Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to the case of Allison Bailey (AB) v Stonewall (SW) & Garden Court Chambers (GCC).
It's Monday 23rd May. The session is due to start at 9.30am

Abbrevs
EJ = Employment Judge Goodman

Panel = any one of the three panel members

AB: Allison Bailey, claimant

BC: Ben Cooper QC, barrister for AB

SW = Stonewall Equality Limited (respondent 1)

IO = Ijeoma Omambala QC, barrister for SW

RW = Robin White assisting IO

GC = Garden Court Chambers Limited (respondent 2)

RM = Rajiv Menon QC & SH = Stephanie Harrison QC (jointly respondent 3 with all GCC)

AH = Andrew Hochhauser QC, barrister for GC (respondents 2 & 3)

JR = Jane Russell assisting AH

For a full list of abbreviations and for full coverage so far, visit and subscribe to our substack here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

You can read an explanation of Allison's claim here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/understandin…

[Court resumes]

EJ: re Sex Matters' request to provide more information via Tribunal Tweets during proceedings. Only just received email so haven't had time to read it yet

Marc Willers (MW) QC will be next witness - Joint head of Chambers until Jan 2020

[Marc Willers affirms]
[AH provides references that are missing from documents]

BC: you have been active twitter user since 2011 and you follow GC account?
MW: that's right
BC: look at main bundle at p5920. This is screenshot from 2019 retweeting Louise Hooper tweet. You mention GC in your bio - this was normal?
MW: yes

BC: GC people could tweet about controversial topics
MW: yes
BC: in the Louise Hooper tweet did you understand that the dispute about trans rights was driven by far-right?
MW: I understand that that was what she was saying

BC: other who take a diff view might not consider themselves as fat right and might be insulted.
MW: true
BC: chambers didn't require members to get approval of tweets
MW: no - only if a complaint is made
BC: members engage in campaigning too, don't they
MW: yes

BC: Liz Davies email says that chambers doesn't give advance approval
MW: it's helpful to have info in advance. There was a twitter storm
BC: no expectation for members to seek approval of tweets
MW: that's right

BC: p2378 an email to Henry Blacksend (?) from member of chambers (redacted) - says I agree but I wonder why we put up a statement at all. You would say that there is something diff about this case.
MW: we don't respond to political tweets from chambers

BC: you don't normally respond by tweet to criticisms
MW: no - but we don't normally have members' tweets drawn to our attention on Twitter
BC: email from MB to you and others. This concerned the formation of the TRWG (Trans Rights Working Group)

Email sets out background and proposes setting up working group in chambers
MW: yes
BC: you say in your wit state that you have no recollection of this
MW: yes
BC: you were one of HoC when this was sent
MW: yes

BC: you would have been informed about groups like this?
MW: I'm not sure I would. There are 200 email groups in chambers interested in diff topics. Don't think I have knowledge of many of these groups. The email was sent to me not sure how much attention I gave it

BC: MB talks about trans issues and says group will require investment in time. MB is proposing a working group to develop business engagement
MW: we had specific funding for teams so they could do biz development. She would need to go to teams and ask them to contribute funds.

BC: that's how groups like this to get funding
MW: or go to management - don't recall that this happened. Working groups don't need to report internally and assume that this happened here.
[missed]
MW: I don't agree that this group had a bigger status than others

BC: you weren't aware of details of this group but I want to know more generally. You ref'd sub-groups but there's no diff between them and working groups
MW: most sub-groups have a particular page on website eg gypsy and traveller's. Don't know which team trans rights group was

associated with so don't know how they achieved funding
BC: lets take Gypsy and Travellers group - this would ally with one of the teams and might gain funding and would be doing work on behalf of that group
MW: not sure about on behalf of. One might think that events were held

with agreement on chambers
BC: fair to say default position does have implicit permission to go ahead with events
MW: we trust marketing team - with implicit consent of chambers
BC: marketing team has control of GC twitter account?
MW: I believe so

BC: looking at activity of corporate law account did you know that there was a trans justice conf held at chambers in 2016(?)
MW: I didn't
BC: you will have seen the tweet because you follow them?
MW: not necessarily - I get 1000s of tweets
BC: tweet says #transjustice.

