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)

Thank you for todays updates. I gather that the usual suspects behaved in their usual way.

Which just serves to remind what Allison went through and is still enduring.

Thanks all for your brilliant contributions and thanks to @ickky for all the threads. Now we wait.

Stonewall: the UK's bastion of Misogyny.

Any organisation that is listed in Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index or displays the Stonewall logo and declares membership of its Diversity Champions Scheme should be avoided by women because any such organisation is expressing a deep hatred for the sex class that is naturally female.

On the issue of so-called "misgendering":

when acting as a private citizen, this is never an issue. No person, as a private citizen, can be compelled to subscribe to "gender identity" ideology and be forced to use incorrect pronouns for anyone.

From Hansard 29 January 2004 [when the Gender Recognition Bill was being debated] :

Lord Filkin: "The noble Baroness also asked whether people who refuse to call a gender-changed man by the changed gender would be open to action. No, they would not, unless they had information about the person's gender history in an official capacity and they disclosed it otherwise than is allowed for by Clause 21."

Baroness Hollis: "Clause 21 [which became section 22 when the bill was passed] does not involve the criminalisation of activity that is purely in the private sphere. That would not be appropriate."

Based on my experience of working in an extensively Stonewalled organisation, I’d say he’s on to something there.

Just read the Stonewall submission in full. Absolutely jaw-dropping, spiteful, disingenuous, through the looking-glass bollocks. I see the influence of a certain grain merchant aficionado.

Is this a vaguely sympathetic (or at least not openly hostile) article from this evening's Graun? The Graun, no less!

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/20/stonewall-malicious-in-legal-fight-against-allison-bailey-tribunal-hears

Thank you @ickky and all those who have commented. I've been unable to follow live as I've been at work all day.
If nothing else,this has taught me that my 17 year old DD is far far better at arguing her case than some of the legal experts we've seen. At one time I was encouraging her to consider law as a career,but now I'm glad that she did the obvious and argued with me against it.
This case has been truly eye opening on any number of fronts. Allison,I hope that you can relax now and look forward to the future.

Yes, but some of them identified as important legal terminology...

Yes. And an absolute object lesson in Projection.

@tigertactics , where did you find it? Do you have a link to it?

I'm glad it's not just me!

Absolutely, well said chilling.

From tribunal links. But can't send it now as doesn't open. Allison's is here though (if you've not seen it) and is fantastic and does not read as if if written by bitchy 12 year olds which is always a plus.

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CLOSING-SUBMISSIONS-FINAL.pdf

IANAL but my impression of this case is that Stonewall have very little respect for the law and much prefer the court of public opinion. In fact, I think they were playing to that (or at least to a select audience) rather than the Tribunal in their evidence and submissions.

I’m only about a third of the way through reading AB/BC’s final submission and I am thinking it is a slam-dunk for Allison!

I’m also thinking, ‘is there something I am missing here?’, because it appears to be such a slam-dunk. Who in their right minds would have allowed it to get to this stage? Are GCC and Stonewall really that blind to the facts? GCC, at least, is supposed to be populated by the best and the brightest.

I’m really beginning to think I could have been a lawyer, and a really good one at that! Since that is unlikely to be true, what have I missed???

Thirded

Yeah, I saw that and thought it read like a reasonably balanced account of today's events. Perhaps the news side of the office is less compromised than the opinion sections.

Thank you so much @ickky for your exceptional organization of these threads! To all the posters, thank you for allowing me to follow along through this thread. To Ms. Allison Bailey, I owe you a debt I can never repay. Thank you!

“[They] mount an extraordinary attack on this tribunal for ‘indulging the claimant’s claim and the evidence she’s given to support this’, and do so in a way that implies a degree of pressure … to encourage this tribunal to reject the claim for fear of being seen to have assisted the claimant too much,” Cooper said.

Jeez. Trying to intimidate the very judge presiding over an intimidation case? Have I got that right?

“Not only was the response tweet sent out in breach of the confidentiality obligation, but it was sent out without even the courtesy of a heads-up from heads of chambers,” he said.

In response, GCC’s barrister, Andrew Hochhauser, said that any response from the chambers had not deterred Bailey in her tweeting.

We couldn't shut her down.

Is it still available to read anywhere?

There’s another quite balanced comment piece in the sport section.

Have they finally worked out the way the wind’s blowing?

Was following Tribunal Tweets a bit yesterday (name change - have been following the case). Is it right that AB dropped the claim on the first detriment? Was that the clerking/GCC conspiracy element?

‘We couldn't shut her down.’

Getting extremely tired of these arguments. Yes, she was incredibly brave and determined - much more so than anyone could reasonably expect. That’s because she is the way she is. It doesn’t give her employer licence to bully, discriminate against and try to silence her.

I’m really beginning to think I could have been a lawyer, and a really good one at that! Since that is unlikely to be true, what have I missed???

I studied law as part of my degree and was pretty good at it. I got a first in one of my papers and did pretty well in the others. What I thought I would struggle with is the spoken parts whereas the written parts were easier for me.

I would imagine that constructing an argument and being persuasive in writing is a different skill to being able to build a case through cross examination and holding everything in your head to be able see whether a particular answer is adding to or detracting from the case you're building.

It's quite possible that you could have been a great lawyer. They're not superhuman and they're not geniuses.

Same as doctors. Same as rocket scientists.

I studied at Cambridge and I think that does give you a perspective that these arrogant tossers who dominate life aren't anything particularly special and aren't good at everything.