Allison Bailey v Stonewall

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1979480101474443398?t=Sg3wz-Pq2S7lpQ2rTpJZ2g&s=19

I think KM knew exactly what she was doing when she sent that snotty email.
She was new to the company and should’ve been a lot more circumspect about sending emails like that.

Burn the witch…and GCC - you’ve seen how we behave when we don’t get our own way…

From TT2

IO - what prompted KM to review tweets - a message from [missed] and having reviewed tweets he felt a complaint should be made.
What one then sees at para 200 p 136 the ET reject the notion that MB procured complaints from SW.

Para 202 one sees the ET findings in relation to Tweet number 10. In fact 10 was a string of tweet concerned SW posted 2 Nov and it was these tweets that the ET led comment to head of chambers that AB should not be maligning SW
One sees how GCC progress complaint...

That was a decision made by investigator on the face of having read complaint. In terms of chronology that the investigator wrote to AB and sought her representations on tweets. In writing to AB she ID'd comment on tweets and you will see the Morgan Page (?) tweet.

IO - you will see AB response. What is clear p141 is that the C is saying that in turn her rights to freedom of expression were being interfered with by reason of SW complaint and she made it clear in ET that in the C view the tone of SW complaint was attempt to harass her

IO - the ET tribunal response to C rebuttal. She notes language highly provocative and acuse GCC of harassment for accepting complaint. Faced with SW complaint and C front footed rebuttal. GCC decided to refer to Bar Council Ethics Committee

The response of the heads of chambers and Ms Harrison who were pleased with provisional report and that as a result that one of heads decided no more advice required no more action required in terms of reg reporting

The report was not distrib within chambers and KM only became aware of outcome during these proceedings. The outcome of the GCC internal investigation was to conclude 2 tweets likely to breach bar standards and she was asked to delete them.

AB replied on 20 Dec that she was not minded to delete and she did not, and that was the end of it. So when one looks at the chronology and one ID the points at which SW involved in a meaningful sense you see email on 31 Oct and nothing more

KM is Kirrin, a man, though he may not know his chromosomes...

I must be confusing him with the support dog/mum/bundle page turner person.

I am not very on the ball this afternoon and have missed/failed to understand chunks of what's going on. We haven't seen the skeleton argument for the other side, have we? Has anyone understood what their argument is, at a high level, and could summarise in a few sentences? I'm currently hearing it argued that Stonewall didn't specifically tell GCC how to investigate the complaint, nor follow it up, etc., but Ben did carefully explain why those things weren't required, so I would expect to hear them argue why they are...Did I miss it, is it still to come, something else?

From TT2

IO I would like you to look at how the ET applied law.What one sees is an unremarkable set of self directions from para 250 to para 259 and those authorities were matters of common ground between parties.

IO it is my submission that these findings are relevant in relation to section 111.
I don't think I overstate the position if I describe ET as being emphatic and material. No evidence SW influenced or followed up and for the avoidance of doubt p180

they make it clear that the claim in relation to SW was not made out.
The ET look at relevant stat provisions and consider in some detail.

The starting point the words of statute para 359 the ET set out how it applies to parties in front of them. Para 360 what test applied - the ET tell you the test they apply the test he invited them to reply and the R did not demur from

From TT2

J - you say they were applying test?
J - The ET found an action .....[difficult to catch what question is]
J we are looking for signif influence from protected characteristic
IO in relation to Section 111 para 361 and identify from that if a basic contravention does occur

Kirrin Medcalf is female.
And yes I do think KM is being made the fall guy by Stonewall.

Thank you!

A bit of digging: Kirrin has F on birth certificate, M on passport and driving licence, identifies as non binary and has been known as Kaye.

This article https://eachother.org.uk/it-is-the-right-for-all-people-to-live-their-life-as-themselves/ was accessed from this article from Sex Matters https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/kirrin-medcalf/

From TT2

IO - the ET also in para 362 had regard to the case of NHS Dev [quotes this proposition] it is not enough to show in a position to instruct cause there must be evidence.
Para 363 you see that appropriate direction burden of proof and ET r

so the ET spent some time considering this and looking to see what evidence there was, and we see in para 368 their conclusions. What you see is an acknowledgement that KM email can be read in more than one way.
Not the ET that KM explanation not clear about KM email,

he wrote as a protest that SW staff being targeted with transphobic abuse and safety of communities.
[talks about reasons for KM email]
Para 368 KM response and justification for doing what he did in way he did it.

