Allison Bailey v Stonewall - Employment Tribunal hearing Thread 18

[ickky]

The Tribunal started on 25th April, witness testimony concluded on the 26th May. Closing arguments for council was on the 20th June.

There was 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 )
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 = Judge Goodman, Mr M. Reuby and Ms Darmas

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

Thread 17 www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4561850-allison-bailey-v-stonewall-employment-tribunal-hearing-thread-17

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)
Closing arguments for AB, GCC, and SW (20 June)

Allison Bailey's

Witness Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Witness-Statement-of-Allison-Bailey.pdf

Supplementary Statement

allisonbailey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/C-Supplementary-Witness-Statement.pdf

Closing Statement

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

They wouldn't be doing it for money, they'd be doing it for recovering the damage to their reputation.

Someone with a good PR head needs to say to GCC (and CGD if they are still thinking of appealing Maya's case) - Just how much worse do you want to look?

Appealing will further damage their reputation, yet more glaring light shone on them and make them look very vindictive. The more productive way to restore their reputation would be to eat humble pie now and accept the Judgement.

This
Allison and Maya are extraordinarily brave. I am happy to have used my money to show them support and be one of many who helped fund this important litigation.

Thank you Allison for enabling more light to be shown.

I don't think any of the principles want to go through giving evidence again like that in the public eye. And GCC as a whole must know that some of them came across as loons.

I'm thrilled for Allison and very happy to have contributed to her fund. But, I'm not as optimistic as some about the changes that might follow. GCC will probably remain Stonewall Champions as a kind of 'fuck you, you won a battle but not the war' kind of gesture. If companies had been open to critical thought about Stonewall, they would have left by now. But they're captured by people who will tell them this a regressive blip and they must stay on the right side of history. This case will help, but I think change will continue to be two steps forward and one backward for a good while.

Analysis from Sex Matters

Employers must reconsider their policies and relationship with Stonewall after Allison Bailey’s victory

I just want to add here my admiration for Allison and her bravery. I have read the excellent James Kirkup article someone linked to upthread, and he is absolutely right about how hard it is to speak out. I find it very hard indeed, and the instinct when people start to attack you is to shrink back and not say anything. Allison has done an amazing, courageous thing, and she must have found it absolutely exhausting.

I do wish she'd won on all counts - having followed the tribunal, and the absurdity of the GCC and Stonewall witnesses, she completely deserved to. But the victory she had is worth having - not just for her, but for all of us.

Adding my applause to Sophocles post. I'm happy to support women like Allison, Maya, Kiera & others because I believe in their causes, but if I'm 100% honest I'm selfishly also acting on behalf of my daughters and me.

This is my fight too.

GCC aren’t Stonewall champions now. They won’t be again.

It still makes me sick that SW keeps going on about the LGBT +++ community. That train left a long time ago and they certainly do not represent lesbians any more or gay men who do not dress up. We all see what they have done and we are certainly not part of their rainbow world. Let them represent the T and we can have our own organisations again.

This is the core analysis:

"Like Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey successfully argued that she suffered discrimination for holding the core “gender-critical belief” that sex is real and observable and that gender is a subjective identity. The new element in this case was that she suffered discrimination for the particular belief that Stonewall’s campaigning, based on the doctrine that “trans women are women”, is sexist and homophobic and is driving forward the erosion of women’s rights, access to single-sex spaces and lesbian identity.

Core analysis

If companies had been open to critical thought about Stonewall, they would have left by now

Not sure that's correct. I think a lot will quietly drop Stonewall, but try to do it under the radar, to avoid pushback from captured staff.

I don't use MN much any more as only the app works on my equipment and I hate the app! But I had to come to cheer with you lot.

Well done Allison. And a huge huge thank you all of us who believe in Science and observable reality - thank you for taking the time, the effort, energy and just sheer awful unremitting stress of it for us.♥️♥️♥️

Value for money is so personal, isn’t it?

I mean I think cheap meat and dairy products are terrible value because of the compromise on both taste and the ethics of the production. But loads of people think value packs of chicken nuggets and 99p takeaway burgers are great value.

I totally understand people wanting the lowest possible energy prices but I’ve been paying over the odds to have ‘green’ energy for years. Because that’s something we value as a family.

I have family HH membership, but not National trust, because that’s the better value to us. But that doesn’t mean NT members are wrong in what they value.

and obviously I donate a few pounds to little gardening projects that I see tremendous value from, but I don’t expect everyone to feel the same way. You can spend your personal spends on coffee, or rainbow flags, or donations to your preferred charity, or whatever.

@achillestoes Sorry, didn't realise they weren't SC.

And yes, very much hope to be proved wrong!

Unfortunately, dial. That would require Stonewall staff to have self awareness. I think that trait left that organisation a few years back.

We have seen plenty of evidence of that lack of self awareness in the writings and attitudes of some of their representatives who are known to post here.

There seem to be a lot whose leaving has coincided with a FOI request, don't there?

Correlation is not causation, of course.

