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)

The weak points in GCC's position IMO are:

1. DdM (his actions created the panic that seemed to grip the HoCs, who relied on his framing, along with the considered views of the likes of SH & MB, ending with them throwing AB under the bus. Plus his obvious lying over what he saw/didn't see re abuse of AB on twitter.

2. LH - the clerk who said he put work to AB that was beneath her calling, supposedly to introduce AB to new clients. I didn't buy that excuse. CC claimed no one would have deliberately asked or instructed clerks to under clerk AB - but management failed to notice when her work dropped to such a significant extent. I'm not sure there was a wider conspiracy but the general attitude towards AB & indifference to her situation (even after she asked for a review of her practice) is where I think the detriment has happened re her work/earnings. Maybe not wilfully deny her work, but not act when she flags an issue, and not notice when she's not getting offered good quality/well paid work - the outcome is the same.

3. Their failure to use the monitoring system that they'd implemented in response to the WTF report, to monitor discriminatory practices in work being offered. If they had used that system & produced lots of work showing that Allison was mistaken, they'd have nipped that in the bud early on.

4. every single witness who claimed their chambers didn't gossip about members. That's just not credible & makes them all look shifty & that they're hiding something.

5. MB, CM & SH - all of them are clearly ideologically positioned to find anything AB said/did to defend herself as a lesbian, a black woman & a CSA survivor as transphobic. It shows their bias & instinctive disdain towards AB.

I think the weaknesses in AB's claim:

1. lack of proof of conspiracy. I think she's right that there was a collective effort to shut her down but there's not a strong amount of evidence of that.

2. the absence of the ' smoking gun' on SW directing/inducing detriment from GCC. I think all the intent came from GCC & I think SW were v keen to help that process, but I think SW are a smaller part of the treatment AB endured. And tbh, i think that's harder on AB. Because they didn't just panic & do SW's bidding. The threat to her livelihood came from within GCC.

I have no idea what outcome AB will get - I think she has been victimised, I think she has been deemed out of favour as a result of her speaking out. I think she's been treated appallingly and I think the detriments to her are tangible. I'm just not sure if all the component parts are strong enough to prove everything alleged happened. Plenty did happen that demonstrates AB endured a horrific time from people who just wanted her to STFU.

I'm just not clear whether she's got the whole thing over the line.

But, she's still an amazingly brave woman & my respect for her is immeasurable. A genuine shero.

How long before a certain junior who didn't say much throughout and put together an omnishambles of a bundle shows up to tell us all off again, d'you reckon?

@Iknowitisheresomewhere Thank you for the link to that very helpful article!

The judiciary appears to be considering this radical step into the Employment Tribunal system after a recent incident when a piece of correspondence was received by the Lindblom from 300 persons including whistleblowers who expressed their worries about the absence of both recorded hearings and printed transcripts in the Employment Tribunal. Their collective opinion must have had some considerable weight behind them as it appears to have shifted the Employment Tribunals into action. The majority view of the campaign group was that the current system treats those finding themselves in the unfortunate position of lacking access to a legal representative to articulate their case unfairly.

The judiciary has confirmed the potential future direction of travel for the Employment Tribunals. Sir Keith Lindblom appears to have agreed with their concerns and outlined that the judiciary is mulling over introducing the wider-spread use of recording and transcripts.

I couldn't agree more about the accruing disadvantages to people who have no option but to defend themselves. I'm aware of several egregious proceedings involving NHS whistleblowers. It's remarkably important and timely for recordings and transcripts to be included as part of an updated process.

More about Open Justice: davidhencke.com/2022/04/22/employment-tribunal-open-justice-campaign-sir-keith-lindbloms-office-replies-to-lack-of-fairness-and-transparency-in-hearings/

Re. 2: did we ever get an explanation for why Allison's practice review never happened?

"did we ever get an explanation for why Allison's practice review never happened?"

No I don't think the question was even asked.

Thanks Grumpy, that matches my own recollection (but then it was almost Christmas, I was busy, etc.). I agree with your analysis but then IANAL. And a BIG yes to your last points about Allison.

I thought I heard that question being asked. But to be honest I can't remember the detail now (I couldn't be a barrister like BC obviously, but I probably could be like the GCC barristers who all can't remember anything).

I hardly remember anything either. They must have asked Charlie Tennant.

Thank you ickky

Thank you fellow vipers.

Thank you cast of support creatures.

