Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Welcome to the second week of the case of Bernard Randall vs Trent College where Randall will continue giving evidence. 10am start.

Previous days' hearings are archived at tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/bernard-rand…

Abbreviations:
BR - Bernard Randall
RO - Richard O’Dair, barrister for BR

TC - Trent College
PW - Paul Wilson, barrister for TC

EJ - Employment Judge
Panel - other members of the tribunal

E&C - Educate & Celebrate, providers of diversity and inclusion training to schools

E&C also run an "awards scheme" for participating schools.

The tribunal is taking place at Midlands East Employment Tribunal; we have been allowed remote access and permission to live tweet. #OpenJustice

[The hearing is about to begin]

[The Clerk is making sure that remote viewers can see and hear the courtroom]

[We are now waiting for the Judge, panel and parties to enter the court]

[we begin]

PW: Mr Randall, at start of bundle, your amended particulars of claim. Wd like to ask for a clarificaiton. You say you rely on, perceived or actual philosophical / religious beliefs. These are your beliefs?
BR: Or lack of belief, but yes

PW: Those were your beliefs then and are now?
BR: Yes, tho might express a little differently now
PW: d) is a lack of belief, you still have, remains the same
BR: Yes

PW: Turn to your witness statement, para93.
PW: On Friday we got to meeting of 24/6. You had not then read all the concerns given to you at the meeting.
BR: That's right

PW: You say you felt you'd been attacked, no respect for you or for church's teaching.
PW: You say was confirmed when you did read the concerns. You put concerns in inverted commas, why?

BR: Because it was not clear what concerns were, what was meant

PW: Explain more?
BR: I don't have in front of me, but, some just say "am contacting you to say" - not clear what they think.

PW: There is an anonymised document. [All locate it]

[J intervenes as room is very hot, it's adjusted]

PW: You say, it's that they didn't use words "concerns" and it wasn't clear what emails meant.
BR: I don't think all of them say concerns, um, [long pause]

BR: There are various things said and what they meant by saying them isn't 100% clear. I don't think we should make too much of the ""
PW: I read it as, you didn't think they were real concerns.
BR: [missed]

PW: We have I think 9 teachers, tho anonymised email, with expressions of concern. You'd agree that those teachers constantly raise concerns about vulnerable students hearing what you are saying
BR: Wouldn't say constantly

PW Theme running thru all the emails
BR: Not sure that's so
PW: Let's look at teacher #1. S/he, it's a female person, she, Miss -
BR: Let's not name the people
PW: OK that's fine.

PW: She says "upset", you'd say that is not "vulnerable"?
BR: Yes
PW: Teacher #2 says, concerned children in the room might feel targetted.
BR: Yes, again no mention of vulnerable.

PW: But it's about how people would feel
BR: Yes but how would Christians feel, told to accept "all the LGBT stuff"?
PW: Next teacher says "potentially harmful". She says there wd have been people in congregation very much upset. Do you so no concern of harm?

BR I don't see how saying "all that LGBT stuff" can be harm. Informal, but not harm

PW: Teacher 4 says, there are very vulnerable students worrying about whether their gender or sexuality not fitting in at a Christian school. This does suggest risk of harm?
BR: Don't know how teacher knows this; I have not seen evidence of it.

PW: Teacher says there are. S/he would appear to know? And you didn't know that there might not have been very vulnerable students there?
BR: I would expect to have been told, if there were students whose mental health was that fragile.

BR: For example I was told, when students with anxiety felt unable to come to chapel because of the large number of people.

PW: Teacher 5 says you had not considered welfare, no suggestion of harm. T6 says, teaches students quietly wresting with sexuality, sensitive and vulnerable, is concerned for their young minds. Clear indication of potential harm

BR: Again idea that "quietly wrestling" means "vulnerable to harm" is a leap. I tried to discuss calmly, I said it was fine to accept LGBT beliefs. It's not a mental health issue to be gay.

PW: I haven't said that it is. I've suggested to you that teachers were concerned that your sermon might harm vulnerable students.
BR: And I've said that "harm" must mean something more than discomfort; discomfort is built in to freedom of speech.

BR: But I don't accept that a student is vulnerable to harm, just by virtue of being L or G or B or T

PW: Don't you have to make that leap, as safeguarding?
BR: No, that is homophobic

PW: But don't you have to consider, for safeguarding?
BR: No, struggling with mental health issues, and sexuality, are not the same things.

PW: We talked about inclusion of LGBT people in the school environment. What I am suggesting is, you must have known, that some people will feel stigma or shame.
BR: That is profoundly regrettable. And saying everyone loved equally by God directly goes to removing stigma.

