Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon and welcome back to the tribunal of Allison Bailey v Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers.

Catch up with this morning here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1528645…

Due to start at 2.05pm

For all abbrevs and coverage, visit & subscribe to our substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/allison-bail…

Ben Cooper QC will continue questioning of Marc Willers QC. There are two more witnesses due to take the stand today: Liz Davies (LD) QC (senior member of Chambers, former Convenor of the Housing team & Joint Head of Chambers from Jan 2020, area of practice: Housing)

and Stephen Clark (SC) (Junior member of Chambers, area of practice: civil liberties and public law)

[Court resumes]

BC: look at p3191 in bundle please. Email from you re ABs tweets re coercion.
MW: yes
BC: you say you don't think that AB is saying SW is guilty of the conduct rather that it was pushing the agenda. She thanks the Times for bringing to attention SW's push for self-ID

MW: not saying that SW is guilty of coercion etc
BC: go to ABs response to your email. She explains that there were appalling levels of fear and coercion driving the debate. She refers to Terf is a Slur. She makes the case that fear, intimidation and coercion are part of the

drive for self-ID
MW: yes
BC: she links to Terf is a slur - did you click on link?
MW: no
BC: did you proceed on basis that she could establish that there are huge levels of fear etc in the drive for self-ID
MW: the word driving - don't think you can glean it from that

BC: back to my question. Did you proceed on basis that fear, intimidation and coercion were endemic to self-ID agenda. People supporting self-ID agenda frequently use fear, intimidation and coercion
MW: we don't have a proportion of who uses these appalling terms etc. Prepared to

accept not isolated.
BC: do you agree they are common?
MW: common? Not sure
BC: people use this to drive agenda
MW: those who use it could be said to drive it. Tweet intimated it was SW
BC: people who follow SW push for self-ID do this. What's diff between people doing this who

support SW and those who support self-ID?
MW: this tweet identified SW as being complicit and I didn't agree
BC: SW culpability was explained by AB. Rather than call out the abuse SW pours fuel on the flames. SW organised people to carry banners saying L with the T etc

You understood AB was showing SW inability to call out abuse and that some of the things they said would encourage the behaviour
MW: it doesn't say SW didn't call out abuse in the tweet. She doesn't say that
BC: but you had to determine that what she said had merit
MW: I didn't

agree that it did
BC: go to supp bundle. Doc AB cited in statement...did you read it?
MW: I don't remember reading it
BC: says SW is lumping together LGB with T. Mentions pride march when lesbians were protested at the front. Fanshawe says never seen lesbians with signs saying

death to transpeople but has seen signs with death to terfs. AB doesn't say SW did the fear etc or that it was driving it
MW: no she didn't.
BC: so when you say SW was in driving seat - that's not what she said. She said that the fear etc were driving the agenda that SW was

promoting
MW: I don't agree
BC: it's indicative of your position that AB is transphobic etc.
MW: no
BC: chambers had close relationship with SW so you took that into consideration
MW: no I didn't
BC: you treated her response dimissively
MW: I did not

BC: it was a serious finding to find a member of chambers was accused of a breach of conduct
MW: not serious. Concerned about her being reported by someone else
BC: you upheld complaints
MW: not upheld - agreed with recommendations of MS

BC: MS draft report - she upholds part of SW complaints.
MW: that's fair. MS focused on SW complaints - Annex B
BC: to have complaints upheld is a detriment to someone
MW: I wouldn't be happy about it particularly if I'd defended it. We acted on evidence before us

BC: Those are all my questions
IO: no questions
EJ: no questions or from panel
AH: going to TRWG - turn to p172 main bundle. The responsive tweets - did TRWG play any part in publishing the tweets?
MW: none whatsoever - It came from me. DM and MHL also involved

AH: 3 people are named Hooper, Wainright and Brewer mentioned - members of TRWG. [missed] TRWG members were members of chambers. These three people were acting in that capacity as agents of chambers re response tweets. Is TRWG an official group
MW: no. One of many groups - up to

200 groups. Not elevated in chambers
AH: in an email from Tom Wainright - in what capacity was he contacting you?
MW: as individual. I picked this up after speaking to DM
AH: was he acting on behalf of chambers?
MW: certainly not
AH: did you have communication with Louise Hooper?

