Thread by @tribunaltweets

Tribunal is currently on a short break. Return - not before 11:30 am.
Reporting of 2nd morning session will be on this thread, all background and abbreviations are in thread QT'd.

11:45 am, no action.

Looks like we may be underway shortly. Video conference live, empty room at the moment.

We are back.
HH - just to let you know, my clerk is sorting and there will be hard copies before lunch.
AL - thank you to everyone for assistance and patience. Moving on to next issue. WS - you are discussing CS race forum event, 'Spotlight on SEEN', you were in attendance

ED - yes, attended on line
AL -CS Race Forum is another x gov network,
ED yes
AL - not DEFRA nor RAP
ED no
AL the position was that the CSRF had invited SEEN to give a talk about SEEN,
ED yes
AL only AG person at the event
ED I don't know, don't have info about attendance

AL what interest did you have in this event, why did you attend
ED its a x-gov network, we had heard gossip about SEEN, our members had heard about it and asked us to attend so we did
AL did you intend to disrupt or police
ED we wanted to hear what was being said, they were a

new network,
AL do you always attend new network events
ED I try to
AL did you attend the ethical vegan event at around the same time
ED it was a DEFRA event, I wasn't invited

AL do you have that?
ED yes
AL a letter from CS Race Forum (CSRF), addressed to you and colleagues of AG, it says please note we've have kept the text of your letter when responding, so it's the text of a letter of complaint that you made and the response from CSRF

ED you've said its a letter of complaint, its not, its a letter of concern, the sections in bold are a response to our concerns
AL whether complaint or concern, you are using your position as chair of AG to undermine SEEN
ED no absolutely not, this is me, doing my job, when my

members raise concerns, I decided to write a letter of concern to sibling network CSRF.
AL second bold para, 'based on anecdotal evidence' 'we fear this may be taken out of context, happy to arrange a mediation meeting between SEEN and AG. Do you see that
ED Yes
AL another offer

of mediation
ED yes
AL did you take up those offers
ED yes, we had a meeting with CSRF
AL just with CSRF or with SEEN as well
ED - just with CSRF
AL the first example says specifically arrange mediation between AG and SEEN, doesn't appear that happened

ED they refused to meet us
AL did you ask for that
ED the Cabinet Office asked for mediation between SEEN and us, SEEN and LGBT network, we pushed for that for 18 months and they refused to meet with us
J did they say why they didn't want to meet
ED they didn't, we had agreed

to all conditions
AL as a general proposition in relation to concerns you raised in letter, that CSRF did not appear to agree with you
ED CSRF were leaned on
AL I'm asking you if they agreed or not in their letter
ED their response showed in some places they didn't understand

not that they disagreed
J - so in your evidence you said that you believed CSRF were leaned on
ED - yes
AL page 1784, example, in 3rd para, 2nd speaker giving presentation about 'Invisible Women', you're raising a concern about the book being discussed
ED repeat the q

AL you're raising a concern that it was discussed
ED it wasn't discussed in a way that included even handed criticism about the book, lots of people have issues with that book
AL and the response was that it was a recognised award winning book, discussed in chat box, there was

nothing wrong with discussing a book like that at a SEEN event
ED I didn't say it was wrong, I presented some criticism
AL 'he went on to claim that worst homophobia was from LGBTQIA+ community, referring to the boxer ceiling, transmen claiming to be gay men'
ED I used a

wikipedia page for the definition
AL So you are saying that term was used
ED I don't absolutely recall but I think the answer has to be yes, it was a long time ago,
AL you don't seem sure
J you said 'he referred to boxer ceiling' that seems specific
ED yes, that's why I think

it's accurate
AL so SEEN said that they didn't want to cause upset, but this was all about this person's lived experience. You're all about lived experience, surely he can speak about his lived experience.
ED I think it's fine until it's about tropes and stereotypes about trans

people.
AL an attendee tried to make a comparison between SEEN and a racist hate group
ED yes
AL was that you
ED no, no of course not, I think I know who it was, a member of CSRF
AL the person who made that connection was a member of AG?
ED Yes but at the event as a member

of CSRF.
AL do you accept that was an offensive comment
ED is it the group or the views
J the q is this - is the comparison of SEEN and a racist hate group offensive?
AL that is the q
ED - not necessarily offensive

AL your WS, para 31. You say that there was institutional unwillingness to protect trans staff, you're talking about DEFRA
ED yes
AL lets look at a few docs, we will have to navigate around the bundle, unavoidable.

AL DEFRA has a code of conduct, yes
ED yes
AL section 'respect at work' says bullying and harassment not acceptable
ED thats right
AL applies as much to people who rely on trans status as well as others such as disability, sex etc applies across the board
ED that's right

AL also has guidance on GI and intersex,
ED appears to have one
AL didn't AG contribute to this policy
ED it appears to be based on our model policies
AL from 2019
ED yes
AL is it now under review following FWS
ED yes

AL DEFRA has toolkit for transitioning at work, also based on model doc from AG
ED yes, it appears to be broadly similar to the model policy package of 7 years ago
AL DEFRA has policy on inclusion
ED yes thats what I appear to be looking at

AL DEFRA also has a wider diversity equity and inclusion strategy, published in 2020, applicable from then
ED yes
AL that recognises under diversity, the full range of human diversity in the UK, recognises each individual is different and diversity makes teams more effective

Doesn't mention trans people, but included?
ED yes
J that's a lot of documents AL, are we going to look at all of them
AL yes, Judge I am deliberately taking the witness to all of them.
ED have I misheard page number, could you repeat
AL 2061

