Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon: this is @TerfyMcTerfyFace tweeting from the court hearing @8RosarioSanchez
Raquel Rosario Sanchez's claim against Bristol University. The Court will resume at 2pm.

Thread of this morning's session:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1491345090048307203?s=20&t=Ht-s9umatvk0ZgrWInzHyQ

@8RosarioSanchez [Some spelling corrections from this morning: Laura Trescothick-Martin, Keith Feeney and Jutta Weldes]

@8RosarioSanchez Proceedings about to recommence

@8RosarioSanchez [Judge has arrived] RRS returns to witness box

@8RosarioSanchez LJ: re progress of your complaint. You received a decision?
RRS: yes
LJ: the email from sally heslop. You wanted the matter to progress to the uni stage?
RRS: yes
LJ: led to a review panel decision. You're lack of progression was due to psych condition.

@8RosarioSanchez *your.
re your non-academic activities you say they are flourishing...highly successful. Describe talking to HoL re self-id, wards in NHS and talking to women and equalities select committe. You have been able to carry on with things outside of your PhD. You've been able to

@8RosarioSanchez give media interviews.
RRS: I could continue work outside of PhD. As writer, I could produce things bc there is more flexibility.
LJ: these activities take up lots of your time
RRS: yes but I have been v active since I was very young. since 6 years old. Very busy parallel to

@8RosarioSanchez academic studies.
LJ: so you agree that extra-curricular stuff takes up a lot of time?
RRS: yes.
LJ: there have been times where you have been able to work at your PhD.
RRS: I tried to find more and more motivation.
LJ: so your issue is motivation to get on with it

@8RosarioSanchez RRS: i never said it was the main issue. But the things that have happened have impacted it.
LJ: Letter saying you had contacted police. Mr F said that the person you had a complaint against had a barrister. [jumping around a bit...hard to follow]
When did you know that AA had no

@8RosarioSanchez case to answer?
RRS: before hearing AA had produced a 13 page statement to committee so committee had to take this into account for legal reasons.
LJ: to clarify when did you find out it was a submission for nothing to answer?
RRS: on 15 may 2019 - was told that there were

@8RosarioSanchez freedom of expression queries. I asked over and over should I get a lawyer. At the time I trusted them [to advise].
LJ: you asked about your ability to work. You were asked if you were engaged with the centre. You said you were part of the centre. what did you mean

@8RosarioSanchez RRS: I was part of the centre. I had a good relationship with Emma.
LJ: [questions whether RRS thinks May is summer]
RRS: I understand May to be part of the summer
LJ: you also asked about your supervisor's support. Re your letter to prof Ireland

@8RosarioSanchez LJ: why did you say that your supervisor said that your options were punative?
RRS: the two options was punative. I had many convos with supervisors who felt that they were getting pressure regarding this matter
AC: you asked about risk assessment requests. Seven times including

@8RosarioSanchez Judge: you may resume your seat
[RRS leaves witness box - Dr Emma Williamson, former Head of the Centre for Gender and Violence Research and PhD supervisor (EW) to appear next]

@8RosarioSanchez [Some discussions about documents which are needed and whether they are included in the bundles] AC needs a 15 minute break to talk to her client. Reconvening at 2.45pm

@8RosarioSanchez Proceedings about to recommence

@8RosarioSanchez LJ: There has been a development regarding the employment status of Emma Williamson.
Judge: AC do you need extra time?
AC: I don't think we do
LJ: Dr Williamson has resigned but I don't have a problem with this so happy to continue
AC: Just wanted to check everyone is OK with

@8RosarioSanchez new status
Judge: [calls Dr Williamson (EW) to witness box]
AC: are the contents of this statement true to the best of your belief. Can I clarify your new position?
EW: Yes I resigned in April
LJ: in your statement you were supervisor for RRS and for AA? This was a difficult

@8RosarioSanchez situation for you?
EW: yes
LJ: you describe the morning you found out about situation in an email
EW: in a meeting
LJ: you discovered RRS's perspective
EW: not sure we talked it about it at this point. I was catching up with everything

@8RosarioSanchez LJ: During the meeting you said you tried to reassure RRS . You were supportive right from the beginning?
EW: Yes
LJ: you contacted AA because you wanted to resolve the issue. How was the sit about the two students being in the centre sorted. You suggested that AA was offered a

@8RosarioSanchez seat in a diff office to separate them
EW: yes
LJ: re AA's involvement with centre...an email to charlie foster talking about managing situation within centre. Thank him for laying out what had happened. You said you couldn't continue to supervisor AA. AA issued a complaint

@8RosarioSanchez saying didn't feel safe in centre. Did his presence in the centre stop?
EW: i didn't notice much difference. they were both new students
LJ: AA was in touch with you - email to you explaining they were leaving Bristol for few weeks and arranging to meet with you later in March.

