Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are resuming now.
AH asks for more water.
RD: AH I'd like to look at E's tweets towards you, relevant to these allegations. Paragraph 49, D1 p.22.
You said E tweeted you 50 tweets from 30th March to 1st april

RD: you've not produced these tweets.
(Confusion over pages) AH says he can't see it and needs assistance. Chair clarifies the bundle number and RD says he doesn't know why his bundle is different and it's concerning

GP isn't sure why.
RD: want to ask AH the tweets you produce in that bundle. Some are specific refs to you. Tweet beginning 'yes you are you sick degenerate'
AH isn't sure if he's got the right tweet.

Chair is confused why the bundles are different and it's not helpful. RD seems to have different paged numbers to everyone else.

RD: this is a tweet you've produced from 2020 (yes) and we can see if follow there's other tweets from 2020. In terms of the one I've referred to ' yes you are you sick degenerate' from 2019.
AH: my document doesn't have this info on. Tweets started around the same time.

RD: The last tweet from E directed at AH was from 2019
AH:... I cannot recollect... it would seem to be the case but as I've already stated the quantity of tweets makes it near impractical...quantity is illuminous to say the least

RD: on 10th April, E asks to be left alone by C and AH.
Chair Sat's schedule 6 isn't in any chronological order.
RD: it's chronological, largely 25 onwards is post the request to stop
AH: yes indeed, a number of tweets that came after that

Chair is discussing and giving clarity to dates
RD: did you see the request to stop?
AH: I saw it at some point. E has blocked me at various stages and I can't recall if came before or after. Indeed E is drawing attention to C, and isn't correctly tagged.

AH: ones notifications can be managed in a certain way that we don't see notifications. I recall seeing it.
Rd: did you have a mechanism to prevent seeing your notifications?

AH says he set his notifications to see only people he wanted to. He has a large following and hard to manage.
RD: (too fast) it suggests you did see but didn't think it was sincere
AH: already explained Mr. Donahugh, I can't recall

AH: still explaining he was aware the tweet had been said bit believed it to be inauthentic and diingenuous
RD: did you do any work to see if it was?
AH: it spoke for itself
E was in no way being authentic in plea being made

RD: your tweets were after the date of the injunction was imposed
GP: we don't know that for sure. Not trying to stop you here
Rf: a significant majority were after the injunction
AH: yes correct

RD: from 3rd May 2019 there was a prevention of E tweeting about C and vice versa
AH: yes correct
RD: you said your interactions were to do with sticking up for friend. Do you recall
AH: if u can draw my attention attention it

AH: that would apply with the majority of my tweets to E
RD: do you after the date of injunction your tweets can't have been in support of your friend
AH once tended to happen E was restricted what she could say about C

AH: E's attention to me escalated heavily after the injunction. Es actions towards me were not restricted

RD: do you accept the tweets we see, 38, all were concerned with E.
AH: yes
RD: Do you agree the other tweets after are for E too?
AH: my tone and content of tweet are clear, these are responses to E's conduct and behaviour

RD: but you're not saying don't tweet me, your not taking the heat out of the situ, it was personal to them
AH: (too fast) nothing would have stopped her. If I'd taken legal action to stop E who would she then move onto next?

AH: I was being prevented in taking such action as when E submitted her complaints, it came at same time as the injunction.
I had to do what I needed to do because I couldn't take legal action
RD: and that was continously tweeting personal remarks about E?

AH: continuous?
RD: yes. (Too fast)
This invisible really is a viscious person. The type if things that were said about me, my friends and my community really struck me very hard and had a profound effect on my emotional and mental health. Reading it on screen gives me chills

People can only take so much, even medical practices, and it was an uninformed response. I wish I could replay my life and never become aware if the existence of E

RD: summarises
AH says we've already gone into those matters a number if times and made his position quite clear.
My insight into those issues was underdeveloped. I'm in a different place now and I understand those documents and guidelines are vital that I follow.

AH: I don't know what more I can say to make that clear.

RD: you see here in the guidance, there's introduction section then the advice about social media and I want to work through these points
Do you accept you caused offence to E but you say it was coming back from E worse

AH: my intention E should be offended, not that it was right that I did that
RD: you didn't dispute that but it was coming back worse
AH: Far far far worse

RD reads out the advice (too fast) would you agree with this?
AH: I'VE said these previously and I brought the docs to the defence. I appreciate looking at the tweets written 2 and half years ago it doesn't align with this guidance.

As I've said My awareness and insight was significant underdeveloped. My emotional state...(too fast)
RD: so you don't think it was inappropriate?
AH some of them are, some not. Some are responses to action of E which I say was fair at the time

If I can bring attention to these tweets, number 47, you ask me earlier to lower the temperature, I believe in 47, a year after, I have had reason to write that. E is not named in these tweets. It's intriguing E can recognise herself in these tweets

AH I would say the tweets listed under 47 aren't inappropriate and gave a clear message to E...yet in spite of that it continued nonetheless

RD: you accept that the many tweets with E was inappropriate. If I could relive my time I wish I'd never even heard of E and I would never have had an opportunity to engage with E. It's ended up in a very unfortunate situation and it's regretable

I don't accept that some if my actions within the overall actions with E were appropriate. Tweet 47 came immediately after E had constantly tweeted about me wild and unsubstantiated accusations about me

At that stage I was not prepared to take anymore and made it clear that it needed to stop. What was inappropriate was ending up with that in the first place

Missed RD said...
Rd: you said your intention was to offend?
AH: if I could answer that question again I'd change it. It was my intention to get back at her in the way she got back at me. She may find them offensive but that's up to her to decide.

RD: you wanted her off the platform, you wanted her views off the platform?
AH: I don't accept, I didn't want her views off the platform ...because I found her language deeply offensive. E also used the term 'faggot'. Some members of my community have lain in the gutter dying

And that's what they hear as they lay dying. The fact that E found it acceptable or tolerable to get on that platform and announce to the world she's been persecuted by 'faggots' I can't stand by and let someone behave that way. Persecutory language.

If that means because of using terminology like that that E can be banned from the platform so be it. Anyone who thinks that language is appropriate....it refers to my community to me...I've had that term thrown at me.

I probably responded in an inappropriate way. My tolerance can only go so far.
RD: given number of tweets and content, gmc suggests this was a course of cyberbullying
AH: I don't accept that

AH: the evidence speaks for itself and it shows it simply not the case. If there was any imbalance, it's weighted in the other direction.
(Goes on to say it wasn't him being heavy handed, it was other direction. Says him cyberbullying is absurd.

RD: want to focus on insight as you've spoken a number of times.
AH says he needs to take a moment to check his blood sugar.
Adjourned for ten minutes