Thank you everyone involved in open justice.

But most of all…thank you Allison, for being a fucking shero.

Off topic - I just got the MN Daily. Hot threads doesn't include this one or the earlier one. Seems odd? Or maybe it's just me?

Be still, fellow vipers.

The ask has been asked.

Link to tweet

"OK I'm going to say what we're all thinking. @MForstater or @BluskyeAllison: can you please tell Ben Cooper QC (the Damian Lewis lookie-likie, not @bencooper or @cooper_lion) that he needs to get a Twitter account? It's the least his fans deserve."

And answered...

Allison responds...

"I have passed on your message xx"

I think he'll get an idea of what a (friendly) twitter storm is like if he follows through...😁

Ba

I haven’t turned into a sheep. That should have read ‘Barbara Rich’ is commenting it’a on Twitter about MB discussing confidential info about complaints procedures with people who didn’t work for GCC.

I just hope that BC passes on the appreciation to his support wren.

I consider donating to all these current crowdfunding appeals as money well spent. This tribunal has been outstanding in illuminating the horror that is gender ideology. I thank you all for these wonderful threads and the bravery of Allison, Maya and all the other courageous women (and men) who are putting themselves on the line. I was ‘peaked’ when JKR was cancelled. I have learned such a lot from the Mumsnet feminist boards and following GC names on twitter; follow and donate monthly to ‘sex matters’ and try to enlighten others around me who have no idea what is going on. This has been epic! Well done!

Excuse ME!

I’ve seen messages on the thread about how hard barristers work. We’ve all seen BC and AH in action this week (BC carrying the greater weight of cross examination) and been impressed, but what I think bears a mention is the absolutely massive amount of work they do behind the scenes of these hearings.

I've the pleasure of working with a wonderful barrister on a case at the moment which has been in court this week. She emailed me at 6pm yesterday a summary of the hearing and said she needed to provide written submissions today which she wanted me to go through first thing this morning to go before the judge at 11.

She finished the submissions and emailed them to me for approval… at 3.47am. Then was back in front of the judge this morning.

I don’t know how they do it.

What's really been horrifying is that it's the senior barristers that are the ones wedded to the anti-scientific anti-logic thinking. Really, really having drunk the kool-aid. Not all of them but enough to be concerning in terms of whether justice is truly possible if you're woman who believes in biology.

the absence of the ' smoking gun' on SW directing/inducing detriment from GCC. I think all the intent came from GCC & I think SW were v keen to help that process, but I think SW are a smaller part of the treatment AB endured. And tbh, i think that's harder on AB. Because they didn't just panic & do SW's bidding. The threat to her livelihood came from within GCC

I think this is right. Stonewall's influence is "understood" but impossible to nail down. GCC did this to themselves.

On the other hand, we had about 20 GCC witnesses to 3 or 4 from SW.

I was going for inclusive as opposed to typecasting. I stand corrected! Clearly only somebody who has lived experience as a wren could possibly play the role and I offer my sincere (and not hostage-like in any way) apology.

I still think Stonewall might be judged to have tried to influence (and succeeded in influencing) GCC. KM wrote that he was acting in his role as Head of Trans Inclusion. His complaint was taken seriously and treated differently from the others. He wasn’t disciplined and nobody retracted it. So it stood as an action on behalf of Stonewall.

Thread:

A former member of Garden Court chambers, now a judge, in cross-examination. I would be profoundly unhappy if a member of my chambers said anything about an internal complaints process and chambers meeting concerning me with anyone other than a member or employee of chambers

The same witness earlier described proponents of gender critical arguments as privileged white middle class women who “just drive me bonkers”

The witness is giving evidence in support of the defence of her former chambers colleagues in a claim brought by a member of those chambers who is a black woman from a working class background and who is a proponent of those selfsame gender critical arguments

Then in response to someone, Rich writes:

I’m trying to keep an open mind, conscious I haven’t read the witness statements and other documents on which they were cross-examined, and that my impression that there was a collective impulse to discredit Allison Bailey’s views and distance themselves from them may be wrong

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1529779829154926592

😂

At least it's not bloody Mariah!!

I know Barbara Rich in a personal capacity, though for various life-gets-in-the-way reasons our paths haven’t crossed as much recently as they did a few years ago. She is someone I admire greatly, both on a professional and a personal basis and I am inordinately pleased that she hasn’t drunk of the well of Stonewall.