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)

Autocorrect always knows what you are thinking

<scrubs brain>

😂😂😂

One day he will drag you screaming into the slimy darkness and there you will have to spend all eternity among unwanted baby alligators which have grown to gigantic size feasting on sewage, and the corpses of flushed goldfish and hamsters . . .

Don't say you weren't warned.

If autocock-up is that keen on rectal I can think of a few MPs who probably WLTM . . .

Re disclosure. It seems certain documents were not disclosed by GCC. What is the consequence of this? Also who does the searching of documents? It would be easy not to provide a detrimental e mail you had sent if you were the one doing the searching wouldn’t it? I would have thought someone independent should be tasked to do the search?

I agree @missgoodytwoshoes - GCC seem to have been less than compliant all round, what with late disclosures, poor memories of events (but oddly enough only when under examination by BC - they seemed to be pretty au fait when their own counsel were asking the questions) and now this.

You'd certainly think that in fairness to ALL parties there would have been an independent search. That way everyone would know that there had been full disclosure, and there wouldn't be even a hint of suspicion, surrounding GCC. I'd have thought that even if the suspicions are unfounded it would smear their reputation..

IANAL so have no idea what the repercussions of this might be.

I dreamt about the tribunal again last night.

First, AH came over to a group of people I was in, crying, that he'd had a weak case but he'd done his best. I was the only one who went over to console him and said, as I hugged him, "I hope you lose but I know you did your best and you did a good job."

Then a bit later on, there was the judgment happening. Randomly I was at my parents' house having a roast dinner but I said it was more important to listen to the judgment. For some reason, two Lord justices were giving their opinions first and it was apparently the accepted procedure that two people would get prizes for honourable mentions in their judgments. One of these was Harry Miller and when he got his award, he had to run down a field which was divided into three sections with railings, to congregate at the bottom and be congratulated. I can't remember who got the other prize but as they ran, the stewards dismantled the railings until it was only the middle section left where presumably Allison or GCC and Stonewall would be doing the victory run.

Then I woke up.

Is this a good omen?!

I think I need more hobbies in my life. Or maybe more biscuits.

Reminded me I was also dreaming about the tribunal last week - I'd decided to call my old mate Keir Starmer and put him straight on a few things, buddy to buddy. But the phone kept on getting disconnected just as I was getting somewhere.

(never met him in real life, can't imagine I'd manage more than icy civility if I did).

I'd not posted on these threads in a while - following but quite a bit later. Thank you to all the wonderful posters, and of course the amazing Allison & her team.

Do you take any meds at night @IdisagreeMrHochhauser ?

No but perhaps I need to. My dreams are very vivid and involved.

Of course, Keir is the missing link between the tribunal and a witness who, despite from being a member of The Most Right-on Chambers in History ©, had never heard of Helen Steel.

D'oh! "despite being" of course. Don't know how the stray "from" snuck in.

During the hearing I had a very vivid dream about these threads. No matter how much I read they went faster and faster, and I'd get to the end of one and realise how many more there were. I woke up feeling genuinely distressed

well up until now I've still been dreaming about the bloody tribunal.

I bet Ben Cooper is still waking up in a cold sweat at 3 in the morning because he's reliving the witnesses going on and on and on in his sleep!

However after these words today from a fellow mumsnetter

"One day he will drag you screaming into the slimy darkness and there you will have to spend all eternity among unwanted baby alligators which have grown to gigantic size feasting on sewage, and the corpses of flushed goldfish and hamsters . . .
Don't say you weren't warned".

I fear my dreams will be filled with other things tonight!

Thanks @Emotionalsupportviper More viper than support don't you think?

You OK hun?

I fear my dreams will be filled with other things tonight!

Mine too! I was fine the first time I read it, but the second time has triggered me. Thanks! 😉

Don't blame me! It was the ESV the wrote it.

Right I'm off to have serious words with the neighbours cat, shes been using my laptop to write letters to MPs

There's a separate thread on here of this RMW interview for Novara Media, but thought it should be included on the AB thread as it's related. Was surprised to see it when the case is still ongoing.
novaramedia.com/2022/05/31/a-barrister-explains-why-employment-tribunals-are-a-new-trans-rights-battlefield/

I see that RMW has popped their head over the parapet to contribute to a seriously one-sided article about Allison's tribunal. IADNAL, so no idea about sub judice: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4560402-anti-trans-spin-from-rmw

NM: What precedent are these cases seeking to set within the workplace?

RW: What they seek to establish is that trans people should not be accommodated as they are, or allowed to play a full part in society, and that people promoting those views should not be disadvantaged in the workplace.

What an interesting take on the matter. Thank goodness that RMW was seeking to present a judicious or positively magisterial impartiality of perspective on the matter of employment tribunals and some high profile cases. An attempt that is as fully successful as the aspirational gravitas of RMW's co-authored Practical Guide.

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/02/a-practical-guide/

line from RW in the above article:

think of all the good you could do with the £500,000 Bailey has raised for tribunal.

Oh we are RW we are!!

And the non-support robin keeps bob bob bobbin' along

and also

If you see me [in person], you’re in no doubt about my gender. But if you hear just my voice, I still sound quite male,

OK

I think I've consumed just about as much nonsense as I can today.

I'm off to watch cat videos,

Sweet dreams all

Not you Emotionalsupportviper, You're on the naughty step for giving me and TheBiologyStupid nightmares tonight!

Not a great intervention before closing submissions from RMW.

It comes across as unprofessional in my view. No-one else involved is commenting, which I thought reflected the rules.

But whether they’re unwritten rules or written rules I do not know.