some headings read: post Savile, feminist activism. This is a tweet of an image that shows that feminist activism has had an effect on deviant behaviour?
MW: I don't know what was discussed. I wasn't there and have no idea how discussion developed. It was def being discussed in

chambers from this
BC: another tweet with same hashtag - pic makes argument that for TP gender should never [missed] consent. Do you agree these are controversial?
MW: I'm sure they are but not sure why . Whole topic seems to be controvesial and toxic. Didn't know then, know now

BC: marketing knew about this
MW: I assume so - no doubt they would have sent copy to speakers
BC: p5907 GC sponsored Trans legal launch?
MW: I have no recollection of that
BC: MB tweet - govt needs to implement self-id. Do you recall GC tweeting that sort of message

MW: I don't think I would have known what the tweet was talking about at the time
BC: Tweet says - meet journalists and get views across. a person quoted is not connected to GC?
MW: I don't know who that is. Message sounds reasonable if you change word trans with travellers

AH: witness didn't attend event so don't know why he's being questioned
EJ: I need to hear question
AH: he hadn't read tweet, didn't attend event
EJ: no sure how useful questions are
BC: tweet from Oct 2018 - re current feminist debate on GRA etc. The people mentioned aren't

connected to chambers?
MW: I don't know who those people are
BC: not normal for GC to tweet articles by people not connected to chambers about political issues
MW: Not necessarily - I tweet about issues connected to travellers etc even though it's not directly connected to

chambers. To help message get out about issues to do with my work
BC: p5910 a tweet from Alex Sharpe directed to GC Law - asking people to share article of hers mentioning TERFS. You know that Terf is considered a slur by feminists?
MW: I do
BC: GC Law tweets out that article

and Dr Hannah Quirke replies saying Terf label doesn't help the argument.
MW: not sure if GC Law is tweeting or quote-tweeting. Hannah Quirk IS replying to Alex Sharpe's tweet. Not sure GC chambers is quoting so one can see it AS's tweet when she refers to Terfs.

BC: seen some tweets from GC Law account - you must have known that position of GC was on trans-rights
AH: he said he didn't follow account
EJ: we don't know how many tweets he might have seen
BC: tweets from that account will pop up when you sign in - might not see all of them

You must have noticed that GC Law account was consistently on one side of the debate
MW: I didn't at time. I see that now but didn't appreciated that GC tweets were all on one side and I didn't understand the topic.
BC: all chambers are groups of practitioners but all develop

their own cultures?
MW: not necessarily
BC: GC has developed a culture
MW: yes - reflected in motto: do right, fear no-one. Our chambers is known for representing most vulnerable
BC: chambers adopts one side in each campaign - in Romany cases, you only take one side?

MW: yes
BC: MB was a senior and successful member of team and v active on trans rights
MW: don't know how successful she was on immigration team - obvs involved heavily in trans rights
BC: most people work in shared rooms
MW: not quite right. I shared with JK and LT - hotdesking

others in own rooms. Lots worked from home
BC: for those in chambers - collegiate atmosphere
MW: yes - I preferred to keep door closed though.
BC: difficult to get on with work bc people popping in and out of rooms
MW: I tried to get on with work so didn't get involved much

BC: people went out for lunches together
MW: I suppose so - not me
BC: clerks in big open room?
MW: yes - used to be in diff rooms but now in one room
BC: Mr Cook was in own room at time we are looking at - others open plan
MW: I think so
BC: people would pop in to clerks office?

MW: yes - I tended to go straight to relevant clerk - not chat much unless about my football team
EJ: is this convenient time to break?
BC: yes madam
[break for 5 mins]

[session resumes]
BC: you tell us in wit state that you didn't register emails re ABs tweets until 24 Oct?
MW: that's right
BC: you spoke to DM?
MW: yes
BC: you read all emails before you sent your email
MW: yes.

