Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

If you want to observe send an email to

[email protected]

Subject line

Ms BM Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited Employment Tribunal – hearing Case number: 8001497/2024

Ask for the link and pin to observe.

State you are a member of the public and give your full name and the email address you will use to access the tribunal.

Abbreviations:
C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C
KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C
R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK
ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R
J - Judge
P - Panel member
GC - gender critical
GI - gender identity
AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness

Tribunal Tweets coverage here

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1

Thread 2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

Not a Scot, but I have a good friend who is who says if a Weegie is calling you a cunt, it’s a sign of affection. If he calls you pal, you’ve offended him greatly and things are warming up.

I concur with the PP

I'm also a fan of fannybaws which might be the best insult for this thread as its basically a combo of the two insults.

I totally agree. I try to be nice ONCE and it interested me that Leonardo's aren't everyone's favourite firm because he came across as if they were sunshine, rainbows and unicorns farting sparkles. I almost wondered if support fluffy kittens were available when needed.

I wanted to pick up on this because I seem to recall that only 30% of L’s workforce are actually union members so this influence appears disproportionate.

My experience of a similar company was that the manufacturing staff were all union members and the management/office staff were not. I was an exception but they were singularly useless in helping me with ‘white collar’ issues related to sex discrimination - I had to get my own employment lawyer for that.

Unions are still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to women’s issues so I’m not surprised their influence at L was negative for the female employees.

Easytoconfuse says that NC isn't tolerant of bullshit, certainly true. She actually (briefly, to his relief) joined one of Foran's substack live summaries and in the context of JR wittering about how everyone has to be kind, wrote in the Comments box, 'I,however, am not kind'. Thank goodness for her

FANNYBAWS hahaha!

I have heard PAL used menacingly and was v impressed. Though I have the wrong accent sadly.

I once used NED thinking it was a male equivalent of HEN and had to be rescued swiftly by apologetic friends.

I got curious, so I looked up 'be kind' and saw it defined as putting other people's needs before your own. That's lovely for the person who gets their own way, but not so good for the person who's constantly expected to come in second. Like Naomi, I am not prepared to be kind in that way because it strikes me as bullying. After all, if they were kind they'd have put my needs first, wouldn't they?

You could he's a -

Numpty
Melt
Eejit
Bampot
Tumshie
Roaster
Choob
Dobber

And you could also say he's -

Glaikit

(My, spell check didn't like that much!)

Oh dear, I can see ned going down quite badly!

Pal is definitely not an endearment. I use it if I think someone's an utter numpty.

There’s a wonderful Frayn novel where they programme robots like that and then put them on a sinking liferaft in various scenarios. They do fine sacrificing themselves for humans, greater number, etc, but when there’s just the two of them, they get confused and then throw each other off

'Kindness' in this context is never reciprocal, it's demanded submission. Unequal power. Which is the hallmark of abuse. Women are quite easy to manipulate in this way because they want to be nice, they do care. It stops working when you have someone who sees this as a weakness to use and exploit and demand rather than something to rise up to and join in.

@KnottyAutyhope you don’t mind, I’ve sent you a PM about something I wanted to capture.

Apologies for the interruption!

Also, ‘putting other peoples needs before your own’ may be fine if it’s just your own needs which are affected. Your choice, your consent.

But you can’t unilaterally put the needs (or wants) of another group of people ahead of the needs of all members of a group you happen to belong to. That’s not ‘kindness’.

Twonk and Wazzock are excellent terms of abuse.

Naomi Cunningham is truly magnificent
and any employer NOT checking her out before a case deserves exactly what they will get
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,naomi-cunningham-im-fuelled-by-rage-and-ive-been-lucky

And that goes double when you're a member of the group that benefits. I find language fascinating and powerful so I tend to ask what people mean when they say something. The common one atm seems to be 'educate yourself' which ties in with the Stonewall 'no debate' In both cases I suspect it means 'how dare you argue with me?' In my experience, if you get someone on a topic that means a lot to them then the problem is getting them to shut up about it so this reaction is very odd...

i have just finished reading tribunal tweets substack.

i could not figure out what the defence was other than we are thinking about what process we need to enact in order to follow a process in the future bla bla bla

and NC nails it we will wait for a court to tell us what to do and we can blame them, <phew> sorry ladyboy union its out of our hands.

Saves us a shed load of money, subsequent court action, cost benefit analysis innit?

having said that it is good for our side.

sorry Mk has to go through this utter bollocks.

And i would like to thank her personally.

As for AL @NebulousSupportPostcard he is a yes man, and as you say, as a matter of fact a cunt of the first order. He could have just said er no keep me out of this.

I still don't get it though. The SC ruling is clear, they could just have followed that and skipped the tribunal, and said to the trans lobby that it was out of their hands.

It's similar when your kids don't want to do something with friends so they say their mum won't let them.

I still don't get it though. The SC ruling is clear, they could just have followed that and skipped the tribunal, and said to the trans lobby that it was out of their hands.

I think the point is that this had been going on for a number of years, so the case was probably listed for the ET well before the Supreme Court ruling came along. I imagine that once the ruling came out, they could have entered no defence and let the Tribunal rule on what compensation to offer, if any.

It's been very distressing to see what Maria Kelly has been put through, but from our point of view, it's good to see such behaviour exposed. If they had, for example, tried to settle out of court, we would not have known any of this.

Do the respondents witnesses get told who the lawyers are though? Or just that they've to go to tribunal and get questioned?

The whole thing seemed like it was new information to Andy who didn't even appear to have read the claim or bundle from the very tribunal he was the only witness for, nor did he seem to have read any HR industry comms for the last 4 years. For him to know who the Claimant's barrister was and then also Google her beforehand would seem unlikely.

Was he going for plausible deniability ? Better to look a fool than a bully.

Another case for Naomi and Charlotte. In Belfast next month

https://x.com/SeeRedWoman1/status/1975321287133438125?t=wNCNLhqp0WrSM2tHAtV6dA&s=19

I saw that, its been rumbling on for a while though hasn't it? Will manly beardy Paddy make an appearance this time?