PW: Surely you can see, young person is vulnerable with MH Issues and that's connected to their sexuality, your sermon had potential for harm?

BR: That is making a leap to "harm", from discomfort of hearing ideas you may not agree with .

PW: What did you make of the comments eg made by T6? Not all teachers but many similar?
BR: I think they come from a position that has bought into idea that ppl who are L/G/B/T cannot have their thoughts challenged, and I think that's harmful to those people.

BR: They will have no reslieence in greater society. Much better to learn at school that not everybody agrees with you all the time.

J: "LGBT people cannot have their thoughts challenged"?

BR: Yes - there seems to be an idea that LGBT people are too fragile to know that, that not everybody approves of same sex marriage for example, and that to mention it is somehow massive harm. We don't do this for any other belief. Ultimately very puzzling.

BR: ppl who campaign for LGBT rights have made a big deal of this, with no evidence. And of course nobody wants to do harm, so if s/o says "this is harmful" nobody ever says "really? what's the evidence?" and in free society we have to be able to ask.

J: about being gay?
BR: Oh no not at all. I mean, if s/o sets out say CoE teaching that ought to be OK; it shouldn't be the case of getting told to shut up bc harmful.

[J is speaking but sound poor]

BR: All Ts are saying the same kind of things. [about the word "concerns" I think]

PW: Earlier you said, paraphrasing, nothing wrong with, telling LGBT people these ideas
BR: Yes
PW: So in sermon, you reference ideas eg marriage only man+woman, that human beings only M or F
BR: Yes

PW: You didn't say "sinful" if people didn't agree, but can you see that if chaplain tells you what god thinks and you're LGBT you would feel bad about yourself?
BR: When I say God loves everybody that's invitation to be loved

BR: I firmly believe Christian teachings is about people being the best they can be. Worst that could happen is somebody discovers the goodness of Christian teach and the love of god.

PW: In sermon you say a couple of times, God loves everyone. But that doesn't answer my Q. We have the controversial ideas that you express, I say, if you are LGBT and hear that God says X, it would make you feel bad about yourself.

BR: Lots of Christians are same sex attracted, and I know at least one person who has transitioned MtF and AFAIK is happy; it is perfectly possible to be/do those things and be happy in the presence of God.

PW: Also 2 emails from pupils. Year 9 pupil. You have read?
BR: Yes
PW: Year 9 is age 13?
BR: 14-15
PW: 13-14 I think
BR: Yes that's right I think

PW: So pupil says effect on him/her. Says felt uncomfortable in own skin during sermon. All I could hear was why I was wrong, not accepted. Felt physically sick, wanted to leave. What did you think?

BR: Clearly upsetting. Had no intention of making anyone feel that way. Not reflective of anything I said; I was careful to speak moderately and stress God love for everyone. I don't have control over one person's strong reaction.

BR: If we had to consider an unusually strong reaction nobody would ever say anything. And their might have been Christian pupils feeling the same in E&C lessons.

PW: By your sermon?
BR: No, by other assemblies, by being told they must accept all of this or you are homophobic transphobic bigot, might well have the same strong upset reaction.
BR: I don't want *anyone* to feel that way.

PW: You say here, much in concerns is clearly a misunderstanding, misconceived. Are you saying that re this student?
BR: That came later - can't remember exactly when but was later. That is not in purview of P93 you are quoting.

PW: When you saw the letter from pupil did it make you reconsider whether a good idea to put your message in a sermon, to pupils in chapel?
BR: No, not really, the reasons why it's an important topic are still sound.

BR: Of course unhappy that pupil upset. Would have liked to sit down with pupil with support present to talk further, to say "that's not what I said, not what I meant, let's talk" - we might thereafter agree to disagree, but that is the point. Free society, many views.

PW: From your perspective pupil has misinterpreted what you said?
BR: Yes
PW That's why I ask, did you not reconsider whether sermon a good idea? Much misinterpretation, much upset?

BR: You can see that I do consider; I write back describing upset caused by the E&C programme; these are Christian values I was saying. I don't understand what I am supposed to do differently other than say nothing, which is not my job.

BR: There is only so much control I have over misinterpretation. I chose my words carefully, I considered carefully. What was I supposed to do?

PW: Moving on.
PW: Investigatory meeting 1st July
[pause for locating documents]

PW: Bundle has notes at p370-376. You had someone with you to take your own notes?
BR: No, just to support.
PW: These are annotated "Bernard's version", you made changes?
BR: A couple of notes that's all

PW: During the meeting, you gave the investigator strong impression you wd carrying on addressing controversial issues in the same way?
BR: I think I was clear I would continue to lay out Christian position

PW: You gave impression you would carry on addressing the issues?
BR: It's been a while. I think I talked about - see here p375 - I said, the E&C programme shd be put on hold for discussion, I say some of it is quite right but on other bits there are 2 points of view.

