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)

It's not an 'alleged protected belief', thank you kindly, IO.

So AB is a transphobic bigot and deserved everything she got?

Again the vibe is that one can hold gender critical beliefs but one is on thin ice if one decides to express them, and care must be taken to express them only in the most delicate language. I'm not convinced by that, there used to be a long tradition in English law that public interactions can be robust.

Did she really just suggest that anyone was going round misgendering trans people indiscriminately? How could you possibly misgender someone indiscriminately when we have been told endlessly that you can't tell someone's gender by looking at them?

So in summary IO's argument appears to be - GCC thought we'd give them lots of work so they were the ones who were biased against Allison. And Allisons beliefs are not WORIADS so any consequences were fine

She's trying to argue that they aren't beliefs and therefore don't fall under the Equality Act at all. They're only opinions and only about SW according to Stonewall.

Yeah, pretty much, chilling...so she must feel the 'consequences' of those beliefs.

You know those you tubers who do body language analysis of e.g. Prince Andrew's interview? I'd love to have thier take on what Judge Goodman is thinking right now.

My own take is that she is trying very, very hard to swallow down her inner "FFS".

This is a very odd way of presenting from IO. More erms and uhms than words.

But Ben established quite early that expressing anything gender critical is seen as hate by some because the very belief is hateful to these idiots. That GCs are effectively being gagged.

IO's body language was fascinating way back when she got on to the mentioning KM part of her statement. She was actually wrapping her arm across her body.

That's what I'm hearing as well! Which quite frankly is bollocks.

Yes - it didn't come off quite so well as I imagine she hoped it would.

Yes I'm not sure whether she believes her own argument here which is why she's faltering so much.

There's a lot of reach going on here.

I think she’s stuttery because she knew she was going to have to talk obvious shite

This case is not about AB's views about Stonewall. It is about how she was treated by GGC, aided and abetted by SW.

Allison's views are prejudicial!

Jesus Christ.

EJG clarifying earlier witnesses were campaigners rather than academics.

Not sure that they are academics. Having a PhD doesn't make you an academic.

Again the vibe is that one can hold gender critical beliefs but one is on thin ice if one decides to express them, and care must be taken to express them only in the most delicate language.
Exactly - as usual - you might be allowed to hold GC opinions, but if you express them (even simply stating biological facts eg 'male-bodied person') you'll offend people so that's not allowed!

I missed EJG - although I found James Esses QC Akua Reindorf a very good substitute in terms of saying a lot without saying a word

IO the academics didn't agree with AB
EJ which ones?
IO I don't remember. Can't find the list
EJ thought of them as campaigners rather than academics
IO one of them may not have been an academic...

God EJG is good isn't she? Cuts twenty minutes of waffle down to a one sentence précis.

I have doubts whether this tribunal panel would be that keen to allow themselves to follow IO's argument when it doesn't seem to have much regard to the appeal Maya Forstater won. It's like we need to forget that and only focus on Grainger. They'd be inviting AB appealing on a point of law, ie not following the Forstater decision.

5 min break. Back at 11.11

Not the most convincing argument!