MW: not at all
AH: did MB contact you on behalf of TRWG?
MW: no but I see I was copied into email in 2018 but no engagement from me by email or otherwise
AH: p559 re SLs email - you were asked whether chambers were signing up to strategic litigation. Did chambers become partners

in strategic litigation with SW?
MW: not that I'm aware of
AH: Email betw Allison and Leslie Thomas - not sure if you were copied in. It looks like you weren't
MW: I saw it in the bundle and saw reference to Terf. I hadn't seen it before and when email was sent - 22nd Dec I would

have been asleep - very late at night
BC: want to make note of p566 - seems like recipients do include MW.
AH: I took you to a different version - does it change your answer
MW: it was something I hadn't seen before
AH: p3582 list of messages you were asked to look at

You said it will be noted that the bulk of the abuse predates the responsive tweets (24th Oct 5.17pm onwards) Cut off date will mean last 4 are abusive.
MW: that's right but you can find odd examples that post-date responsive tweet. Don't know how many - about 7 or 8

AH: I thought they were in chronological order. What was the response to responsive tweets on the whole
MW: the abusive tweets seemed to stop - you'd have to ask DM
AH: p2073 version of responsive tweet - you said it was departure from practice. Do you regard 1st tweet as a

breach of complaints policy?
MW: No I don't. We were trying to address concerns and complaints using a procedure that didn't cover twitter
AH: p3191 your email to JK - you say 'it could be read as though SW was complicit and could breach guidelines'
MW: one wouldn't read that

tweet as indicating SW were committing fear etc but that they were complicit in it. It was an allegation that needed evidence.
AH: they are all my questions
EJ: Mr Willers you are free to go. Break until 3pm

[Court resumes - Stephen Clark next to take the stand]

EJ: Can't see AH or Stephen Clark [SC]
Clerk: he appears under name of Marc Willers
[SC re-logs in under own name and affirms]
BC: you joined TRWG in 2018?
SC: yes
BC: p370 main bundle you attended a meeting?
SC: yes

BC: members included SH, MB and members of marketing team
SC: yes
BC: did you understand that the group's purpose was trans rights
SC: had just left pupillage
BC: it was not just to do legal work but also to work with groups re trans rights
SC: not sure I was aware at time

BC: MB outlines diff areas to bring together into this group. was this discussed
SC: yes - but only just. Cross-over training on media matters between ourselves I think. I may be wrong
BC: p371 a couple of refs on getting Emma Nash pro-active in the group. Is that your

recollection
SC: I don't recall
BC: MB also wants to get EN involved. Clerking team?
SC: at the time yes
BC: Public law
SC: started there and then moved - not sure of dates
BC: MB refers need to work with grass roots groups. It was an objective to work with lobbying groups?

SC: not sure what ref to lobbying means.
BC: you attended training re GRA by MB
SC: yes
BC: training May 2018
SC: I think end of April. Uploaded to YouTube in May
BC: not right - emails showing it was may
SC: you must be right

BC: you arrived towards end of training
SC: yes - arrived as it was wrapping up
BC: you were recorded as arriving late
SC: they spelled my name wrong [laughs]
BC: issues discussed were GC feminists being described as trans-exclusionary
SC: single-sex space yes

BC: please read what MB says and then your reply. MB says that under EA tp could only be denied if there was a legitimate aim
SC: i think she got language wrong but yes
BC: you said it's irrational and not justifiable to consider women who think transwomen as men

SC: you can have subjective response in that space eg if you have PTSD. That could justify it. Beyond that I think not justifiable
BC: GC fems say if you have a sss is justified by women's need for dignity and safety so is justified. Do you understand argument
SC: yes

BC: you were saying it was irrational
SC: I was looking at it in international human rights perspective. Difficult to justify all TW being excluded.
BC: MB then says 'a transphobic response' - you said 'exactly' You are couching it differently now but you agreed that GC women

were transphobic
SC: I came in late so I didn't give it a considered response.
BC: you think that GC views are transphobic
SC: No
BC: did you think it was accepted there
SC: no
BC: you were quick to jump in and agree with MB
SC: can't say it was quick

BC: you say you're not active on twitter but you do have an account
SC: yes
BC: you look at it often
SC: I look but limit engagement
BC: you refer to some tweets by AB in 2019. It was a human rights events in conjunction with Mermaids
SC: didn't think of it as in conjunction with

BC: speaker from Mermaids
SC: Lily Asquith
BC: you stood in for MB last minute
SC: very last minute
BC: mermaids has a controversial view of affirming children's gender
SC: don't know what Mermaids position is - no there is a debate about affirming and watchful waiting

BC: continues to be controversial re Cass review
SC: not sure whether Mermaids is controversial re Cass review
BC: thread you refer to in your statemen. AB says what she thinks of Mermaids (M) position. ABs twitter profile was anonymous
SC: I didn't know that

BC: you comment on a particular part in your statement. You imply that AB was directly criticising you as junior member
SC: yes
BC: Stephen Whittle scoffs - she's right about his scoffing and his comments (eg men only have to grab a mop to go into women's spaces

SC: he did say that. He was saying there are easier ways of accessing SSS. Wouldn't call it scoffing but that was his view
BC: she said GC women were fanatics and funded by evangelicals
SC: don't remember fantatics comment but do remember claims of funding

BC: AB's comment was specifically about Mr Whittle and his comments
SC: I thought it was directed at me - refers...
BC: you appear on list of those speaking but that doesn't mean she is criticising you. Her criticism was aimed at others
SC: I thought it was including everyone

speaking at the event
BC: she doesn't mention you or Lily Asquith - just Mr Whittle
SC: she says panel seemed incredulous at mention of GC . Most was aimed at Mr Whittle but included all of us bc we didn't acknowledge dangers of self-ID
BC: questions from floor that were GC

SC: I think three
BC: were most people there GC
SC: No - most paralegals I think. Of questions 3 were gc (two of which were same woman)
BC: you agree with view of those campaigning for self-ID. that there should be a process for people to self-ID in gender of their choice

SC: subject to safeguards
BC: you think GC views are transphobic
SC: no there any many different views
BC: 22 sept MB sent you text msg with copy of ABs cotton ceiling tweet saying have you seen this, bloody shocking - going to make a complaint. You say have seen some tweets

but not this one
SC: don't follow AB so probably popped up bc of likes etc. what seemed to be happening was that AB was saying SW was considered so extreme that they shouldn't be engaged with
BC: you text MB saying everyone is going mental re AB launching LGBA. Happy half-term

SC: that's right. I logged on and saw debate.
BC: when you said mental - not just tweets but also chambers
SC: I don't think so
BC: you say 'no trans allowed' re LGBA. That's not accurate is it? LGBA is about asserting LGB rights to say they are same-sex attracted

SC: at this time debate was saying get rid of the T.
BC: one of the speakers at LGBA launch was trans, wasn't she
SC: I didn't know that - I was only aware of reaction
BC: by using 'no trans allowed' to MB you were saying LGBA were anti-trans

SC: I don't think I was saying MB should do something in particular. A lot of what was being said was about trans people who had done bad things
BC: by saying happy half-term you were aligning yourself with MB
SC: I was being flippant
BC: you say SW were upset. Had you been in

contact?
SC: I had a friend who I messaged but he didn't get back to me. I would have seen him (Jeff) much later on
BC: you discussed anything with him
SC: our relationship was more drag race, maria carey - inconsequential stuff like that
BC: in chambers you would discuss views

of claimant with MB etc
SC: my relationship with MB started bc of international human rights interests.
BC: aside from work related maters - you undoubtedly discussed with MB your views of AB and with others
SC: at this point no. In fact I don't think so at any time

MB was commuting in at this point so wasn't around a lot so didn't chat much
BC: re DC scheme - you discussed issues with MB
SC: I don't recall any discussions, if there were any it would have been minimal
BC: it was a big topic of conversation
SC: no - more about football and

going out etc. I had just joined chambers - if I'd gossiped I would've trash my career before it started
BC: Emma Nash forwards a complaint about AB tweets. You understood EN was someone who supported MB and TRWG
SC: no idea of her views.
BC: these issues were discussed by

members and clerks inc you
SC: absolutely not
BC: it was discussed that AB was out of favour
SC: No but I can't say what they did
BC: no more questions
JR: you were asked about training. go to MBs statement

Can you explain did the training happen
SC: no collapsed very shortly. Only training was about GRA and going into media. Unless MB pushed for something, it wouldn't happen
JR: re internal training session - there was one, were there any more
SC: no

JR: did GC put out any consultation re the GRA?
SC: no
JR: look at the speakers at the conference please. Lily asquith - their position?
SC: head at Mermaids.
JR: Mr whittle
SC: academic
JR: so only you legal?
SC: yes
JR: no further questions
EJ: adjourn until 4pm

[court resumes - Evidence from Liz Davies]
[Liz Davies (LD) affirms]

AH: you want to make a change from 'might be not' to 'might not be'
LD: yes
BC: please turn to your email - you had seen launch tweet
LD: yes
BC: and you'd read Sunday Times and Miss Wistrich's email
LD: yes but email referred to launch
BC: [missed] there was nothing transphobic

in launch tweet
LD: I took view that LGBA was legitimate political activity. Might not have agreed with with but legitimate.
BC: AB's tweet was not hate speech or transphobic
LD: no
BC: her connection with LGBA was legitimate
LD: controversial but legitimate

BC: you refer to statement on website.
LD: I emailed HoC that responsive tweet was reasonable but unfortunate.
BC: Harriet Wistrich's email - announcing investigation into AB.
LD: HW's email - her words public statement we can only take it to refer to responsive tweet.

She's referring to 2 things but when I read it, I understood it to be to the website statement
BC: you refer to immediate response slapping down AB - you were referring to statement that she was being investigated
LD: main point was about members engaging in legitimate political

activity
BC: you're understanding was that a complaint could be dismissed as having no foundation
LD: yes. Not sure I'd read complaints policy. I understood complaint and investigation were about her political activities and Maya did dismiss complaint about that tweet
BC: you say

now seeing pressure chambers was under, you now see why chambers distanced itself from LGBA
LD: yes
BC: there are a number of tweets replying to GC response tweets. are you on twitter
LD: I am
BC: replies follow under tweet and tweets goes out to not only person above but to

whole of twitter
LD: only them and their followers can see it
BC: and other followers
LD: aware it's not a private conversation
BCB: we see someone saying Women's rights are human rights. AB is right. Someone else says don't give credence to twitter troll. Someone else says why

are you investigating. Someone else why aren't you behind AB? Someone else: you should be proud of AB. Chambers inflicted damage to itself by response tweeting
LD: those are clearly in support of AB when I said chambers under pressure I meant those ones aimed at us for being

involved with AB and we should distance ourselves from LGBA
BC: a twitter storm ensued from AB supporters. These are directly criticising chambers for what they had done
LD: some were criticising chambers re association with AB and then also for not supporting her

BC: tweeting out was going to provoke strong reaction from both sides
LD: we were in Twitter storm not of our making and it was about one of the most toxic topics. I have no doubt we needed to respond
BC: in your wit state - re an antisemitism complaint. That is a tweet on

controversial topic and elicited a number of complaints
LD: Yes. I think three complaints
BC: go to response to the member concerned. The member went through lots of material re apartheid in connection with Israel and Palestine. The essence of the response was that the members

view was justified and came under freedom of speech.
LD: he made point that his tweet repeated what had been said by researcher, academics and lawyers and therefore was legitimate. His point was it wasn't using it in arbitrary context but had thought about it

BC: go to p4206. Response to complaint
LD: was with signed by stephanie and judy or redacted
BC: redacted. Now go to p4029 - discussion of material and arguments put forward by member
LD: yes
BC: judgement says have to decide whether tweet was offensive but as it was an opinion

and it wasn't racist or antisemitic
LD: yes
BC: the language cause offense but wasn't seriously offensive and the member genuinely believed the point so it was legitimate comment and was supported by evidence
LD: yes
BC: you weren't involved in AB case
LD: no

BC: finding was upheld in AB case
LD: there are two which were upheld
BC: go to finding on complaint - it wasn't upheld in previous complaint
LD:
BC: much less favourable finding in ABs case
LD: yes

BC: you say member was asked to remove tweet
LD: yes
BC: you say you were mindful that policy is broad re social media. Need for greater clarity from BSB when barristers express opinions. I have advised [redacted] to remove tweet. Because of lack of clarity in guidance

LD: that advice came from investigator and from SH and JK
BC: that member wasn't asked to remove tweet but was advised to
LD: different finding and I felt that was wrong
BC: that member was found by BSB not to be in breach
LD: very helpful to us re social media use

BC: that is all my questions. To clarify, you are not accused of discrimination by claminant
IO: nothing from me
AH: glad to hear no accusations of discrimination. You say you were referring to website in your statement
LD: exchange of emails between me and AB. She didn't say

that the wording hadn't been agreed
AH: having seen pressure that chambers was under like tweets ref to GC - you say you think GC did the right thing. were you aware of 2 tweets upheld by MS?
LD: I may have seen Sunday Times tweet but didn't pay attention. I think I wanted to

see article
AH: did you consider the two tweets
LD: yes I did and chambers was right to distance itself
AH: re list of tweets sent - are they the docs to which you are referring?
LD: yes. Posted before GC send responsive tweets
AH: take it from me - they were. Email from

Charlotte Ogilvy
LD: yes that's right. Apologise for wrong citation
AH: look at p678. Email from JK to AB oct 2019. You weren't shown this cos not head of chambers.
LD: says we won't send more tweets on this topic at this stage
AH: you were asked about antisemitism tweets

Look at complaints please. Were there any others
LD: don't remember any others
AH: were you aware of AB responding to request ot remove tweets
LD: yes I was - not aware until given Maya's report that she hadn't done so
AH: any consequences to this?
LD: I would have been told

AH: were you aware she asked for no response?
LD: I was copied into draft of JK reply
AH: email from AB
LD: not copied into that
AH: you knew it was being sent?
LD: yes but I didn't comment
AH: were any further steps taken re AB?
LD: no
AH: did antisemitism tweet cause a

twitter storm
LD: No and I would have known as I'm on Twitter
AH: no more questions
EJ: what is happening with tomorrow's witnesses?
AH: Cathryn McGahey, Tim Wainright, Colin Cook and David De Menezes tomorrow. Weds: David Renton and David De Menezes finish off & Michelle Brewer

Two more witnesses for Thursday: Stephanie Harrison and Katherine Cronin
EJ: re Sex Matters request
BC: I think we need to get on with trial
IO: nothing in your ruling suggests anything different needs to be done re Sex Matters. They have access to downloadable docs so can follow

along. It's not for individuals to share and distribute docs. My suggestion is if we need to deal with this can we do so tomorrow. I don't think you should be distracted by this application given 2 more days left
AH: I agree with BC. You have already made a ruling

It's absurd to contact the EAT. We oppose this bc it's not in interest of reporting accurately. they want to provide a bundle that will be publicly accessible. Message to Sex Matters and Tribunal Tweets have the docs - is this application to screenshot to add to live tweeting?

[apologies this was from EJ: Message to Sex Matters and Tribunal Tweets have the docs - is this application to screenshot to add to live tweeting?]
We will leave it until tomorrow.
Back at 9.30am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp please unroll