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

And me. Hail the Belgarion! Up the Eddings!

It's always worth reading Barbara Rich and she's commented on Allison's case and outcome. I've quoted part but the whole is worth a look.

Both Allison Bailey and Maya Forstater have shown determination and fortitude in pursuing their cases against discrimination on the grounds of belief. The decisions are important in equalities law, have stimulated wide public interest and financial support through crowdfunding

But I see and have seen little recognition or comment on them from human rights organisations or advocates (other than aligned or opposing campaigners) or Twitter’s more prolific lawsplainers. I think they should grasp the nettle, irrespective of their own personal views

The Centre for Global Development is a think tank based in Washington DC. Garden Court Chambers is a leading set of human rights chambers. Two workplaces a long way from the shop floor of Acme Widgets Ltd. These cases illustrate the fallibility of educated, liberal people

The fallibility of educated, liberal people who are not only responsible for their own conduct towards others they work with, but whose work is all about guiding and advising others, from countries in the developing world in CGD’s case, to individuals and organisations in GCC’s

And, through their various collective or individual connections with Stonewall, in Garden Court Chambers’s case, their work was also in proximity to campaigning for changes in the law to which there is not collective public or legislators’ assent. Time for some reflection on that

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1552376016152166400

This. I would be delighted to make a monthly contribution to a central fund for women's rights legal cases.

I've also just seen the Tavistock headline!

Wonderful news - what gender dysphoric/nonconforming children need is a holistic approach to their healthcare and a careful "watch and wait" to see how issues resolve.

Some will eventually go on to transition, which is fair enough, but many will not.

I recently met a lawyer who was involved in an earlier, successful, case and he suggested that funding fatigue is setting in.

Maybe because there are more cases, maybe because they are so fiendishly expensive, maybe because people feel the battle is won, maybe straight cost of living crunch. (The lawyer said he was very aware of the £5 donations from people who could not afford more.) Or perhaps gardening is just more difficult in a heatwave/drought. Whatever, the end result is that it is becoming harder to raise the money needed.

Just off to water the LGBA allotment.

I recently met a lawyer who was involved in an earlier, successful, case and he suggested that funding fatigue is setting in…
…maybe because people feel the battle is won, maybe straight cost of living crunch.

I'm very far from thinking the battle is won. It's a straight cost of living item and an awareness that funds have to be held as contingent against appeals etc. and that surpluses are being donated away from women's legal challenges.

I need something to which I can set up a DD. I need cases closely scrutinised for their strategic value by people who understand the material.

I think one of the problems is the garden has got bigger. When there are more cases one can only budget so much and the total amount has to be divvied up between various causes. When the other party is well funded and deliberately ramping up costs, as we have seen, the need to raise a very significant sum crops up.

My position exactly.

There might be a Women's Rights Network branch in your area. Also you could join Sex Matters - they often run campaigns.

NotCursedE:

During the tribunal we heard evidence from Bailey which showed that she did not have any way of knowing what actually took place during the event, she didn’t attend it and didn’t know anyone who did. We also heard evidence that her understanding of the phrase “the cotton ceiling” – and therefore the event – almost exclusively comes from secondary sources, most of which clearly showing an anti-trans bias. Primary sources are incredibly difficult to find.

transwrites.world/allison-baileys-cotton-ceiling-accusation/

Me after googling for .02 seconds:

This workshop's goals were to help the participants (trans males) “identify barriers”
and “strategize ways to overcome them.” The barriers spoken of are the boundaries and sexual orientation of lesbians, who by very definition are not attracted to males; the “ways to overcome them” being strategies to break down the boundaries and resilience of young lesbians by socially pressuring and coercing them to consider males that identify as trans as sexual partners.

www.lglf.org/the-cotton-ceiling.html#/

When we did our annual accounts in April my partner and I went through our bills and totted up how much we'd given specifically to GC women's legal crowdfunders. It totalled just under £1900. Neither of us earn the national average salary these days: we've wound down a bit in our 60s. We're not hard-up but because we're a few years off our pensions we're having to be more careful with money and it was a surprise to see how all the small donations added up.

