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)

beetle

"BUT why do they insist on leaving the headless corpse, 9 times out of 10, at exactly the spot on the rug where my right foot hits the floor when I go to get out of bed? I constantly feel like Victor Meldrew putting his foot in a dead hedgehog instead of his slipper."

'Cos they love you of course, you don't think they leave headless corpses at the bedside of any and everybody do you?

I suspect to a cat's senses the precise spot your toe lands each morning has a clearly discernible extra you-ness smell and is therefore the best place to put your present(s) because it'd be horrible if you didn't spot it tight...?

<3

Yes agree ickky. It's hilarious really and a demonstration of the 'accusations are admissions' idea that TRAs are constantly referring to non-existent far right money behind GC campaigns when in fact - as is clear from all the crowdfunders - it's many, many thousands of normal women and men putting in 5-50 quid. There is huge support, but it does piss me off because Stonewall has so much government money and it's a real David vs Goliath fight. Note that Stonewall don't have to crowdfund for their legal fees.

A lot of women - me included - are having to fund these crowdfunders instead of buying slightly nicer food for our kids, or that extra clothing they'd really like. And of course many women simply can't afford to contribute even though they'd like to with the cost of living increases.

In fact those least able to contribute may well be those worst affected by the erosion of women's rights - lack of single sex NHS wards, funding for trans issues rather than SEN in schools.

We shouldn't have to be funding a fight for very basic women's and children's rights in 2022. And yet, here we are.

Bloody hell. Yes.

Only look at the response by the creators of the Family Sex Show. Dismissal of concerns as regressive. Absolute inability to reflect on whether ENCOURAGING CHILDREN TO GOOGLE ANIMALS MASTURBATING was a safeguarding breach.

Beggars belief but fits with this theory.

Oops it appears someone at Garden Court has either been a bit clumsy or made a cry for help 😂. Maybe they really are useless at Twitter after all!

twitter.com/MsGiveZeroFox/status/1531240731435749376?s=20&t=s5KXgfmB678nMO-mt8sYZA

So we can talk biscuits all the live long day but no P.I.E. 😡

😂

I just had some macarons with my McDonald's (am on holiday!). Macarons are biscuits, right? Probably not fit for dipping though

I think there's a real push to move the debate away from safeguarding and onto concerns of adult women. Which are obviously important, but the child safeguarding scandal is more horrific and more worrying.

Of course it has to be adults bringing court cases, but the safeguarding is the bigger scandal. The children whose lives are being damaged may never have the resilience of an AB to bring lawsuits and if they do it'll be decades into the future. By which time I think the people pushing this regressive anti-safeguarding ideology hope all the laws will have changed to make it impossible.

Of course it has to be adults bringing court cases, but the safeguarding is the bigger scandal. The children whose lives are being damaged may never have the resilience of an AB to bring lawsuits and if they do it'll be decades into the future.

Look at how long it's taken Barbara O'Hare (a very resilient and determined adult) to approach anything like justice for something that happened in 1971.

Is the heroine of the story a reliable narrator? How can she be when she herself says she lived during this time in an almost permanent zombie state?

Yet it was not a work of fiction. It was the real life account of Barbara's life under the 'care' of Dr Kenneth Milner, a certified Home Office doctor.

And her account, disbelieved by so many for so long, yesterday gained credence when the long-awaited police report into his behaviour was released. Her account was mirrored by 142 other witness statements, all making similar claims.

'Dr Milner played with our bodies and our minds,' she says. 'This is the validation that we were telling the truth. When you take account of how long he was there for, he abused thousands of people.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5992551/Barbara-OHare-opens-abuse-hands-Dr-Kenneth-Milner.html

Oh what a surprise, my post was deleted despite not containing a personal attack, a misgendering, a generalisation about any particular group of people or anything -phobic. Our external monitors really don't like women talking about safeguarding children, do they?

Why would that be, do you think?

I agree we need our eyes very much focused on children and children's safeguarding.

Yes quite I think that's what people miss when they try to paint us as transphobic

heterosexual men
homosexual men
heterosexual boys
homosexual boys

AND
heterosexual men who have extremely unhealthy and dangerous attitudes about women

AND
men with attractions to adolescents

AND
men with attractions to pre pubescent children

may declare themselves to be TW. The reasons and motivations why will clearly vary, they are a group which naturally defy and resist easy generalisation.

Hence also resisting the lazy stereotype that all are 100% benign and women's concerns are preposterous.

I think the language restrictions about sensitive why at one point, AH affected to mock BC's use of "bad men" as 'infantilising' (iirc). But is is what commenters are reduced to as shorthand for some discussions because there will always be somebody ready to quibble about language and ignore the content or action.

Offhand, and maybe OT, who was the witness who bounced up and down during parts of the cross-examination and several times gave a 'warning' BC about his questions? MS? Or do I misremember? (Oh for a transcript that is readily searchable.)

who was the witness who bounced up and down during parts of the cross-examination and several times gave a 'warning' BC about his questions?

MT, he of the support pinworms?

TW, I mean. (I'm writing a report referring to someone as MT atm.)

Was this the schoolboyish one with rolley eyes and a pouty lip?

It was a woman, can’t remember who though. Not any of the final witnesses like MB or SH.

Hope you don’t mind this hijack, I don’t know how to start a new thread.
World at One BBC R4 30th at 2022. Have run an article about the treatment of pregnant people, and those people when they miscarry. Not one mention of women, female, men, males.
Ive emailed my complaint, you might want to give it a listen and tell them what you think
[email protected]

If you look at the top of this thread, you should see a button that says "start new thread" Click on that and you can make a new thread.

What were the posts that were deleted about? (General vague hints, if that is better!)

They were about the real motivations behind the inorganic trans movement that is sweeping the whole world at the same time. Discrediting feminists so their safeguarding concerns were/are not taken seriously.

from context they appear to have been about safeguarding with a potential reference to times in the past where males who were attracted to minors co ordinated and collaborated in order to facilitate swapping knowledge and advice.

Of course no motives are ascribed to any unconvicted persons.

Did someone mention 🥧?