I caught up
BC: p2044 main bundle. Email suggests he hasn't shown you the tweet
MW: I hadn't seen it at this stage
BC: or any other complaint
MW: can't say for certain - depends if they were attached to DMs emails

BC: did DM explain the kind of thing that was being said in tweets directed at chambers when you met with him
MW: I can't remember exactly - just twitter storm about ABs tweets.
BC: you will have seen Mr Wainright's email
MW: yes - when I caught up I saw it
BC: p599

says: Appears from twitter that AB is part of anti-trans group. Did you form impression that it was anti-trans
MW: I understood the criticism against us but didn't know what their raison d'etre was. The ref to LGBA included refs to gender extremism meeting it's match

BC: email from DM tells you that LGBA defines themselves as group fighting for same-sex attracted people.
MW: he did. LGBA aims I don't know
BC: did you think that their bio differed from their philosophy?
MW: no - I just knew from DM talking about it causing twitter storm

BC: he told you about AB tweet about launch of LGBA. Did you click on tweet
MW: yes
BC: he describes reaction inc ones targeted to GC. Did you see these
MW: I think so - was perturbed by criticism of GC
BC: he says tweets mention GC point out contradiction between our values and

AB views
MW: that's what he says, yes
BC: he describes unusual sit and mentions MBs views. Say he can see how it is problematic bc we promote trans rights. He thought ABs views contadicted GC values and ethos?
MW: yes

BC: he says some don't seem reputable. Was one possibility that AB was being maligned?
MW: I didn't - I didn't realise what a pile-on was, either from witnessing it or experiencing it. He said we should add anything else on Twitter.
AH: being put that DM was saying contradiction

- it wasn't, it was the tweets
EJ: we can read and surmise that
BC: p6355 did you see the tweets attached to email later on that day
MW: yes. These came w email from DM telling us we were taking a hammering
BC: these are probably similar to emails attached to previous email

MW: likely
BC: tweets say goes against Equality Act etc. Clear that the criticism against GC is not at GC but at GC for one of your barristers doing acts that encourage discrimination
MW: yes
BC: 2 more tweets - not coherent. Barrister supposed to know how EA works - Terf -

transphobia. You knew Terf was a slur
MW: not at the time. Email sent to LT - may have been copied in.
BC: 2019 you didn't realise it was a slur
MW: I got email on dec 2018 - sat before Xmas. Didn't pay attention. I understand now it's a slur
BC: an allegation of transphobia is

allegation of discrimination
MW: yes and needs investigating
BC: tweet says this is transphobia re AB. Clear it was directed at AB
MW: tweet says she was working for GC - which is wrong - she was member of chambers
BC: all make same point. They are directed at GC but accuse AB

MW: accusing her of transphobia. One says 'your recruitment process is broken' - aimed at us. Tweet from Dolly Dagger - your motto is wrong - doesn't apply to AB
BC: did you click on profiles?
MW: no. One from Kai replies to AB - mentions GC being No1 chambers re human rights

Another one (which I asked Mia about) which screenshots complaint and says 'this reflects badly on your chambers'.
BC: all of these are saying AB is transphobic and shouldn't be member of GC and you shouldn't be associated with her
MW: goes further I think. One asks how they can

trust anyone at GC.
BC: the basis of beration is AB being transphobic
AH: witness interrupted - please let him finish
MW: didn't have anything else to add
BC: go to supp bundle.
MW: I see tweet by someone who I wouldn't recommend GC to look at .
[EJ downloads supp bundle]

EJ: can't see that page
BC: Mr Dale will forward on
EJ: so this is not the one sent on Friday?
BC: the one I got on Friday is this one
EJ: got it

BC: this is the twitter profile of Kai who screenshotted complaint. This would fall into DM category of not reputable
MW: not a profile or bio I would recommend people using
BC: you have no basis to think this person is a potential customer of chambers
MW: no - she seems to be

based on island in Sweden
AH: don't understand relevance
BC: I'll spell that out. Reputational questions were reason for response tweets so good idea to look at reputational risks. Don't think this is improper.
EJ: concerned about time. MW is intelligent witness - let's carry on

BC: we've been through selection of tweets you saw
MW: yes
BC: you took position that these took reputational risk to chambers but you don't know that any of these people were potential clients of chambers
MW: not suggesting that - concerned about spreading negative info about

chambers on twitter. DM said it was a hammering
BC: the form that the hammering took was to accuse AB.
MW: i took it as criticism of chambers. May be based on criticism of AB but moved on to us
BC: before deciding what to do was to see if there was any merit in accusations

MW: complaints come in and are allocated to a HoC - sometimes sent to investigator. I asked the subject of complaint to respond.
BC: one of the things you needed to do was to work out if there was any merit in the accusations of transphobia - didn't you think this was necessary?

