Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning this is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually tweeting the case of Allison Bailey vs Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers at the Employment Tribunal.

We expect proceedings to begin at 10.00 am.

@GoodyActually You can read our notes about the case, and a list of the abbreviations we use when live-tweeting, at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/4723de58-092…

@GoodyActually Abbreviations:

AB: Allison Bailey, claimant
BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB

@GoodyActually SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)
IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW
RW = Robin White assisting IO

@GoodyActually GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2)
RM = Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 along with all members of GCC except AB)

Respondents 2 & 3 are in practice indistinguishable; Garden Court Chambers are respondents both corporately and as the set of individuals making up the Chambers

AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC (respondents 2 & 3)
JR = Jane Russell assisting AH

EJ = Employment Judge Goodman hearing the case
Panel = any one of the three panel members (EJ and two lay members)

Proceedings are due to begin at 10:00am, with the claimant Allison Bailey continuing her evidence.

The court is now beginning.

Clerk introduces the case, outlines rules for online hearings.

EJ: We shall resume cross-ex of claimaint AB.

EJ :[explains complexities and management of court documents for public observers]

IO & AB: good morning.

IO: We resume where we stopped yesterday. PDF attached to email from Mr Keraj. Policies he had reviewed, with his comments.

IO: Please read the PDF:
AB: [reading]
IO: We can see from doc title - advice to employers re sexual orientation and gender identity

IO: Unobjectionalbe to do you agree?
AB: Disagree
IO: why?
AB: terminology - not everyone says "identify as" - I don't *identify* as a lesbian, I simply am one

IO: It doesn't say identify
AB: it does in the previous paragraph
IO: It is asking about sexual orientation; it notes that not everyone identifies in the same way - then says WHAT IS your orientation

AB: Preamble - I found refererences to "identifying" in preamble objectionable - I have answered your Q

IO: I am asking you now about the question "what is?"
AB: OK
IO: what else objectionable?
AB: "Gender identitiy" - this is SW embedding the concept -

IO: where are we looking -
AB: please may I explain my objections

EJ: - [interjects] "gender identity" half way down page

IO: You are saying this is SW lobbying re "gender identity"?
AB: Trying to embed gender identity theory in organisations

[some arguing about who is interrupting who]

IO: says "asking re gender identity can be sensitive", that is lobbying?
AB: Yes

IO: Whole thing is?
AB: Yes. There is no definition of "gender identity" - Miss O are you and Ms White laughing?
IO: Am talking to my junior

AB: The protected char is "gender reassignment" not "gender identity".

EJ: Should we replace camera so we can see Ms White also?
AB: No, I prefer as is, will try not to be distracted by interactions

IO: This doc is prepared by SW to help its Diversity Champs members collect data re sexual orientation and gender identity, you agree?
AB: Yes

IO: Aug 2019 another policies review by SW for GC.
IO: Ms Hakl-Law invites Ms Al-Farabi's [ZA} views.
IO: ZA says only some policies fall within remit, she lists them
AB: Yes first is transition at work policy

IO: ZA says she has changed all language to gender neutral - objectionable?
AB: Yes
IO: -
AB: Can I say more?
IO: No, time, next Q now

IO: Now we have the GC staff handbook, governs GC-staff relations
AB: Yes
IO: We see ZA saying she is recommending "their" not "his/her", re non-binary identities

IO: This is typical of her review input?
AB: Yes. She has changed references to sex to what SW calls non-binary language. I think it's unacceptable for people who are male or female to be called "their". "Non-binary" does not exist in equality act.

IO: Yes we know you think this is an example of SW ideology?
AB: Yes. People are not gender-neutral

IO: Are you suggesting that the action of undertaking this review was discrimination against you
AB: This is not a "review", it's a find-and-replace
AB: The overall purpose, SW replacing language with neutral, obejctionable

EJ: But discrimination against you?
AB: No

IO: Mr Keraj's review of the policies, and this review just discussed, only ones SW did with GCC. If not these, there are none to discuss

AB: I think replacing the language is objectionable, and potentially discriminatory. Not to me - I have not had to refer to it - but replacement of language by SW had discriminatory effect on me more widely

AB: Yes I understand this was sold to GCC as a review (I think a poor review mind you)

IO: This is GC Harassment policy
AB: Can I ask what was previous one called?
IO: Staff handbook
AB: Thank you. I'm not a member of staff?
IO: No but your complaint refers to SW reviews of policies
AB: I understand.