@8RosarioSanchez You met them?
EW: yes
LJ: AA sent email saying didn't want to be supervised by EW bc of conflict of interest
EW: there was a meeting which I wasn't invited to. Uni told me to continue supervising
LJ: some convos with AA were remote?

@8RosarioSanchez EW: some remote, some in person
LJ: re RRS you have a good relationship with her? In your meetings with her - some are supervisions, some pastoral support. Door always open to students?
EW: yes
LJ: RRS had difficulty in progressing with PhD. You believe they started in 2018

@8RosarioSanchez There were times when RRS made better progress.
SW: it depended on what was happening at the time. Things sometimes happened that knocked her confidence. We tried to keep pastoral care and academic care separate. that became more difficult
LJ: you said in your statement

@8RosarioSanchez 'as RRS supervisor it's becoming more difficult to progress on her PhD'. Things that were happening were a distraction
EW: it was a distraction for everybody in the uni at the time.
LJ: re your statement. There is a section about the impact on RRS. she's been distressed since the

@8RosarioSanchez events. You said you tried to offer support. Can you tell me what that was?
EW: it was difficult. RRS was being sent all over the place. She was referred to police etc. We couldn't signpost her anymore. The complaint hadn't been dealt with. There was very little we could do. We

@8RosarioSanchez requested help with how to deal with the situation.
LJ: RRS was given a 4 month extension
EW: We requested the extension bc the complaint hadn't been dealth with. I said we might need another extension
EW: increasingly as time went on and I raised with more people. It was

@8RosarioSanchez difficult to continue the work with the centre. Some people's opinions were being considered as hate speech. First letter tried to close things down.
LJ: Just trying to find out if it was a difficult situation for you
EW: that's why we were asking for help
LJ: It let to a point

@8RosarioSanchez where you couldn't sign off on RRS's progress report. A suspension isn't punative, is it?
EW: it can have an effect on your funding. For some students it does feel punative - there are diff implications with diff students
LJ: it's not a punative sanction from the uni? It stops

@8RosarioSanchez clock. It might lead to other complications. Re RRS's situation you sent an email where you were supportive of the suspension bc of the situation she was in
EW: when you look at progress in most circumstances the uni isn't involved in the extenuating circumstances

@8RosarioSanchez In most cases it isn't punative but I can understand why RRS thought it was.
LJ: Suspension was the sensible way forward
EW: Given the options that was the only option. There was no extension option
LJ: untimately you were supportive of the suspension decision

@8RosarioSanchez EW: yes
LJ: if a student isn't progressing it is usual to set up a plan? You set a plan with RRS? She signed it
EW: yes we can set a plan without student involvement but RRS has signed so was involved
Judge: it was a collaborative effort?
EW: yes:
Judge: re two month suspension.

@8RosarioSanchez It supplies student with a break
EW: in practice academics will be reluctant to use it
Judge: you would only use it in an emergency. If there was a bereavement a suspension might be used?
EW: Sometimes students say they will carry on. There used to be retrospective suspensions

@8RosarioSanchez Judge: the student does have to be involved in the suspension
EW: they need the supervisors support to get it signed off
Judge: I struggle to see how it could be punative. It might have undesired consequences but there's nothing punative
EW: we shouldn't have been at this

@8RosarioSanchez position. The complaint was still on-going.
Judge: but that the measure was needed doesn't make it punative
EW: the delays. we knew RRS was struggling with the delays
Judge: you're saying nothing wrong with the suspension it just shouldn't have been used in this case

@8RosarioSanchez Judge: Dr Emma Williamson free to go if you wish.
AC: oral evidence done. Written evidence to come. Last minute disclosures added yesterday - couple of police documents.
Judge: are they critical to the case?
AC: yes. we'll add them to the trial bundle. Not needed now

@8RosarioSanchez Judge: add them tonight
AC: not sure if next witness has seen these?
LJ: witness will need to see them, if they are asked about it.
Judge: we need to reconvene at 3.45pm
[Proceedings stopped]

@8RosarioSanchez Proceedings recommencing

@8RosarioSanchez Judge: asks for copies of docs overnight
Keith Feeney, Senior Lawyer for defendant in witness box. Sworn in
AC: Bristol Uni has range of policies...a lot of them in comparison to schools etc. There are policies re students academic lives and re non-academic lives (egsocial media)

@8RosarioSanchez There are policies re bullying and behaviour etc.
KF: correct
AC: [references regs re bullying and complaints procedures] Rules and regs apply to everyone in the uni. All are expected to behave in reasonable manner. Fair to say that the policy applies to all members of uni?