MW: to access the merit, we had to investigate them. Caught between devil and deep blue sea bc of Twitter storm. DMs advice was to lie low then he advised to take positive action to stem controversy.
BC: before you addressed reputational issue - did you not need to consider

reputability of the tweets you were addressing?
MW: DM did say some were not reputable and my understanding was to tweet respond to 7 accounts. So we responded to them not directly to twitter
BC: main bundle please. DM provides link to highly critical comments re AB tweets - did

you click on the link?
MW: I don't think so - I might have
BC: by clicking on it you would have seen replies below
MW: not convinced I would have. When I click on tweet - I see tweet and see below retweets. Doesn't give me opportunity to see replies. There were 779 comments but

don't how how you would see them
BC: you didn't see any of the abuse to AB?
MW: no I didn't at the time. Have seen since
BC: p3582 you can see regularity of the abuse - popping up regularly throughout 23rd and 24th. If you click on tweet - you always get replies.

MW: my experience of twitter hasn't led me to the replies. I didn't see the replies. But there are a lot of abusive replies - not many replies to responsive tweet.
BC: these are just abusive tweets not supportive ones
It's not credible that none of you looked at responses

MW: I don't know how many are here - this would have taken a long time to read through all replies. Didn't look at the replies
BC: p611 LGBA - on the face of it the accusations were unjustified - was a transphobic position but said that LGB should be able to define themselves as

same-sex attracted not gender
MW: don't agree - AB tweet said 'gender extremism is about to meet its match' - needed to be investigated.
BC: convenient time for break?
EJ: resume in 5 mins

[session resumes]
BC: go back to your email. You suggest DM should compile twitter response. you hadn't seen any complaints at this point.
MW: I ask if Mia has received anything.
BC: all you would have seen was kind of response tweets that we looked a
MW: I think so - need to

see when I did email
BC: you caught up with emails before
MW: yes but hadn't seen screenshots of complaints
BC: what you were proposing was to say you were investigating
MW: yes
BC: objective was to say to people calling AB transphobic - we are taking it seriously and will look

into it
MW: to calm twitter storm. It had gone into Pink News and maybe Independent
BC: your policy says (p4390) there is a threshhold question as to whether investigation is required
MW: describes whether chambers needs to appoint an investigator. HoC needs to determine what

has gone wrong.
BC: this was the approach taken in 2020 re other complaints against (p6355). Deals with 2 website enquiries - MHL advises not to treat as valid complaints and this happened
MW: wasn't involved in this but would need to know what was said. Complaint references AB

being transphobic and promoting hate speech. Re that MS - recommended complaint to be dismissed.
BC: MHL said didn't need to treat as complaint - just a statement. But this was the same as the subsequent complaints
AH: he's already answered this
EJ: slightly different
BC: the

advice MHL gives is dismiss it because it was just a statement but this was the same as the other complaints
MW: don't agree
BC: re confidentiality covers the barrister who is the subject of complaint
MW: it doesn't say that

BC: intended to be comprehensive confidentiality provision.
MW: if you identified complainant then yes.
BC: not complainant - if there has been a complaint about person X. All docs and convos are confidential
MW: I can see that
BC: you seem to quibble.
MW: I don't see how

response Tweet breaches confidentiality clause
BC: it's not a breach to tweet about you if a complaint has been received about you?
MW: I don't agree
BC: you understood the tweets to be complaints?
MW: the tweets included complaints. Other twitter concerns not sure if they fall

into that category
BC: you didn't treat the tweets as complaints
MW: no - the tweet was the vehicle by which it was disseminated.
BC: it would be a breach of confidentiality to identify that complaint had been received and was being investigated
MW: the complainants yes

BC: it isn't JUST about the complainants - it's everything about the complaint including the subject of the complaint
MW: it clearly covers the subject of the complaint - I always assumed it was the complainant
BC: it can be seen by anyone on Twitter assuming they are not blocked

MW: yes. people can access replies
BC: p843 email from MS on Jan 2020 discussing publication of findings. Says investigating someone is a departure from practice. Tweeting out that someone is being investigated is a breach
MW: it was a departure from practice because of twitter

storm
BC: MHL says in email you had 3 complaints - did you read them at that stage
MW: I don't remember. Can I see my wit state? I refer to email then follow-up from DM (David De Menenzes)
BC: p2056 did you agree with JK to disassociate yourselves from ABs comments?