IO: Harassment policy - says "statement of policy, applies to members, employees and so on" -
AB [reading]

IO: We can see ZA recommendations - you referred yesterday - talks of embedding best practice, congratulates GC for zero-tolerance, says this is best practice
AB: Yes

IO: It lists for equality act [lists] - ZA picks up that "gender reassignment" is there, says use "gender identity" instead. Do you accept her legal statements?
AB: not sure?

IO: She is recognising that policy is based on the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010?
AB: She is saying that "gender reassignment" is too narrow
IO: My Q is simple - do you accept that ZA recognises what current law is?

AB: Yes but qualified by then describing as "narrow". It's not narrow, it's the law
IO: No, she recognieses law but suggests GC may wish to go further
AB: Yes, and unacceptable to me.

IO: Now we turn to definition of "harassment" - then we see some examples given. From the GC handbook at the time. Then we see ZA comments. ZA suggests that SW best practice would be to push this further

IO: Any objections to that?
AB: I don't object to "LGBT people". I don't want to see homophobic OR transphobic bullying in the workplace or elsewhere.
IO: You don't object?
AB: to the first part, no

IO: ?
AB: Because she goes on to say that not using pronouns and name choices is bullying, I disagree

IO: But other things OK by you?
AB: Yes
IO: Only to the section about misgendering
AB: Yes

IO: ZA says that no one at GC responded to her comments and she does not know if taken up.
AB: I don't know either.

IO: You make several assertions about relationship between SW and GC.

IO: We have seen 2 policy reviews. Yesterday we looked at initial contacts SW/GC

IO: Email from Mr Keraj, 11th March, to Mr Lue. About workplace conference 20th APril, is selling conferance
AB: yes
IO: Here we see ZA taking over from Mr Keraj
AB: Yes

IO: ZA is requesting a meeting
AB: Yes
IO: 24/5/2019 Stephen Lue [SL] is asking for some posters to put up, asking for SW logo for emails re diversity champs
AB: Yes

IO: ZA replies with logo, and some options re posters
AB: yes
IO: Posters were provided
AB: No need to show me, can take as read

IO: ZA introducing herself - reply from Ms Hakl-Lau - suggesting meeting early July. This is May - so July some time away?
AB: Yes couple of months

IO: correspondence in June - after stuff between ZA and SL re Middle Temple Pride
AB: Yes have read, and I heard the speech

IO: So next substantive engagement is 27th June - enquiry whether GC submitting to Workplace Equality Index - SL replies inviting SW to meeting to discuss
IO: And for ZA to come to Chambers for that
AB: Yes

IO: Some emails arranging the meeting - upshot is meeting took place ZA/SL/Ms Hakl-Lau on 10th July
AB: Don't dispute that

IO: What ZA says about meeting its that was a difficult one because GC unhappy with service.
IO: ZA says she found GC unhappy not treated same as solicitor firms in terms of engagement with SW
IO: ZA says clear to her that SL and Ms Hakl-Lau had misunderstood champs programme

IO: ZA says GC were thinking it would be kind of a referral programme, bringing clients to GC

IO: Your case is that SW was directing and instructing GC?
AB: yes

IO: But if GC are expecting work from SW that is different dynamic.
AB: I can't speak for dynamic. Must point out that engagement not limited to the written comms we have looked at

IO: ZA followed up, email 17/7, on issues that had been raised.
EJ: what page?
IO [page refs]

IO: Then no further contact ZA/SL till 22nd August, which SL initiates.

IO: SL says GC seriously considering not renewing Champs programme, and explains reasons. Feel under-served by SW

IO: ZA replies - would like to ask you about a couple of passages, could you read it
AB: Of course, a minute please

IO: ZA in second paragraphs, lists SW work done, policies, toolkits, reviews, says she had not heard any more re policies
IO: ZA says discuss re referrals via SW service line but that SW has not heard more on that

IO: ZA: says SW covers c800 orgs for Champs programme and service is standard. She says GC appear to be looking for a more direct relationship, referrals?
AB: I see that yes

IO: ZA is setting out scope and limits of programme. In Aug 2019 SL not clear on that.
AB: I see that.

