

Stop it! I'm about to do this week's food order. It'll be all biscuits at this rate.