@MaudeYoung you are so right to highlight this:

The new element in this case was that she suffered discrimination for the particular belief that Stonewall’s campaigning, based on the doctrine that “trans women are women”, is sexist and homophobic and is driving forward the erosion of women’s rights, access to single-sex spaces and lesbian identity.

(From core analysis, Sex Matters)

This is huge. HUGE. It's ok to believe this and to express this, and it is a protected belief.

Thanks for this.

I've just checked one of the local hospital's Equality policy. Gender everywhere and the only 'sex' mentioned is sexual orientation.

Will go find my letter I wrote to the High School and redraft.

Yes. I guess the wide ranging effects of this case will require thinking outside of the narrow limitations of the box that only allows people to repeat mantras.

If you are so narrow in your thought processing ability that you cannot see the wider ramifications of this case’s decision, then it will be a surprise when Stonewall continues to lose corporate and organisational support.

And that Stonewall will need to come up with a miracle pill to reverse the fall in general public goodwill. It has begun to spiral in. The lack of supporter interaction with that tweet on Friday concerning the 4 year old and the fact that their reverse ferret had to be corrected and they thought people wouldn’t notice is a clear sign that even support amongst the community is wavering.

But still, the doubling down on ‘she didn’t win against Stonewall’ is just another example of the overly simplified thinking that goes hand and hand with repeating mantras.

Anyone honestly believing that Stonewall has ‘won’ something in this case, or has been shown to be righteous in anyway, or has even been shown in any positive light at all, then maybe you (general ‘you’) really do lack critical thinking skills.

This case has certainly shown the unsteadiness of Stonewall’s foundations at the moment. There is nothing in this judgement that Stonewall should be proud of, and certainly nothing to crow about. The loss of trust for Stonewall’s advice/guidance will take significant effort to regain if they ever can in this version of Stonewall.

I followed Allison's case and want to thank her for her fortitude, bravery and strength. The way she gave evidence, for days and under pressure from hostile questioning, was admirable and awe inspiring. The whole legal world watched this case. I would be very surprised if she is not headhunted by another Chambers, based on her performance alone. I wish her profession and personal happiness and success going forward.
In contrast, GCC and Stonewall witnesses, almost to a person, were textbook examples of how not to give evidence. Barristers with decades of experience became angry, got flustered and made themselves look professionally incompetent. Their peers know this and even worse, they will know it themselves. Social justice warriors have damaged their reputations and lowered their fee income in future, all because of their conduct towards Allison. Kirrin turned the proceedings into a pantomime, which was reported widely in the press.
I predict GCC have tough times ahead, they will lose barristers and fee income. Will they survive financially? Which is a sad consequence for them.
And as for Stonewall? For all their bravado, they have damaged a key plank of their fee income as Diversity Champions inevitably fall away. I would be surprised if their government grants are not under scrutiny and reduced in future.
Allison's case, the BBC podcast, the pish about 2 year old gender identity, the CASS review, Maya's case - one will be the straw that breaks their back. And we will be gardening away supporting any women who needs it, until that happens.
#radicalisedbyMumsnet

So the ruling is that employers must use due diligence when setting policy and taking advice and aren't except from legal matters if they take bad advice.

This means its probably not wise to take outside advice from an organisation without fully critically examining their advice yourselves. You have a degree of responsibility to oversee third party advice and its quality.

So basically its asking people to think critically before just swallowing recommendations.

This really isn't a lone example of lack of oversight biting on the bum. There was the example of Asda putting out some dodgy content for kids, because they hadn't properly bothered to check it internally. Which resulted in some dreadful PR.

I think the need to be more cautious and employ due diligence is a good one for any subject. Outsourcing content and advice is fine but you still need to check it.

The irony is that organisations like the safe schools alliance and the lgb alliance have had the word 'controversial' attached to them but have to be absolutely spot on in what they say because of how they are being monitored. And now Stonewall has the same tag. Yet its really not learning the lesson about attention to detail and real understanding of the law. Its had a free run without scrutiny.

Theres the rub. Stonewall now is controversial and with the tag controversial comes greater scrutiny from its potential would be customers.

Having a reputation that you give bad advice isn't great for an organisation which makes a lot of its income from giving advice.

The courts have ruled in favour of critical thought. It doesn't matter what field this is in or what advice you are getting, critical thinking must be used.

No debate is dead and buried by the courts. Legally you must think critically and cannot abdicate responsibility from this. You can not hide behind cultish thinking.

@Howappropriate
Great post!

Off on a bit of a tangent, I keep going back to the TRAs (and a certain Barrister) telling us that the Maya win on WORIADS and the protection of Gender Critical belief also meant that those beliefs couldn't be manifested, well if that is the case (it's not) then neither can Gender Ideology beliefs be manifested, furthermore have those beliefs been tested to acquire the WORIAD status?

Even if Allison had lost everything I would still see it as value for money, and would donate all over again. I’ll financially support as many lesbians as it takes to stop them from being coerced into accepting that males can be lesbians too.