IO: ZA describes Champs fee as being as a consultancy fee for making member orgs more inclusive
AB: No, makes it more exclusive of me. That is the point here

IO: These are GC policies, not SW -
AB: The D-Champs programme is exclusive of me.
IO: Nothing we have seen here is expressed in those terms.
AB: It has been, by SW and its CEO
IO: We are dealing with the evidence in THIS case. Not case vs CEO.

IO: Focus of my Qs is THIS case
AB: I understand

IO: 27th August - email, Ms Hakl-Lau seeking input from SW re policies, ZA responds, we have looked at the documents earlier, from September 2019

IO: Finally on 27/9 we see ZA writing to SL chasing for a reply to her email from August, asking do GC still want to meet, and will they be renewing Champs membership. SL replies that renewal under discussion & he will let her know
AB: I see all that

IO: Correspondence, meetings GC/SW re diversity champions programme. I appreciate what you say about how you *felt* about it but can you see the relationship was not extensive?
AB: Can't agree. I don't think these emails are all the interactions once GC were champs

IO: Are you making a distinction between the programme and its contacts GC/SW and more general interactions?
AB: No, between formal relationship with SW which I viewed as discriminatory vs LGB people and T people that disagree with SW -

AB: - and that SW is using championship programme to embed its gender identity ideology across government etc. Was my concern then and my concern now. Not the law as it IS.

IO: Clarify - the emails I have shown you, the meetings that happens, that was the extent of the contact between GC and SW about the champs programme. Was not frequent contact or extensive.

AB: We can't know that. No log or record of phone calls. We don't know if SW disclosure has been complete. I cannot possibly say that is the totality of comms

IO: The contact we have seen - it is not un-critical.
AB: I agree. But not critical of what it should have been critical of - of going outside the law. We are lawyers; should have been criticising that.

IO: This is a convenient moment for me to break?
EJ: Of course -

IO: draw attention to a user name in court "terfclub"
EJ: Does AB find threatening?
AB: No
IO: other people may.
EJ: Yes I understand TERF can be offensive. User please remove from name. We will resume at 11.12

[SHORT BREAK]

We resume.
EJ: Please note re user names. "GC" means Garden Court, not "Gender Critical". And, court has no objections to pronouns and nor has AB.

IO: We look at the agreed list of issues.
IO: 15.2 - offer of discounted awareness training from SW to GC. I suggest that these were part of champs programme.
AB: Yes part of, but alientating to someone like me.

IO: Being offered something that you have paid for cannot be described as inducment.
AB: I don't know. Not familiar with that area of discrimination law.

IO: I am talking in terms of common sense.
AB: Then I disagree. I've said I found it alienating. There is a whole range of activties that may seem benign but can amount to inducements

IO: The training could have been on anything SW interested in.
AB: SW repeatedly describe women like me as hateful and bigoted -
IO: Nothing we have seen so far does.
AB: If you look at Kerrin Metcalf's statement -

IO: No my Q is specifically that nothing we have seen describes you as hateful
AB: The court has seen KM's statement.
IO: All right

IO: You are saying the offer of training is "inducement"
AB: Yes
IO: It is just an offer, there is no requirement to take up.
AB: Agree
IO: GC did not take up offer
AB: Don't know.

IO: Offer from SW to assist with networking. Benefit as part of champs programme?
AB: I would not describe any of this as benefit to GC but agree it is part.

IO: Offer of assitance networking is from SW is benefit of champs programme.
AB: Agree part.
IO: GC did not take u
AB: don't know

IO: Offer here re a specific event, GC did not answer.
IO: We see SL replying to invite to London Workplace Conference. Not brimming with enthusiasm. These offers made by SW to GC. Offers made to all champs. GC not being singled out

AB: I completely agree. This is what one signs up to.

IO: You talk of GC participating to help push SW agenda for the UK. But we have seen no instructions from SW to GC.
AB: You reminded me yesterday SW had lobbied for equal marriage in NI which I had forgotten. But other than that gay and lesbian people in UK have full equality.

AB: SW's push is for T issues esp self-ID - under cover of LGB rights.