MW: Don't remember agreeing. Not my rationale for suggesting response tweet or for agreeing for response tweet going out as it did. Hence limited to 7 accounts. If we wanted to disassociate ourselves we would have sent general tweet saying this
BC: see attached tweets already.

Did you read the reference to complaints sent clerks?
MW: Not sure if they were the same ones sent to MHL
BC: she said they were. P6369
MW: the complaints?
BC: yes. Look p6370 the second complaint was anonymous - shouldn't have been taken seriously at all
MW: that's right - you

need name of person complaining
BC: you didn't think of this at the time
MW: not fair. In other places name was supplied. We decided to appoint investigator who would bin those where person wasn't determined
BC: ABs support of LGBA was transphobic - that the essence of all of

the complaints
MW: yes. Mentions GC too
BC: it ought to have been obvious that these complaints were unfounded
MW: I don't agree. DM set out words tagged out to LGBA - gives us nothing like full picture
BC: DM says GC was taking a hammering on Twitter. AB is criticising SW on

twitter
MW: that wasn't important factor for me - the hammering was
BC: p469 wit state - you agreed with DM advice re response tweet
MW: yes
BC: you knew that when you sent email to AB
MW: I must have done

BC: p6084 you tell AB about complaints and neg comments - concerned about reputational damage. You don't mention response tweet
MW: that's right - doesn't mention that. Wording was result of discussion - not sure if this was after DM discussion re response tweet

BC: should have told AB?
MW: In principal, you're right. Didn't need to seek consent and we did tell her that that was what we had done (or were planning to do). I could have put it in that email - but not sure where we were at that stage.
BC: JK tried to contact AB

This was ideal moment to tell her about response tweet
MW: my correspondence w AB?
BC: one attempt to contact her and then you emailed her but didn't mention it
MW: I was relaying agreed wording between the 3 of us. I didn't include ref to response tweet.
BC: you didn't consider

AB and you were predispossed to consider her transphobic.
MW: don't agree - concerned about twitter storm
BC: p2073 DM sent you proposed wording and you approved it via JK
MW: yes - mentions that it had been in Gay Times and Independent.
BC: in his email DM - says safe to assume

that this will end up in the press so you knew you weren't just sending to 7 twitter users
MW: our response might have found way to press, yes. It was already in the press and our tweets might go in the same way
BC: DM says he should send this to the selected twitter users but

says he could tweet to all followers as 'nuclear option'
MW: I understood it was to go to those twitter users
BC: how did you reach understanding that it was a small number
MW: must have been said or was an inference I made from emails
BC: you knew it would be a response to

tweets like the ones we looked at
MW: yes
BC: if you send response - looks like you are confirming the concerns in the tweets
MW: yes
BC: that AB was transphobic
MW: yes and criticism of chambers
BC: you don't say GC is not transphobic
MW: I think we do

BC: reading your tweet - looks like you think AB is transphobic
MW: her views were in a personal capacity: true. We haven't got a position on these issues: true
BC: implication was ABs views are potentially transphobic
MW: don't agree - we were investigating and had to go through

process.
BC: second tweet - in context says AB isn't fiercely committed in the way GC was
MW: don't agree
BC: chambers was distancing itself from AB and her views
MW: I don't. I suppose some could perceive it like that. That wasn't the way we intended it to be read. Not how a

reasonable twitter user would interpret it
BC: Not just twitter users. An email sent says don't agree with AB going to press but I don't agree with chambers response tweeting like this and I have heard from others that say the same. Ill treatment of a black woman. Reasonable to

read that tweet as ill-treatment of the claimant
AH: queries this email - is it referring to response tweets or website
BC: website doesn't mention investigation so must be tweets
[Harriet Wistrich - writer of email above]
MW: must be referring to tweets yes. Doesn't mentioning

distancing
EJ: half an hour left for this morning.
BC: After you sent response tweets DM suggests telling AB about wording
MW: that's right - not sure if anyone else had raised issue. He's asking me to send tweet wording to AB
BC: none of HoC had thought of doing that
MW: I can't

see any reference to it, no
BC: decision to send tweet was bc we wanted to limit twitter storm and to reply to those who had requested a response. Not true that you needed to reply to tweets - you chose to do this
MW: I think we did have to respond