@8RosarioSanchez KF Yes it is
AC: definition of misconduct...any act or commission which damages uni or disrupts uni. includes violent behaviour including electronic form. Bullying harassment on the basis of PCs - are misconducts. these rules apply to all at uni
KF: yes

@8RosarioSanchez AC: within disciplinary stages - all proceedings are confidential.
KF: yes
AC: any breech of this would bring about proceedings?
KF: yes
KF: re student mental health. In long letter from RRS to Prof Ireland and Prof Brady - PB says it our priority to support students with mental

@8RosarioSanchez health. Bristol Uni can be subject to proceedings if they don't keep to rules and regs. This is to protect students.
KF: yes
AC: the uni also has a code of conduct for student union. It applies to all members and affiliated groups
KF: I believe so
AC: any student is also subject

@8RosarioSanchez to all uni's policies.
KF: That's right
AC: re RRS example of uni working with student union and recommending SU how events should be held.
KF: That's correct
AC: there is a uni process to protect students
KF: yes
AC: [checks time with judge] Letter attached to email from RRS

@8RosarioSanchez - that's over 4 years ago. The letter is widely disseminated isn't it? shared on facebook. Public group not private
KF: yes
AC: letter calls for cancellation of WPUK - undersigned by students and academics. Names RRS as person chairing event & mentions the gender violence centre

@8RosarioSanchez asks the uni to take action against the event.
KF: yes
AC: attaching the event to the centre calls into question the integrity of the centre and the uni. and also states that these are feminists spreading transphobia and no diff between homophobia and racism. This is an offensive

@8RosarioSanchez letter isn't it?
KF: yes
AC: RRS asked uni to complain about letter and language used in connection with the situation. She is concerned about staff being involved
KF: Yes
AC: RRS makes allegation of unexceptable behaviour by students and uni employees

@8RosarioSanchez She provides screenshots from facebook re the letter. Calls to arms re the letter and attempts to make the uni take action against the meeting. TERF is mentioned. RRS said to you that this is a slur against women?
KF: yes
AC: one screenshot shows twitter threats which may be

@8RosarioSanchez used alongside that term. One image shows 'I punch TERFS'
Judge: [questions showing the tweets if not aimed at RRS]
AC: shows why RRS felt threatened. There is a particular quote attributed to AA which also mentions punching TERFS. AA was using violent terminology?
KF: yes

@8RosarioSanchez Judge: can't see what is defensible about AA's terminology
AC: no-one suggests that uni believes that this is OK
Judge: it seems pretty bad to me but uni isn't defending the term.
AC: concerned that there is a suggestion that uni is defending terms.
Judge: KF is dealing with fact

@8RosarioSanchez AC: the difficult that RRS has is that the uni did not take it seriously enough.
Judge: haven't seen any evidence where uni doesn't take it serious
AC: my client felt unsafe bc of this sort of terminology.
The open letter was shared in the open staff network
KF: yes

@8RosarioSanchez AC: this the start of a chain of RRS raising the issue of the letter with a number of people from the uni. One of the names signed is of a teacher - glad the uni won't be hosting event. This teacher sent comments to those who were publishing that letter. So a member of staff

@8RosarioSanchez involved in propogating this letter
KF: yes
AC: were any proceedings taken against him? Do you think it's acceptable that he did this?
LJ: this isn't included in the claim.
Judge: difficulty with letter from teacher (Nathan Eisenstart[?]). Was the uni responsible?
AC: the letter

@8RosarioSanchez was also sent to Rosa Target(?) at Bristol Uni regarding the research centre. RT is PhD student at the uni expresses concern about WPUK event and circulates letter to LGBT group. There is a petition being circulated - asking for support. Target is happy to share with staff

@8RosarioSanchez network.
AC: example of staff circulating this letter?
KF: yes
AC: This leads me to end of this section. Should we close for the day
Judge: Good point. KF you are not permitted to discuss anything.
[checks that he has all the bundles necessary - is given another bundle which

@8RosarioSanchez deals with Equality Act]. [calls for proceedings to reconvene at 10am tomorrow]
Proceedings end

@8RosarioSanchez [And that's over and out from me...thanks for reading!]

@8RosarioSanchez @threadreaderapp please unroll