IO: In light of what is said 15.4 issues - my Q was, how does the suggestion that there should be a formal relationship with SW to drive forward LGBT rights form an instruction from SW?
AB: It is communicating to GC that "driving forward" means driving forward self-ID

IO: Your case is that there was instruction. This is not.
AB: Not that paragraph no. But if you sign up and are told that best practice is a "driving forward" and that is of self-ID, that is in ballpark/direction of instruciton

IO: A suggestion is not an instruction
AB: Entirely agree.

IO: How do you say the actions we have looked of Mr Keraj and ZA amount to inducement of the whole of GC?

AB: You ask me who was induced. Once we had signed up it would be *all* of chambers induced to follow the lobbying objectives of SW. And the focus is policy positions on T, self-ID, gender identity. Way beyond the law.

IO: And what is the inducement?
AB: SW very powerful. Can confer, and remove, protection. Repuational protection or repuational harm via Champs scheme. It is like (I am a criminal barrister) a criminal protection racket.

IO: Have you finished?
AB: I have

IO: Suggestions not taken up?
AB: Don't know.

IO: Some repetition, forgive me, SW looking for strategic litigation partner re self-ID law upcoming ... that's not an instruction of GC by SW is it.
AB: Gender Recogniation Act already law. Can only mean changing the law, to self-ID

IO: My Q is are you suggesting that telling SL that SW is looking for partner for strategic litigation, that is not an instruction.
AB: It is, it is carrot and stick. Offering repuational harm or protection.

IO: We think you have already said *not* an instruction.
AH: I agree.
IO: So, SL being told that SW was looking for partner -
AB: Can we just go back to 15.4 -

IO: Am confused. If more re 15.4 Mr Cooper can pick up.
AB: Would prefer to clarify.
IO: Would prefer to move on.

IO: Telling SL that SW was looking for a partner in strategic litigation. Not an instruction by SW to GC. I am taking this in stages.
AB: Asking re strategic litigation - not instruction per se - but must caveat that to go against SW once champ has many implications -

AB: - re workplace index, re the champs scheme. Only reading of that sentence is that litigation is re self-ID. If GC had said no, we don't want to help with that - there is threat of corresponding reputational harm that SW hold over all champs.

AB: that is why I hesitate to say whether instruction or inducement -
IO: I am ONLY asking about "instruction here"
AB: Then I've answered

IO: GC never did apply to be on workplace index?
AB: So I understand

IO: But you say, "inducement" by SW of GC.
AB: If it means, encouraging to do - then yes. What if GC had said no, to SW's number one priority? Fallout could be very serious for GC.

IO: There was no strategic litigation partnership.
AB: No formal partnership docs disclosed. However there was work re gender neutral school uniforms, on the census - all pro bono I should add. There were a number of requests from SW for free advice to forward self id objective

IO: specifically LITIGATION. No such partnership occurred.
AB: I don't know.

IO: Re actions of Mr Knan [SK]
IO: employee of LBGT Consortium. Chaired Trans Organisational Network.
IO: 23/10 round-table you mention, was the T-O-N.
AB: Yes

IO: held at GC chambers, but hosted by SK

AB: You have not mentioned that SK also member of SW's Trans Advisory Group. [STAG]

IO: I am at present asking re this specific point in issues. What you say about SK's conduct at the 23/10 meeting. You suggest SK encouraged attendees to write to your heads of chambers to complain about you.
AB: Yes

IO: You were not present
AB: No, didn't even know about it till disclosure.

IO: SK will say, he encouraged attendees to write msgs of support to GCC.

AB: Used prhases like "Terfy barrister", "don't let her get away with this".

IO: Not the specific Q I am asking. SK encouraged msgs of support to chambers

AB: Disagree. SK was invited to my place of work - not charged.
IO: SK was offered the facilities by GC, correct that no payment.
AB: Yes
IO: T-O-N has no premises. Relies on goodwill of network

AB: GC barristers pay 21% of income to support chambers, including meetings held. SK used that fund to come to my workplace and incite complaints against me.

IO: SK says msgs of support to GCC.

IO: How can that be SK inciting discrimination against you.

AB: SK member of STAG; SW and STAG are one and the same.
IO: Not so but we will come to that.

IO: How is SK talking to attendees at a meeting, equals SW inciting discriminating against you.
AB: Already explained. SK is part of SW.

IO: SK was interacting with attendees at the meeting. How is that an instruction, by SW, in relation to GC?
IO: You have accepted that he told the T-O-N meeting. Not the same as SW.
IO: It is a network. It is not SW. It is not GC.
IO: How is that an instructon by SW to GC

AB: He was there as a member of SW STAG.