BC: but you didn't have to
MW: I disagree
BC: you needed to send a tweet response rather than use the details that she provided.
MW: she was one of people on twitter we send response tweet to but we could have sent her email
BC: real reason you sent response tweets out was to

limit damage to reputation - calming or appeasing people on twitter who were calling AB a transphobe
MW: I felt we needed to respond to them bc when complaints are made, we need to consider them properly. Those complaints could have led to reporting AB to BSB. You said 'appease'

- I don't think we were appeasing them. We wanted to limit damage to chambers
BC: you wanted to reaffirm chambers alignment with trans rights
MW: I didn't understand nature of debate so wasn't trying to align chambers with any views

BC: you approved JKs statement that you would not withdraw from SW and SL agreed with this
MW: I didn't pay it any attention
BC: p559 SLs email announces engagement with SW. Mentions being a strategic partner re litigation with them. You approved proposition of chambers alignment

with SW
MW: I hadn't had any involvement with SW - I wouldn't have thought anything untoward about it
BC: JKs response to Mr Neill's email raising concerns about ABs email was transphobic, offensive and hurtful. JK says MB had sent a response. You didn't dissent from JK response

MW: I didn't dissent - not sure I saw it
BC: you were endorsing MBs email then
MW: can't remember reading or endorsing it. I haven't engaged in this debate or expressed view one way or another
BC: the reality is that it was clear that AB had been slapped down by MB

MW: don't agree with term 'slapped down'
BC: you made clear when you discussed issue with others that AB didn't deserve to have effort made re clerking
MW: no evidence for this - didn't happen
BC: how carefully did you read Miss Sikand's report
MW: I read it and AB response and

considered it carefully
BC: email from SH saying we're not in same position as Miss McGahey (CM) - that was clear to you?
MW: I assume that it was sent to me. Yes, I understood that position
BC: p767 ABs response to complaints - term cotton ceiling [definition given] mentioned.

This is coercive sexual behaviour. You were aware that this hadn't been given to CM
MW: yes
BC: did you click on links given
MW: no
BC: did you think her view on this was sustainable
MW: no evidential basis in her response to justify tweet
BC: how did you come to this if you

didn't consider the information provided you with
MW: I assumed SK had gone to the links provided
BC: AB describes what is coercive sexual behaviour
MW: coercion has a certain meaning - means putting pressure on someone by force or threat of force
BC: doesn't have to with force

MW: most people would think 'with force'
BC: applying social pressure by calling someone transphobic to persuade someone to sleep with transwomen - that's coercive?
MW: I don't agree.
BC: what does cotton ceiling mean? AB concludes it means called lesbians transphobic if they

don't sleep with men
MW: it doesn't refer to calling individual who doesn't have sex with someone who has a penis transphobic.
BC: overcoming the cotton ceiling is calling lesbians transphobic if they don't agree to overcoming the cotton ceiling
MW: she says it's homophobic

BC: she is explaining the tweet
AH: please show the witness the tweet
BC: she is explaining here what she means by descibing overcoming the cotton ceiling as a version of coercion - did you know that the cotton refers to women's knickers?
MW: yes
BC: it was labelling lesbians as

transphobic for resisting overcoming the cotton ceiling
IO: AB doesn't actually say Overcoming Cotton Ceiling. Also is it time for a break
MW: did tweet itself break core duties - that's what we were concerned with. That's why we requested her to take down tweet
BC: AB explains

why she says it's legitimate to call it coercive behaviour
That was clear to you?
MW: yes. the fact she describes it as rape culture undermines the point by BC. This would more than likely mean she had breached core duties
BC: rape culture is when women's boundaries are put aside

- not about physical rape
MW: MS didn't agree and neither did I
BC: is it legitimate to call it coercive behaviour. You say it's akin to but is not coercive behaviour
AH: witness said he thought tweet was beyond the pale

BC: P3323 MSs report - sets out the cotton ceiling passage - in the actual analysis she doesn't consider ABs explanation at all
MW: she sets out the explanation earlier on. This is investigative report and one where the decision makers read in conjunction with ABs response

That's splitting hairs - taking snippets with considering context.
BC: you didn't consider AB, did you?
MW: yes I did
EJ: Taking a break now - back at 2.05

@threadreaderapp unroll please