Thread by @tribunaltweets

Now resuming following afternoon break.
Recap: LE was asked to reread sections of the bundle (seems to be the tweet exchange).
EJ: reminding about restriction on reporting names of 4 complainants.

BC - have you read documents?
LE - yes
BC - did you read this context at the time
LE - I may not have read all the way from the top at the time.
BC - do you see where MF has said 'transwomen are vulnerable and should be championed'.

LE - it doesn't matter just where you start out, but where you end up and it ended up in transphobia and offensive and unfair comparisons
BC - The sequence that leads up to the particular tweet, about the material reality that women cannot 'identify out of' sex based oppression.

LE - its very complicated and it's putting my brain in knots, and I don't understand what she's saying and what she believe.
BC - what you're saying is that she is not allowed to say that sex is a material reality that impacts women.
LE - we always end up at Rachel Dolezal.

BC - I'm exploring now about your comment about questioning other people's reality. When MF says that sex is material and matters, you believe she is questioning the reality of trans people.
LE - my material and internal reality are the same.

BC - the reason you don't understand MF's belief because you can't escape your own reality.
LE - I'm looking at the language of tweets and I know enough about her beliefs.
BC - Returning to the context of a long philosophical debate on Twitter.

LE - I think that's how the conversation starts, that's not how it ends.
BC - if you read what she actually says, instead of what you infer, MF's comment is a comparison of identity and reality.
LE - she could have done it without referring to Rachel Dolezal. RM is different.

BC - RM is different because you agree with her.
BC - let us return to the phrase 'arbiter of someone's reality'. Is that your line? Is that what is offensive?
LE - yes, it is offensive
BC - you are using reality as a synonym for someone's internal feelings.

LE - I don't separate internal and external reality.
BC - when you say 'challenging someone's reality' you mean that any time someone questions someone else's expression of their reality. How can someone question someone's internal identification in any way?

LE - there must be some way to have that debate without bring up Rachel Dolezal.
BC - now going on to a different topic.

BC - discussing individuals identified by initials in a document. You haven't explained the significance of this list of names and initials. Why were you writing this list?
LE - as C1 was talking to me, these were people I wanted to talk to or refer to.

BC - now moving on to C2. Can we clear up some confusions? You describe C1, C2 coming to see you. And also meeting with C3.
LE - C1 & C2 encouraged C3 to reach out to me. I believe this was after C2 spoke to me.
BC - you may be mistaken, referring to witness statement.

BC - after you had your email exchange with MF you reported back to C1 and C2. Is it possible that they didn't speak to you before then?
LE - I don't think that's the case.
BC - Did you have separate meetings with C2 and C3, I can't tell from the notes?

LE - I had separate meetings.
BC - C2 expressed concern about working on fund raising involving the complainant but subsequently did work on fund raising for the complainant.
LE - yes,
BC - not asking you to read their minds.

BC - we don't have any record of what C3 said. Even in your witness statement.
LE - C3 mentioned that conversations had happened in the office, it's in my witness statement, there is no contemporaneous record.
BC - you also say a fourth complainant came forward...

BC ..... didn't know who that person was.
LE - C4 is my office neighbor, I speak to them frequently, I had forgotten about their complaint.
BC - how did you come to recollect the complaint
LE - included them on an email, then recalled why.

BC - discussing the reporting internally from LE 'a cohort of staff had come to see me complaining about transphobic views' but LE said 'I don't know if they are offensive or transphobic'.
LE - on my initial review I thought they might be a little charged but not straying....

....LE - into the lane of offensive or abusive.
BC - you then put this in context of some proposed social media guidelines with your superiors, very sensible policy. Should add a disclaimer 'my tweets my opinion' etc

BC but that the tweets were not offensive.
BC - when you looked at the tweets more fully you said you had initially only looked at a sample of the tweets 25% .
LE - it was an estimate, without expanding every single tweet threads.

BC - you've now seen the vast majority of the tweets, yes?
LE - I estimate 25%.
BC - you've certainly read all or most of them now? Yes? You have a fairly good view.

BC - I'm putting to you that reading more tweets would not have changed your views. Did you not see enough in your initial review of the tweets, to reach a conclusion that they were not offensive, etc.
LE - I read more tweets and I changed my mind.

BC - Supervisor 'I have read and agree with your preliminary assessment' (not offensive).
LE - yes
BC - Another senior person 'don't think they are offensive, more about the meanings of words although the trans community is very sensitive to words'.

BC - also MA broadly agrees that a social media policy might be needed and that the senior group concluded that no one saw any immediate offense.
LE - yes that is correct.
BC - it wasn't reading additional tweets but input from other into the debate changed minds.

BC - confirming a draft policy on social media, no actual policy. Briefing on joining, don't be sexist or racist, but can say what you like.
LE - I never knew about this policy until this email.
BC - additional colleague was going to talk with others.