Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 17

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April, witness testimony concluded on the 26th May. Closing arguments for council will be on the 20th June. I don't know if the existing links and pins will work. I will email nearer the time to check.

If you would like to view online you need to send a request for access.
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 – 20th June 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

Thread 16 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4557036-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-16

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)

I think IO is going for the not free to abuse angle. Nothing AB said was hateful, however, it was truthful.

No I can't, and I have to go to a meeting. Many thanks on advance to those who can continue to flow and update!

It's not a 'belief'! It's cold hard facts.

Now saying it doesn't meet the legal threshold of a belief but is merely a viewpoint or opinion. From Granger case.

So, the lawyers have had several weeks to make sure they've got a sharp, tight and convincing summation.

Glad Stonewall used that time well.

<falls asleep> Is this their defence? "Look how boring and chaotic we are; we couldn't find our own arses with both hands and a map, never mind orchestrate a campaign against Ms Bailey."

AB's views are not cogent or comprehensive so not WORIADS, according to the Maya Forstater case? Really?

So she's saying that AB inexplicably hated Stonewall as an organisation, and didn't even know what Stonewall did, and hence her beliefs are not protected?

Same - I can't read and listen at the same time so I end up trying to read through the breaks. Another reason the documents should have been available to download - we could have read ahead and then been better informed to follow along as observers.

There are 'consequences' to having GC beliefs! 🤨

Clear AB's beliefs easily meet the grainger criteria.

The criteria established by UK case law (the Grainger Criteria) used to determine whether a belief is a protected philosophical belief are as follows:
The belief must be genuinely held
It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity, and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

IO has nothing on this point.

Rhetorical flourishes galore.

You can't say horrible things (paraphrasing) and then slap a gender critical ribbon on them so they're protected. Citing Forstater.

Are we breaking every hour again? I really need a coffee.

I do hope so.

Why is she going on about misgendering when that isn't what this case is about?

But neither Maya, or Allison mis-gendered anyone.

AB specifically referred to Morgan Page as 'male bodied'.

Err, this is not about the validity of Allison's beliefs. It is about if she was discriminated against because of them. Or am I missing something?

Surely she's arguing here that Allison is deserving of the treatment she received? Only half listening whilst working...

I'm not sure why IO is attacking AB.

It sounds like she’s going to the original “Allison is a bigot” thing that started this all off and I thought was roundly acknowledged to be untrue throughout the hearing

‘What liability do you have in mind?’

Nice.

Suggesting that actions of GCC were consequences of AB's conduct.

Consequences - so SW barrister is acknowledging that there were consequences?

So exactly what language is acceptable when describing someone's sex?

Very poor argument from IO there I would say

Rhetorical flourishes do lose their effect rather though when the person speaking can't complete a sentence without breaking off to check something/erring and ahhing/etc. Even when just reading out a sentence from a document.