Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 17

1000 replies

ickky · 03/06/2022 15:32

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)

OP posts:
nauticant · 20/06/2022 10:36

Ahh, now IO moving onto Medcalfe. A trickier part of the evidence to dismiss.

ickky · 20/06/2022 10:36

Ms Brewer was the mastermind behind this, she had plenty of influence and was clever enough to not put her own complaint in but directed others to do so.

OP posts:
IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:37

Well poor KM just got a chuckle when recalling his evidence by his own barrister. This is clearly bigoted prejudice and hate.

oviraptor21 · 20/06/2022 10:37

IO is only defending Stonewall though, not GCC.
I guess they may have a joint strategy?

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:38

That's not true is it? KM had a phone call with MB. Not just that email.

LipbalmOrKnickers · 20/06/2022 10:39

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:34

So Stonewall's official argument is that the Diversity Champions scheme doesn't do much and isn't particularly influential.

Doesn't seem worth the fee really.

Be fair, you do get an official logo to put on your website and in your email sigs. Surely a snip at £3000!

nauticant · 20/06/2022 10:39

That's becoming a recurring pattern in these cases ickky. A trans activist exercise power and influence without putting themself in the frame.

Gabcsika · 20/06/2022 10:39

It's amazing how Stonewall and STAG and GCC members are just individuals groups with individuals in them, acting in an individual personal capacity.

Ameanstreakamilewide · 20/06/2022 10:40

AB knew exactly what kind of work SW did. That's the point she objected to.

oviraptor21 · 20/06/2022 10:40

Claims AB doesn't know what SW does?

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:40

On AB:

Ignorant mischaracterisations of Stonewall's work, made unbalanced and unsubstantiated allegations and statements and vague assertions ... aboit influence. None is borne out by evidence.

Visceral and implacable hostility against SW which has skewed her judgment.

This is the rhetorical flourish.

ickky · 20/06/2022 10:41

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:38

That's not true is it? KM had a phone call with MB. Not just that email.

No it was Shaan Knan and then they posted on stonewalls FB to invite others to send in a complaint.

Ms Brewer spoke to SK whilst on holiday, so she was heavily invested.

OP posts:
chilling19 · 20/06/2022 10:41

Allison's hostility to Stonewall? Shades of angry black woman here.

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:41

Ah ok. And SK isn't Stonewall because they ostensibly work for another org.

Mmmnotsure · 20/06/2022 10:43

Reading the Stonewall submission, para 41. Are we allowed to refer to/repeat the words here?

oviraptor21 · 20/06/2022 10:43

Such a halting delivery. Is this normal?

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:44

Saying AB's beliefs don't qualify for protection under Equality Act and tribunal must consider this question.

Consider what claimant says about what she believes in her evidence and not what BC says her belief is.

Chrysanthemum5 · 20/06/2022 10:44

Pushing the line that Alison's beliefs are not protected

oviraptor21 · 20/06/2022 10:45

IO suggesting that BC's closing submission does not reflect AB's views accurately.

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:46

Making out that AB's beliefs are only about Stonewall and not about gender critical beliefs more widely.

That's thin even for Stonewall.

WookeyHole · 20/06/2022 10:47

Is there any structure to this?

oviraptor21 · 20/06/2022 10:47

EJ looking .... disdainful?

Ameanstreakamilewide · 20/06/2022 10:48

Ahh, shout out to Maya's tribunal - WORIAD.

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 20/06/2022 10:49

WookeyHole · 20/06/2022 10:47

Is there any structure to this?

I think it's because she's building on her written submission. It probably makes more sense when following along. I can't do that easily on one small screen.

Ameanstreakamilewide · 20/06/2022 10:49

That's very convenient for IO, i'll wager. AB's beliefs have to satisfy all of the grounds in the Grainger argument, and not 'just' the ones that suit AB.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread