Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to the case of Allison Bailey (AB) v Stonewall (SW) & Garden Court Chambers (GCC).
It's Tuesday 24th 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…

An explanation of Allison's claim: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/understandin…

Witnesses expected today: Cathryn McGahey QC (CM) and Tom Wainwright (TW).
CM - at the relevant time was Vice Chair of the Bar Council Ethics Committee.
TW - member of GCC and Trans Rights Working Group (TRWG)

EJ: Good morning everyone. This morning we will hear evidence from CM. Any housekeeping matters from counsel?
AH: none from me, except that application from Sex Matters is with (missed)
EJ: Mr Cooper?
BC: Yes, I'm here.

EJ: CM are you on mute at your end or ours? Please say something
CM: yes madam. I want to affirm. Affirms.
EJ: thank you
AH: good morning

AH: please turn to page 221 in bundle. Can I ask you to turn to the final page?
CM; yes, my signature on that date
CM: confirms accuracy of contents to best of belief
BC: look in main bundle at 5218

BC: this is the BSB social media guidelines. Your starting point is that freedom of expression is paramount. Please mute AH, some rustling noise.
BC: as a matter of principles, set in core duties (CD) and articles 9 and 10 as to freedom of expression.

BC: freedom of speech requires enhanced protection, do you agree?
CM: I think that's very difficult, given examples, it must be fact specific. It's not possible to give a generic answer.
BC: let's explore. Barristers can be and are involved in social and political

activisim.
CM: there are tensions between what barristers want to say.
BC: involved in controversial matters, heated arguments.
CM: BSB guidelines say 'avoid heated debate' but most important and controversial topics inherently are heated.

BC: explaining the appeal of case of John Holbrook was upheld (his sanction overturned).
CM: shows how difficult it is to advise in this area
BC: decision says that final sentence of para 3 (BSB) cannot be held to be setting a threshold, that is in CD 5.

BC: barristers cannot be held to avoid offending.
CM: barristers do not have to speak in good taste
BC: paraphrasing = means do not get into ding dong arguments but can engage in debates
CM: disagree - content not who or how
BC: page 3224 - refer to the borderline whether or

not the tweets cross the line is whether they can be substantiated. There isn't a bright line between statement of fact and comment.
CM: absolutely. Example - antisemitism in labour party, individuals would deny but is the subject of debate.

BC: you must ask both questions - sustainable basis for assertions, and can it be read as a legitimate comment.
CM: if one is to write 'Tommy Robinson is a racist' substantiated. It would be very different to write that about someone in the public eye like a politician.

BC: re conversation with Stephanie Harrison, neither of you kept a note (pg 6389).
CM: agreed.
BC: an email you won't have seen, SH expressing a view it very clearly breaches the BSB guidelines, did she say that to you?
CM: No
BC: sent you email at 2978

CM: Yes
BC: she sent the complaint in full (6299?), there is a copy of the complaint that GCC had from Stonewall.
Go back to 2978.
CM: Yes, I have that.
BC: she also cut and pasted the text of an email sent to claimant for her response
CM: just need to read.

BC: it was on the basis of that you provided your initial view at pg 3244, 3245. We looked at the top paragraph. Second paragraph, I note that Stonewall's complaint was not about the coercion but about 'male bodied'.
Is it fair to say, that you were asking for the

complainants' explanation.
CM: No, I was asking for evidence about the workshop and whether it was publicly available. IS there anything we can look at and say I can see why she says there is coercion involved?
BC: you were alive to the fact that AB was making a general point

CM: I had in mind there were articles in the Sunday Times, what I wanted to know 'was there publicly available material that the reader could find that would substantiate the tweet;
BC: you were not sent the claimants response were you?
CM: No

BC: you were sent the Times article.
CM: yes
BC: cotton ceiling tweet, you were sent the blurb about the workshop itself, and the remainder of the email was a cut and paste from a response by Planned Parenthood Toronto to criticism of the workshop

CM: Yes, I also found on the internet, maybe Facebook.
BC: Noise, on my end, will shut my doors. you were sent email from Ms Harrison, first is expression of view from her, 2nd para is purporting to summarise ABs explanation for the tweet.

CM: Yes.
BC: 2997, this is the last page of your informal advice. Your penultimate para - a highly subjective area, BSB might take a different view, as might other members of the ethics committee. Your view not definitive.
CM: exactly, but we give advice on risk

Never definitive.
BC: 2994 - first page of advice, 2nd para, says 'gone through material, can give informal advice, a collective view or more authoritative view from whole committee'
CM: I was concerned that I was advising on curtailment of free speech. My concern

was that it would be good to get other views. Might be dangerous to leave tweets up but hard to say.
BC: collective advice frequent?
CM: no, rare. Almost all advice is given by a single member of the committee.
BC: the BSB has series of important safeguards

CM: yes but that's different. BSB process is disciplinary. In this case, I was giving advice.
BC: you gave your advice based on the material you were given. In your witness statement you gave a view based on reading more material. Is that still non-definitive?

CM: yes. Each case is absolutely fact specific.
BC: not on behalf of BSB Ethics Committee.
CM: yes.
AH interrupts. EJ asks CM to finish question.
CM: we often are told the minimum facts to give advice.

BC: not asking about advice, your view remains non-definitive. Your view in your witness statement is no longer advice.
CM: I was giving my views as if I had had additional information.
BC: back to cotton ceiling tweet.

EJ: please post CM's witness statement in the chat.
BC: now on 1839, AB's overcoming cotton ceiling tweet
BC: page 238, you quote a sentence from ABs response that this is coercive sexual behaviour, describe this as a non sequitor
CM: I agree, the one doesn't follow the other

BC: go to page 767, just follow through the substance of the claimant's response, she is explaining the basis of her tweet
CM: yes
BC: she then provides part of the material you had at the time that identifies 'overcoming the cotton ceiling'

CM: overcoming the reluctance of lesbians to have sex with trans individuals.
BC: AB goes on to explain cotton ceiling
CM: I always understood that
BC: reading out AB's explanation that requiring lesbians to have sex with a man (trans) or shaming them is coercive

BC: let's break it down. If there is a basis to describe what's going on as coercive then the tweets are reasonable.
CM: it's important to understand what happens or happened at the workshop. There is nothing in the material put out by PP Toronto that advocates coercion

BC: that is your conclusion about the material. Let's take it in stages. Do you agree with me that coercion does not involve physical action? That coercion can be emotional, social etc.
CM: Yes. I'm not giving my opinion on the content of the workshop. Absent any detailed

information, there are many possibilities, and coercion is one of them but not a necessary conclusion.
BC: shaming can be a form of coercion.
CM: that's fact specific, it may be. I've seen nothing to suggest that shaming is part of the workshop.

BC: lets explore that. In the bottom right - this is part of the material the claimant provided, it explains 'cotton ceiling', refers to underwear. Ultimately, transwomen are accepting in many ways but not sexually. Can you accept that the meaning of 'cotton ceiling'

is referring to getting into lesbians' knickers.
CM: yes, that is clear.
BC: connection to glass ceiling implies discrimination
CM: yes, lesbians don't want to have sex with transwomen. Discussion glass ceiling workshops. It's wrong to say that because there is fear

CM: the workshop is advocating coercion.
BC: the difference is that no reasonable person holds the view that women shouldn't rise up the corporate ladder.
CM: yes. But some men are prejudiced against women.
BC: The difference is - it is not a matter of prejudice

for lesbians to be same sex attracted.
CM: do not understand the question. What are you getting at.
BC: In relation to the glass ceiling,
AH: complaining about BC question refrain from characterising earlier answers,
EJ: you are trying to put a view about cotton ceiling and

glass ceiling. And witness not understanding. Do you want a break to work on it.
BC: No. I may simply not be able to express it. No one disputes that women should be able to rise up the corporate ladder and break the glass ceiling.

BC: but lesbians are defined by being attracted to other women. Hence, the cotton ceiling.
CM: I now see your point.
BC: you can see why lesbians are deeply offended by lesbians being told their same sex attraction is discriminatory

CM: I don't see how the workshop is discriminatory?
BC: Overcoming the cotton ceiling is coercive.
CM: I don't see that the workshop is necessarily coercive. We have no information about the contents of that workshop. AB's opinion that it must be coercive is not substantiated.

BC: let me see if I can narrow down our areas of disagreement. Your examples are all that there is actual discriminatory behaviour going on.
CM: Yes.
BC: Can you see how deeply offensive your analogy is to lesbians being told that their behaviour is discriminatory

CM: I cannot see that the sole purpose of the workshop was to coerce lesbians into having sex with transwomen.
BC: attempting to narrow. If your starting point is that there is discrimination (lesbians do not want to sleep with men) it is hard to see the workshop as coercive.

AH interrupts, EJ intervenes.
BC goes back to PP Toronto email (293): to explore ways in which transphobia and transmisogny impact sexual desire. The premise is that the barriers transwomen face in sleeping with lesbians is discrimination.

BC: inherent in the workshop is that sexual barriers that transwomen want to overcome are rooted in transmisogny and transphobia. AB's claim - it is inherently coercive to label lesbians as transphobic for failing to have sex with transwomen.

CM: I don't see the coercion. It is appalling to coerce or shame anyone into sex. I don't see that in the workshop.
BC: this workshop on its face is labelling lesbians as transphobic and trying to coerce them.
CM: back to South Africa rugby world cup.

CM: the point I am making is no evidence of coercion.
BC: the workshop is sexually and socially coercive.
CM: I'm not saying that is acceptable for the workshop to say that to any individual lesbian. But we don't know what the workshop is about. I have no knowledge

and no personal interest. I was looking from a professional standards point. AB did not have a basis for this tweet, cannot substantiate and there may be a problem here. Not trying to express a view on the merits of the workshop.

BC: still believe workshop is inherently coercive.
CM: No, it is similar to South Africa attempting to racially integrate society. Morning break.

EJ: now resuming. Is the witness statement of CM now available? No, not yet accessible. How long will it take? I'm concerned. Let's pause while the witness statement is uploaded.

EJ: we are going to have press on while Mr Daly attempts to resolve the matter. Mr Cooper let's press on.
BC: just a couple more documents on cotton ceiling tweet. In relation to my questions this morning has there been outcry or complaints about the workshop?

BC: particular paragraph that describes the cotton ceiling workshop and it's criticism by lesbians. This is evidence that the cotton ceiling is understood to be critical of lesbians who will not have sex with transwomen.
CM: yes, I see this.
BC: it is legitimate comment

for a lesbian to see that as coercive.
CM: that's not what I was asked, I was asked about the contents of the workshop.
BC: If TWAW then what it means to be a lesbian fundamentally changes; lesbians are discriminatory against TW, references lesbians fear of corrective rape

BC: It is legitimate comment to describe an entire workshop as coercive.
CM: I don't think that's necessarily the case. I would have wanted to see evidence.
BC: let's move on to another tweet. Can you read it?

EJ: I'm struggling to find it.
BC: 236 should be tweet 5. Can we go to 3191. This is an email from Mr Willers. You won't have seen this.
CM: I did not see it at the time.
BC: from email 'I don't think the tweet can be read that Stonewall is coercive, but is complicit'

CM: missed responses
BC: 770 - AB's response to complaint, para 41, some examples of abuse that she anticipated if she expressed her views, para 42, silencing of women is endemic to the trans self ID movement. Do you agree?
CM: I cannot say if its endemic, but there is

appalling abuse directed at women with views like ABs.
BC: if you turn to 771 AB provides examples. Rather than call out misogny, SW has poured petrol on the fire. And provided examples of the abuse.
CM: I accept there are people who support Stonewall and engage in appalling

behaviour but I cannot see the direct link.
BC: she did provide evidence that there is slogans from Stonewall 'get with the T' and 'No debate'.
CM: I don't recall.
BC: let's go back to the New Statesmen article. Page 100, read to yourself that page.

CM: reading.. yes
BC: evidence there of Stonewall condemning people for expressing gender critical views at Pride, hand in hand with threats and dehumanising behaviour against gender critical views. Rephrasing.
BC: at the same time as Stonewall condemns those people -

BC: there is evidence of tweets etc.
CM: I'm really afraid of being swept into a broader debate here, I was asked about this tweet and could it be substantiated.
BC: back to page 1 of supp bundle. You hadn't read this article when you gave your witness statement.

CM: couldn't find, had not read.
BC: by Simon Fanshawe, one of the founders of Stonewall. 'Acceptance without exception' dogma is undermining the rights and protections of women, lesbians and children. Etc. Reading the article.

BC: Fanshawe observes Pride disruptions, Stonewall expressed a view that TWAW and calling those who disagree. Fanshawe commenting on violence towards lesbians. Stonewall has a duty to calm public debate.
BC: let's take a series of positions to see where we do and don't agree.

BC: plenty of evidence of fear, abuse etc.
CM: yes, shocking evidence provided by AB
BC: Stonewall failed to condemn, and actually criticising those who hold gender critical views.
CM: agreeing, also that Stonewall is not living up to its duty to enable calm public debate.

BC: Therefore it substantiates the tweet by AB. See version at page 218.
CM: implied Stonewall is complicit.
BC: let's read the tweet.
CM: can't read.
BC: 2346 then.

BC: what she actually says is driving levels of fear agenda and coercion and Stonewall is responsible.
CM: I read that tweet as 'stonewall responsible for climate of intimidation, fear and coercion'.
BC: you began using my term 'responsible' and ended up with your term

'coercion' .
AH and EJ discussing the question. AH: disagreeing.
EJ: BC please start again.
BC: Tweet does not use responsibility or complicity.
CM: no.
BC: can it be read that way?
CM: yes, I think it can. Why is the word Stonewall there at all?

BC: Stonewall is not living up to its responsibility and not calming the debate and calling lesbians transphobic.
CM: Not the same level. I thought a reasonable reader of that tweet would think AB was saying that Stonewall was responsible for or behind

the abuse.
BC: given the material provided, it is reasonable to think that Stonewall was aware of the abuse, the climate etc.
CM: yes, it is reasonable to think that. However, what I am trying to do is establish if AB is at risk of breaching the BSB guidelines with the tweet.

CM: If it can't be shown to be true then a barrister shouldn't be saying it.
BC: You are using very precise language. A reasonable reader interprets the tweet as Stonewall is aware and not taking action to calm things.
CM: returns to her attempt to give advice.

AH: this point has been covered. Is it exhausted?
EJ: I'm still trying to write down the answer.
AH: we've gone round the houses about six times. Is it exhausted.
BC: I was about to say 'can we move on to the final reference'. Perhaps AH can refrain from interruptions.

EJ: perhaps we could all just pause to take effect of delays in technology.
BC: back to pg 297 (?) under the heading of serious of breaches and tension between barristers engaging in serious topics and egregious behaviour. Do you see that?

CM: yes, I see that.
BC: the threshold if egregious conduct is very high isn't it?
CM: yes.
BC: you were concerned that the social media guidance is imposing a lower threshold on behaviour ?
CM: we had looked at the social media guidance but believe it conflicts with ethics.

BC: applying the threshold in Walker, the two tweets in question were not objectionable.
CM: I did not think that. I did not think that tweets were substantiated, and her tweets were probably over the line.
BC: we have been through the material. There is nothing in any of

the material that says criminal conduct?
CM: coercion, fear and intimidation are potentially criminal conduct.
BC: An ordinary reader of twitter would not read this as criminal.
CM: 'coaching to coerce', I thought those tweets were over the line

CM: my concern was for AB, as much as for GCC. All I can do is identify risk.
BC: that is all my questions.
EJ: any questions from SW.
IO: the claims could not be substantiated rather than sustained. Can you explain?

CM: substantiated means there is justification for allegations being made.
IO: no other questions.

EJ: you noted that the Stonewall complaint was about Morgan Page being 'male bodied'. Did you consider that?
CM: nothing objectionable in the phrase that AB had used. She had to use some term and that was a reasonable one.
EJ: thank you. AH - any question.

AH: yes, two. Referring to CM witness statement, points on consent. Did you find any material that contradicted the assertion that the workshop was not about overcoming any individual lesbians consent.
CM: No I did not.
AH: what did you understand from 'build community'.

CM: that it was looking to improve relations between the communities (of lesbians and transwomen).
AH: no more questions.
EJ: Breaking. Return at 11:41.

EJ: asks TW to swear or affirm. He says affirm. He affirms.
EJ: Miss Russell.
JR; page 455 in GCC bundle. Turn to end of statement on 461. Confirms content of statement is true.
JR: a supplemental question before cross examination. Turn to page 83 of AB statement.

paras 267, 268, 269. Can I summarise those paragraphs of difficult exchange with TW. An email on white collar crime and fraud, that was gatekeeping and ring fencing an area of practice for a few individuals. Gatekeeping in criminal law would reproduce and reinforce

inequality. Rec'd an email AB viewed as effectively threatening. And AB viewed a problematic and unreasonable. Question:
JR: what was the immediate conclusion of this exhange?
TW: immediate conclusion was email from Judy Khan, 'stop this by way of reply to all'.

TW: pick up again in robing room in Reading Crown Court. AB said 'are we okay', TW said 'we were' and we hugged it out and that was an end to it as far as I was concerned.
JR; Thank you.
EJ: over to BC.
BC: you were called in 2003, by this time you were a senior junior

in the crime team. Primarily clerked by Colin Cook
TW: No I was not. I wasn't part of any group that was clerked by Colin.
BC: pg 55 of bundle, CC witness statement, he says he regularly clerks for you.
TW: he is regularly dealing with the crime team, there isn't any

clique clerked by him.
BC: there is a group that are being pushed for better work by him.
TW: there isn't any favouritism.
BC: there is and you are a member.
BC: you have been involved in sex and gender cases.

TW: yes several.
BC: AB sent a case your way, thought you did a good job.
BC: you became involved in marketing for trans rights work.
TW: no. I answered questions at a tele-seminary.
BC: My mistake, you spoke at trans justice launch.

TW: Yes.
BC: you expressed a view that consent could be vitiated by gender.
TW: you missed out that it was presented for discussion. The CPS guidance for example said a GRC meant someone could not be prosecuted for deceit. It was a legal seminar.

BC: your view is that gender should not vitiate consent.
TW: I don't know what my view is, setting out the legal arguments.
BC: now back to the tele-seminar. You were highlighting a need to educate the judiciary on trans rights. And that self-ID is correct.

TW: No, I was advocating for basic guidance for judges, Now incorporated in the bench book.
BC: in the context of ABs support for launch of LGB Alliance. Reading out TW tweet. Implication that LGB Alliance denying rights to trans people.

TW: Yes.
BC: you agreed that LGB Alliance was denying rights to trans people.
TW: can't put myself back in time 3 years, what was in my mind. Trying to support human rights for all and this was not the view of GCC.
BC: 'this' meaning LGB Alliance

BC: the implication is that ABs view is not that of chambers and doesn't support human rights for trans people. You imply that AB does not human rights for trans people.
TW: I was trying to be clear that GCC was on the side of trans rights.
BC: you were asserting a

collective view for GCC, at the forefront of trans rights.
BC: email from MB, 'describes GCC as being barristers as experts in trans rights, etc, doing pro bono work, consulting on government policy, strong ties to specialist solicitors, several of us acting on landmark cases

BC: an accurate description of the TRWG?
TW: I don't know, that' is MBs description.
BC: GCC is actively aligned with trans rights and specialist organisation?
TW: I don't know, I didn't have any involvement in any of that.

TW: I hadn't been involved in the email of 16 Oct. I pushed reply on 24 Oct, starting a new conversation.
BC: new conversation responding to MB's allegation.
TW: new organisation formed by AB is already damaging our reputation.
BC: reputation as pro-trans.

TW: damage to reputation as a human rights organisation.
BC: you agreed that LGB Alliance is anti-trans?
TW: at the time, I was reading Gay News and Pink News that reported it was an anti-trans organisation.

TW: explaining his interpretation that LGB Alliance was an extremist organisation.
BC: let's explore that. Self-ID is an extreme position.
TW: Disagree.
BC: there is a range of views. Support for self-id acceptance without exception is an extreme position?

TW: no, it's at one end of a spectrum.
BC: it is not unreasonable to describe it as extreme?
TW: it's inherently hostile to call something extremist or provocative.
BC: you used the term exclusionary - your view is that LGB Alliance is exclusionary? Is that not extreme?

TW: the removing of the T struck me as exclusionary.
BC: it doesn't remove them from the debate, it simply focuses on the rights of same sex attracted and not gender identity.
TW - it struck me a cutting out the T.
BC: directed to the policy on social media.

BC - this was directed at AB?
TW - not directed at or in response to AB, or circulated with Allison in mind.
BC - pg 2025, AB responded that she had the guidance in mind, and shouldn't be used to intimidate those active on social media.

BC: you said in an email 'I don't know why she thought this was about her!!!!'
BC - that was a deliberating sarcastic remark. You knew that the guidance was circulated for AB to take reference to.
TW - she took it as directed at her and indicated a guilt conscience.

BC: you thought she should have a guilty conscience.
TW: she made it about her. It was circulated neutrally.
BC: referring to an email calling AB a hypocrite.
TW: AB refusing to acknowledge abuse directed at others, and others freedom of belief and expression.

BC: AB - claimant had never refused to acknowledge abuse of trans people.
TW - It was years ago, I don't have all her tweets and emails, she never acknowledged.
BC - It was pure antipathy on your part because you considered her a transphobe.

TW: not true.
BC: referring to an email chain that included many pro-trans rights.
TW: I don't know who else was on the email or why, I was on my iphone.
BC: Reads out email expressing desire for urgent statement, you were agreeing that organisation identified were transphobic

TW: I was on my iphone. I don't know to what degree I gave thought to every aspect of LH's email. I didn't give it a great deal of thought.
BC: you do agree that ABs views and Woman's Place etc are transphobic or anti-trans.

TW - I don't know what their views are, I hadn't looked into it, it is not my crusade.
BC - but the need for an urgent response to distance GCC from LGB Alliance?
TW - I sent it to head of chambers and marketing, so they could decide what to do, that's my opinion.

BC: but that's not. You're actually agreeing with what Ms Hooper was proposing. That's not a neutral statement. With a trans banner and hate crime statistics. The clear implication that LGB Alliance is not interested in trans rights.

TW: that's your interpretation. GCC supporting trans rights is not controversial, its about human rights. The statement is neutral, not anti LGB Alliance. The statement makes it clear that these are not the views of chambers.
BC: you've gone through the email point by point

saying each is true. But taken together, imply LGB Alliance is anti-trans.
TW: not true. I responded to your question, I said no.
BC: you said this is not your fight, not your passion and you were on holiday. But you sent out a tweet that evening.

TW: I waited until chambers put out a statement, and wanted to defend my fellow barristers.
BC: 255. Next evening, email to MB, welcome back. In the same thread of correspondence.
TW: is there an email missing?
BC: same heading. Sending a flippant email

assuming that you and MB shared a point of view.
TW: a twitter storm had happened, it wasn't very pleasant, sarcastic email.
BC: there's a lot of gossip and politics that goes on in chambers.
TW - no. Not a lot of gossip and discussion. We don't see each other that often.

BC: chambers position was the trans activist position.
TW - no chambers did not have a position.
BC - Stonewall DC position?
TW - I have no idea what point I read those emails or what I thought. I have no contemporaneous documentation to support my thought process.

BC: It is not credible that you do not remember what you thought?
TW: I have no recollection of when I read this exchange or what I thought.
BC - you understood that AB had expressed views that were not held by GCC
TW - I don't remember what I thought

BC - AB in Jan 2019 wrote to you in response to your email proposing a group of practitioner's interested in doing fraud work - AB wrote with some concerns.
TW - she did not write to me, she wrote to the whole crime team expressing concerns.
BC; very well, she wrote to

whole crime team. She first wrote to you, just copying the clerks asking if it went to the whole crime team.
TW: yes.
BC: then she wrote to the whole of the crime team, because that's where the email went. Explaining how this might exclude most of chambers. AB making

point that this would reinforce the exclusivity of the group who were doing the work (white, male, oxbridge).
TW: it is an important part of our work to promote the expansion of this work to women, minorities, and it would not be exclusionary. Recognising that it is

historically white, male, oxbridge dominated area our aim was to expand this area of practice to them.
AB's response was not to ask for clarification, but to respond in a flippant way suggesting my intention was to exclude.
BC: you may think she misunderstood.

but she understood something different.
BC: the legitimate point she was making was that asking people to meet the criteria in a short period of time was going to reinforce exclusivity.
TW: it is not a legitimate point. This is AB seeing a conspiracy where none existed.

BC - your reply was hostile.
TW - I was annoyed.
BC - AB was not putting forward unjustified concerns and you were slapping her down for it.
TW: she was not reading the email and I'm not sure that others had read the email who shared her views.

BC - AB was concerned about people not being able to speak up in chambers. Your email response to her was to discourage others speaking up.
TW - no - my response was strident because of what she had accused me of.
BC - you know you speak to her like that because she was out

of favour because of her views on Stonewall.
BC: you spoke to clerks and made it clear she was out of favour.
TW - that is fantasy. There is no conspiracy.
BC - the reconciliation you describe, it did not happen that way.
TW - I recall it clearly, we had a pleasant

conversation after. She was not out of favour it is all her fantasy.
BC - no more questions.
EJ - any questions?
JR - page 172, looking at the heading bold, then on to page 174 looking at heading in italics on that page.
JR - page 175, says you were an active member of the TWG,

TW - it was an email group, I don't remember anything much happening.
JR - referring to TWG, described as an agent of chambers. When you've been taken to various email exchanges, what capacity were you acting in during those exchanges?

TW - I was acting in my personal capacity, not as an agent of chambers. Not on behalf of anyone else.
JR - no further questions.
EW - breaking for lunch. Hoping to restore document links in that time.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.

The EJ's cat made a brief on screen appearance during the morning's proceedings. It did not speak or otherwise contribute so was not reported on.