ED I think i found it, not actually numbered, is it respect at work
AL no, it's Tamara Finkelstein video announcing and supporting trans awareness week,
ED it appears to be yes
AL says DEFRA wants trans staff to comfortable and supported at work.
ED yes
AL I've taken to you a

number of docs that demonstrate that your assertion that trans staff are not supported at work
ED they don't follow those policies, they talk over trans people, they ignore them, they allow harassment to go on
AL support does not mean that any time at trans person complains

they are unsupported
ED we are asking them to stop discussing this at work, it is distressing, it is hurtful
AL if a trans person says an expression of GC belief is harassing, it needs to be suppressed
ED one trans person no, 10 trans people yes
AL your view doesn't all for any

assessment of context, or the validity of the complaint
ED we asked for views, and response high
AL that's the survey we discussed
ED yes, 167 people
AL there's no network in DEFRA or gov that is based on same sex relationships being sinful,
ED not yet
AL and not one based on

anti-Zionism
ED not yet
AL you're scaremongering by suggesting that they might be set up
ED I'm not. Why wouldn't they set up? Why wouldn't they follow the blueprint of SEEN and get a tribunal to say their belief is appropriate,
AL - you don't have evidence that such a network

is going to be set up, you are speculating arent you
ED yes
J are you equating the beliefs of SEEN to views mentioned at the beginning of para 25?
ED I suppose I am saying there is an equivalence, the views that might be expressed by a homophobic network might have the impact

on LGB colleagues as the SEEN network has on trans and non-binary people.
AL - I've got one more topic to go, turning away from main bundle and going to supplementary bundle, just wanted to ensure everyone has it.
[bundle shuffling]

Witness has been handed a copy.
J has everyone got it
AL do you have two bits or just one
ED all stapled together
AL larger starts with email from witness, your email 5 Dec 2023, to David Underwood, Caroline (?) both at Environmental Agency, directed to them because AM

employee of Environ Agency
ED yes
AL and why did you send to Cabinet Office
ED this is one of three emails about the behaviour of SEEN members
AL this is about AM and only sent to DEFRA because of shared HR function
ED yes
AL a complaint about En Ag employee, so a matter for

them
ED yes
AL if anything to come of this it was for his employer to deal with, that would be En Ag.
ED yes
AL your email you were asking for things to happen which would affect his employment, asking for him to be suspended
ED asked for him to be suspended while i/x going on

J you were chair of AG, who would make decision that AM would be suspended chair of SEEN, does DEFRA have that power
ED I think yes it would
AL for a x-gov network, isn't it the Cabinet Office
ED they are our handlers so to speak, they are the people we would go to with

network issues.
AL trying to understand why it's a matter for DEFRA when AM is an employee of En Ag and it's a x-gov network.
ED I was saying I wanted AM to be removed as co-chair of DEFRA SEEN while he's under i/x. I'm asking DEFRA staff to do that.

AL point on consequences on employment, turn to page number
[more difficulty with page numbers]
ED I have paginated pages
AL you'll see that only goes so far, then back to page 1, and then there's a letter then back to page 1. I'm pleased we've all navigated that.

AL you've asked for information about what is happening,
ED I don't want inside information, just trying to find out what stage things are at
AL you want a disciplinary and consequences against AM
ED I want an i/x and then if found guilty, for there to be consequences

AL now your letter of complaint, in that pack of documents, its largely comprised of various X posts, from an account that I've asked C about, did you provide these to the C
Let me ask again. Go to page 12, an example of posts from Andi Abides accounts, you're saying here are

things posted that are objectionable.
ED yes
AL did you provide to ST
ED no, not to ST
AL ST not copied on this, didn't take part in any i/x did ST
ED no, I don't think so
AL so ST has these posts in her claim, I think it's because you provided these to ST
ED inaudible

AL - PQ former C, did you provide that evidence to PQ,
ED No, I didn't, it was a widely known fact that everyone knew who the owner of the Andi Abides account was.
AL did you tell C?
ED yes
AL did you do so, so that ST would look at them
ED no
AL was C building ET case

at this point
ED no, I think it was still in g/x
AL it is reasonable to assume that if you told ST about it, they would go look at it
ED not how it works in our community, we warn each other about content to avoid. If I told ST about Andi account, ST already knew

AL - if C was exposed to that content, it's because you told them
ED that account was seeking out members of AG and attacking them on X, that's how ST knew about the content, I told DEFRA who it was on the account and they shrugged and said 'everybody knows'.

AL Nicola Betterworth was taking prompt action on complaint, sees it as urgent, is taking appropriate action given her role
ED I don't know what her role is, maybe a director but I guess so
AL - someone, Andrew Pierce, appointed to look into complaint,

from his email, he's in En Ag.
ED yes
AL we can a letter sent to AM, appropriate that letter was sent to him, it impacts him
ED yes
AL and his decision was not to take further action
ED I don't know haven't read letter
AL do you want to read
ED yes

AL in summary, on evidence no conclusion that any relevant code of conduct was breached, so no further ation
ED because he isn't a civil servant the code of conduct does not apply to him
J - he does say that, and also that the posts are not objectively offensive,

AL thank you Judge, also says the code of conduct unlikely to have been breached by account
AL so your complaint was not ignored
ED no
AL it was actioned, you asked for more information
ED at that stage he could have told more about the stage of the process,

AL his reasoning based on data protection
ED that's right
AL thank you ED, I don't have any further qs - sorry Judge I have one matter to come back to
J fine, remind ED that under oath, cannot discuss evidence, AL will have a couple of more qs for you after lunch on the doc

we are all waiting for.
J We will come back at 14:05.
Court rises.
2nd morning session ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.