We come then to the view that ET view of KM evidence. C state it was not credible and shouldn't be believed.
ET did not take this view

ET asked KM about email to understand what was going on. Ultimately the ET did not agree with C's characterisation of KM's actions. That the ET preferred KM's evidence.
J - question about 369 commentary on what ET thinks that KM wanted to achieve. Writing to protest her views.

From TT2

..can it be read differently?
IO what the ET do is to record what it is KM said.

From TT2

Namely he had his advocacy hat on. What follows from that is what they drew from what he said. In that context I don't think it is right to read 369 as a finding that KM was acting to protest the C's protected belief.
J asks about KM's rol

IO - KM says he can't be associated with this
There is no transcript
J - this is a finding we will have to make of it what we will
IO can't be any more assistance on para 369

[Ends]

Afternoon session posts are here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1980607909911253202.html

Kirrin Medcalf is female.

She needed her support dog, her mother, her solicitor and I think another support person with her in order to give evidence online to the tribunal.

I have often wondered what was going through her mother's head, as she sat there next to her daughter during that evidence session.

(I have also wondered if KM liked Enid Blyton adventures as a child.)

Doesnt KM have another position now? I am sure she has recently been appointed to some other high profile job. Am I misremembering?

Kirrin was for some time Head of Facilitation at the BBC after the Stonewall gig, but I can't find anything that suggests that's still the case. (It's also, AFAICS, a much less impressive role than the title suggests)

ETA: It's not actually a BBC role - it's NEOM (New Economy Organisers Network) which presumably delivered/delivers training to organisations including the BBC. Kirrin is on LinkedIn.

I managed to catch most of BC's session, but I'll need to re-watch Stonewall's barrister as I dipped in and out of that. From what I did catch, she didn't really have the same level of flow or oratory as BC, and didn't seem quite so sure of things in her responses.

IANAL, but it seems quite straightforward to me. I think Ben did a good job of laying it out and the female judge (sorry, I can't remember her name!) appears to be on top of it. I'm less convinced by the central jude (older man), but that may not have been helped by his microphone as I could barely hear his input.

I have just finished watching the morning session where the lady Judge was praising whoever had prepared the electronic bundle and was commenting on how well put together it was and she had never seen that before. All the while the judge was speaking IO was nodding along and smiling as if she had done it, until BC commented that it was him.

What a CF.

He asks IO some interesting questions towards the end.

Myrtle I really hope this will solve your problem with the wound but I was rather hoping they'd put leeches onto it and they would appear in the Bluestocking in due course. https://www.woundsource.com/blog/leech-therapy-applications-in-wound-management

The one and only time I've been given morphine and a GA there is no way I could have done what you are doing.

I'm not really following the legal arguments, something to read slowly another day.

I also wanted leech therapy but they only eat dead tissue. Mine was infected but not necrotic for the first operation on the 10th and was clean today, so they just tidied it up.

It was really minor surgery today and the infection has been very well managed, so I was fine - I did get a little sleepy towards 3.30, though.

Last time I had a raging infection that had progressed beyond the wound into the rest of my body. They had stopped my antibiotics because the metal in my ankle would just reinfect me and become resistant. So I was very unwell and threw up a few times in the first few hours after surgery. There is no way I would have been available to even read the thread.

I've now had 11 days of intravenous antibiotics and a VAC machine keeping the wound clean and nourished so this op was quick and I was stronger.

I now have to wait for the outpatient antibiotics team to be set up to support me at home for the next four weeks. I also need the physiotherapist to assess my mobility needs, taking into account the need to elevate the leg for at least two weeks (back to where we were in August and September) to support the newly stitched wound, and the ongoing ankle fusion. I would like to be home tomorrow, but it may be Thursday or even Friday.

Given the NHS bed shortages they should be trying hard to get you home but with so much to arrange tomorrow is probably too much to hope for. So much better to be in your own bed!

Wishing you well Myrtle and hoping you are home and in a comfy bed very soon. I am both in awe of your ability to post, post-op and enormously grateful. Sending rest & healing powers.

<sends healing sleep vibes to MyrtleLion>

Leeches are blood. Dead tissue is maggots.(which have handy anti-gangrene antibiotics in their saliva). Sorry you didn't get any wriggly friends and had to make do with a surgeon with a hosepipe, but I hope it does the trick anyway.