I'd be far happier paying a direct debit into a central fighting fund run by lawyers who can understand the merits of a particular case and its strategic value and likely success. I'd also like some of the emotion taken out of the appeals for funds.

Lol, Well that might be a bit more believable, if the head of stonewall (Morgan Page's boss) hadn't called lesbians sexual racists, the tribunal hadn't compared lesbianism to apartheid, and every entitled bloke insisting that lesbian women sleep with them.

It's very simple to disabuse lesbians of the notion that the cotton ceiling is a coercive attempt by men to sleep with them, and that's by not doing it.

Sorry - that was in reply to Birdsweepsins post

There is somewhere in the piles of FWR threads a long conversation I had with a TQ+ activist and TW, who insisted vigorously that they identified as being horrified that I could imply that they believed in forced sex, conversion therapy and homophobia and at the same time was telling me that if I as a lesbian excluded male people from access to my body I was a phobic bigot who needed to learn to be straight better.

It is a position of incoherent batshit, which believes in selective reality, that you can look straight at a fact and deny it's there, and you can behave as grottily as you like so long as at the same time you identify as not being grotty.

As the relationships board so often says, you can only be reasonable with someone with the capacity for reasonability.

I'm already a monthly supporter of Sex Matters, here's the link for anyone who wants to donate.

sex-matters.org/take-action/donate/

I've also contributed to the legal funds of Allison, Maya, Jo Phoenix, Raquel Rosaria Sanchez, Rachel Meade and Julie Bindel - it's outrageous that there are so many frankly!

I would agree with this - and as you say, any surplus to be targeted towards the next battle.

I like the idea of a central fighting fund. I am mostly gardening for Sarah Summers at the moment (with an eye on LGBA as well) because women's spaces really matter to me, her fund isn't huge and I'm guessing she can't do a lot of fundraising and tweeting herself without risking anonymity.

But we really shouldn't have to use legal cases like this to protect basic women's rights that we were promised when legislation was first put in place and trans people were included. And IMO if the EHRC was doing its job properly we wouldn't have to.

Kirrin Medcalf, Stonewall’s head of trans inclusion, told the judge that he required a support worker, his mother and a support dog to accompany him while giving evidence.

I'm beginning to think I'm the only person with the correct recollection of events. In addition to the assembly mentioned, Kirrin Medcalf also requested an emotional support person so there was an emotional support person and a technical support person and it was when the judge said they could all be present if the humans appeared on the stream, the emotional support worker fled the scene. Maybe I was hallucinating.

I've also got a monthly DD to Sex Matters. I'm fortunate to be able to afford it and I like the feeling that some steady funding enables them to plan some longer term campaigns as well as respond to the stuff that is cropping up all the time.
Plus Maya, Naomi et al are just brilliant!

No that was about right.

Maybe I was hallucinating.

You certainly weren't, nauticant. Although I remember cynically wondering to myself about whether the TW solicitor assisting with the IT and the emotional support friend were one and the same person.

If it was a hallucination it was the same one I had!

I remember cynically wondering to myself about whether the TW solicitor assisting with the IT and the emotional support friend were one and the same person.

I also wondered this, but what a professional risk to take if that was the plan!

You definitely weren't hallucinating, nauticant!

** KM did ask for an emotional support person first and when asked who this was they were described as a 'friend'. This 'friend' never appeared and noone ever mentioned them again. When KM came back in, the emotional support role seemed to have been transferred to KM's mother and KM's dog under the desk. KM's mother left about half way through. KM also had a solicitor from the firm representing Stonewall who spent a lot of time shuffling papers. I recall the solicitor had a frequent 'tongue in cheek' type mannerism which was rather unfortunate in the circumstances.

Coming back to Barbara Rich's post that @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus posted, I wonder whether these organisations are now beginning a bit of soul searching. Shutting down the voices of minority ethnic women doesn't seem a very liberal action to me. At the point which you think a group of people standing up for their rights should be expunged, you really need to be wondering how liberal your values actually are.