IO: He was there because he is co-ordinator of the network and is there to chair meeting, in capacity as LGBT Consortium.

AB: He is a member of SW STAG, had access to the SW "Wall" - comms network. He may not have been there formally with STAG hat on; but he is a member, he is on the comms, he was soliciting complaints against me and demonstrated out and out hostility to me. I have never met him.

IO: Re 23/10 meeting. We have established members of consortium attended, we may disagree in what capacity. At that meeting at chambers, can we agree no member of GC present at the meeting.
AB: Michelle Brewer was due to attend but could not; I know MB was in contact by phone tho

IO: No member of GC present.
AB: I was not present, can't say.
IO: SK says not
AB: You will forgive me if I take what SK says with pinch of salt.

IO: Good time to take a 5 minutes break

EJ: User names - there is one that has "GC" but appears not to be a chambers member. Please take out political references. And I reiterate that users can put their pronouns if they wish; AB has said she does not object.

[BREAK]

[We resume].

IO: Miss Bailey. No member of Garden Court present. So no instruction can have been given to GC, by SW?

[AB appears muted]

[sorted]

IO: No question of SW instruction, if nobody present.

AB: Disagree. Instruction to write letters, to heads of Chambers. I don't think SK was the only STAG member present tho not certain. Don't accept your proposition

IO: Now come to the "Stonewall wall".
AB: Can I read the point? For benefit of observers? Since probs with online bundle?
EJ: this is the short freely downloadable bundle - perhaps IO could summarise instead?

IO: I am asking you how SK posting on "the wall" can amount to an instruction to anyone at GC?

AB: [Reads] SK says he had talked to Michelle Brewer about the letter-writing to heads of chambers. Mentions a forthcoming meeting. He has contact at GC to know this -

IO: my Q was, how does someone writing on SW "wall" equal instruction. How would anyone from GC see wall?

AB: MB was at GC and may have had access to the wall. In any case wall users members of SW

AB: I don't accept that access to wall necessary to equal instructions.

IO: I clarify. You allege SK post on wall is the "instruction" from SW to GC. This can ONLY be true if GC aware.

AB: Disagree. The "instruction" is the letters to heads of Chambers elicited. SW is telling its staff/associates to complain about me.

IO: You say all complaints instructions from SW -
AB: No I have not said "all". I have said, those incited by SK via mtg/wall.

IO: Confirm you have said not relevant whether GC saw?
AB: Yes though I believe MB did
IO: We disagree on that; but we agree that it doesn't matter if GC saw?
AB: Agree but please note my caveat.

IO: Your witness statement, para280 -
[discussion if para numbers have changed -they have not]

AB: email from Robbie de Santos to MB.

[confusion between witness statement and doc - think everyone up to speed now]

IO: Email RdS to MB gives link to "join the group on the wall". Further down - this is re a meeting with EHRC

IO: And here more about scheduling EHRC meeting, asking availability. Various recipients can't reply - then we see MB saying she also can't access the poll for availability.
IO: And then we have the email referred to - inviting to group on wall to discuss EHRC availability

IO: This is MB being invited to A group to discuss A meeting. That's all.
AB: I don't know structure of "the wall" -
IO: We will come to that. But for now, on the face of it, this is about organising one particular meeting.
AB: MB was given access, as I have said.

IO: No, correspondence shows access to a group, re a meeting.
AB: Agree

IO: So - post by SK - he posted on the STAG wall (he will say) - it is hosted on SW wall - intranet system.
IO: SW grounds of resistance para15. Have you ever had access to any part of first respondent's intranet?
AB: To SW's intranet?
IO: Yes.
AB: not that I'm aware of

IO: SK will say that he had access to STAG wall but not to any other part of Stonewall "wall". Will say there is a distinction between STAG wall and rest of SW intranet. You are not familiar with SW intranet?
AB: I'm not

IO: SK will say his login and password gave only limited access, only to STAG wall. And that only STAG members had access to STAG wall.
AB: MB did
IO: No, that's the point, not to STAG wall

AB: I think this lacks credibility, about groups and security.
IO: I have probably not explained. SW intranet is called "The Wall". Bespoke software by 3rd party company

IO: Within "the wall" there are subsections, the STAG wall is one of these, only STAG members have access, controlled by login and password. So, i put to you, MB had no login and pwd to STAG wall, she was not member

IO: SW says, access to STAG wall is by login and password and MB did not have one.
AB: I accept that. BUT MB and SK had regular contact - no login does not mean doesn't know what was ON the STAG wall.

IO: I am limited to actual access - Qs of other access methods can be put to you on re-exam.
AB: I am simply noting the possibity

IO: I asked, MB not member of STAG?
AB: Sure. I don't think MB would qualify for membership even?

IO: Para 400 of your statement. We have discussed STAG, Stonewall Trans Advisory Group. You say, created by SW, and you refer to this doc - rely on to show STAG structure
AB: Yes - how SW and STAG interact - SW focussing some of its T staff/supporters

AB: came fairly late in disclosure IIRC

IO: "Draft memorandum of understanding". Says STAG and SW, a memorandum of understanding". Between two parties.

IO: We see descriptions of composition and governance of STAG?
AB: COrrect
IO: This doc is clearly a draft. I can tell you was not finalised or adopted. Do you accept that?
AB: If you tell me so of course. But if not this, what policy has been adopted instead?

IO: I don't answer the questions ...[AB and IO both laugh] I take your Q as rhetorical

IO: SK role re SW - not employee -
AB: Have talked of agency not employment
IO: OK

IO: Am I right that you pin your colours to "instruction"?
AB: No, inducement also.
IO: Back to "protection racket" -
AB: No analogy is perfect.
IO: But that is territory where we are?
AB: Territory when looking at entirety of champs scheme

IO: SK is nothing to do with diversity champions thing - how do you relate anything he does to it?
AB: SK is at the least an agent of SW - that is how it relates
IO: Are you saying that *everything* SK does is for SW and re champs?

AB: In this events yes - borne out by KM head of T inclusion at SW then threatening GC with damage in context of champs programme.

IO: But KM not in programme
AB: I don't think SW is that much delimited
IO: KM will say it is, that he is nothing to do with diversity champs programme

AB: I don't say that KM does. But I don't think you can split off the champs programme from SW as a whole

IO: What brings your claim within tribunal scope is contract between SW and GC re champs, there is no other contractual relation
AB: I agree

IO: Re Mr Drummond -
AB: Is it Miss Drummond?
IO: Ms Drummond perhaps

IO: AD writes "done" on wall, in response to SK. How is this instruction to GC, from Stonewall?
AB: I believe AD also member of STAG

IO: No member of GC is member of STAG. How is this SW instructing GC?

AB: AD says he has issued the complaint - knows weight that will be attached to complaint from SW

IO: AD is not employee or representative of Stonewall.
IO: How is AD communication with GC an instruction

AB: The complaints were designed to remove me from a profession I have gained. A heterosexual man (identifying as a woman and a lesbian) saying for me to be removed from Chambers. I cannot think of any clearer instructions

IO: How is KM posting on the STAG wall an instruction to GC. He also said "Done". How is that an instruction to anybody?
AB: All these are instructions to GC to remove me, because complaints solicited

IO: Does not matter what post says? It says "done". how is that an instruction
AB: it is WHAT has been done is the instruction - the complaint re me has been made.

IO: SK in October, you complain of HIS behavious - what KM or AD post has nothing to do with it.

AB: I do not feel that complaints about me in these terms are "neither here nor there".

IO: These are NOT instructions to Garden Court.
AB: Creating and stirring up momentum to get as many people as possible to write to GC. The draft MoU said a SW employee would always have STAG membership -

IO: not quite accurate but not what I meant. This is not SW instructing GC. Nobody we've mentioned is anything to do with GC.
AB: ??

IO: there is no communication GC-SW re the champs programme. You have not shown anything to the tribunal to say there was, beyond what we have already seen. You have said there could have been others but you have no evidence.

AB: Inferences can be drawn, about all 3 (GC/SW/STAG) and the relations. SW wants to draw neat boxes, that is now how it works.

AB: GC would have experienced the complaints as instructions

IO: You accept GC had no access
AB: Not relevant

IO: suitable time for break.

EJ: Indeed. [Two more user names objected to] Will start simply ejecting people if these are not changed.

[LUNCH]

@threadreaderapp please unroll