BR: I'm not saying will charge on regardless, I'm saying there is things to discuss. Was clearer still in disciplinary hearing.

PW: For example p371 investigator says you have the complaints, do you have comments, you say you think you have used neutral language and made fair comment, and if looked at objectively was not inflammatory. You say you had not dumbed down, but never do.

PW: Does this not indicate you don't think anything wrong with what you delivered?
BR: I would not have delivered it at all if I thought there was anything wrong with it. Looked at in itself, it is pretty bland.

PW: And so re dumbing down, you were asked "was it approriate for Y7 and Y8, did they understand". You say "I don't dumb down, they are not 3 year olds, not impossible to get their heads around". Again, suggests you will carry on as before

BR: Yes. Education is not about dumbing down or leaving people where they are, it's about bring them forward.

PW: This was a ten minute sermon in chapel.
BR: Yes that is my job. Preaching the gospel as a minister of the church.

PW: Bluntly, you were going to carry on, controversial issues, in the same way. p372. You say, complaints from pupils show it's important to discuss. You say, don't have to be accepting. Suggests you will carry on as before.

BR: If pupils are constantly told they must accept an ideology, and in an Christian school, it would be a dereliction of duty not to address that.

PW: You say "might not be right tone, but had to be said". Gives impression that despite concerns you still felt you should continue to address, in chapel.
BR: Yes. Freedom of religtion, freedom of speech.

PW: YOu dismiss complaints as, just people taking offence.
BR: I didn't have them in front of me, but yes, I did think there was offence-taking. And that's fine for people to be offended. Also fine for people to offend.

PW: You say free speech and free belief and democracy go together. You say, some people think they have right to not be offended. You say, truth is more important. You say, your job is to talk of sensitive topics in chapel.

PW: I say, gave the impression you thought people just taking offence for the sake of it.
BR: No - not just for the sake of it.

PW: "Some people think they have a right not to be offended". Belittles concerns.
BR: No, emphasises importance of being able to speak freely. If you can't tell the truth, how can you help somebody.

BR: If you go to the doctor, and the doctor can't say that being overweight might cause a heart attack, that's no help.
BR: Jesus went around giving people offence.

PW: page 373. You're asked, had you considered impact of sermon on more vulnerable pupils. You say, was aware people might find it hard to hear and were careful. You say, you don't think anyone's MH is helped by being lied to.

PW: Suggests that even though you knew potential harm, you went ahead.
BR: No, suggests that best way to help people is to face up to things - how CBT works. No therapist would say "always run away from truth"

PW: You were not a therapist, you were giving a sermon, to children. That answer indicates: in spite of risk you plough on.
BR: No I'm not a therapist, but am responsible for spiritual and moral wellbeing and the same principle applies.

PW: Back to witness statement. You say you got a suspension letter 25/6 no reason given. I say he told you investigation was necessary, named the policy
BR: Yes

PW: He said your sermons 19/6 and 21/6 had caused distress. I say you were given reason?
BR: He described *situation* but not why *suspension* as such.
PW: He said, investigation necessary. Distress
BR: That's what he said - it's "necessary" that I'm disputing.

BR: He said why *investigation* happening - not why suspension.
PW: He said, pending investigation.
BR: Not an explanation

J: You are saying, you cd have carried on working meanwhile?
BR: Yes

[pause - PW considering next Qs]

PW: New topic
J: Then let's take morning break now

[BREAK]

Back from break but no sound as yet

Sound has come back on, discussing doc received btwn investigation and disciplinary.
PW: there are some items on here that you described as discriminatory.
BR: yes, and that the school's ethos at times at odds with CofE, belief is protected

BR: the suggestion that a CofE minister is out of sync with CofE school ethos, is problem

PW: you were out of sync with school ethos
DO: what is the school ethos?
BR: offers to show school rules. refutes breaking rules

PW brings up evidence of ethos of school from 1890 (?) that states promotion of education of boys and girls, in keeping with protestant & evangelical principles

BR: bring up doc stating the Head Teacher's duty is to uphold these beliefs ('our' beliefs), and upholds that content of the sermon in question was in keeping with CofE values, and school values (school rules and expectations document, 2019). Thus has not gone against sch ethos.

PW : you knew that the content of the sermon was not in keeping with the (new, changed) ethos of the school.
BR: my contract states i should be loyal to the principles of the school, and I believe I did that, and any body who says I should do otherwise is asking me to break rule

PW: comment that you are out of sync with school ethos and over protective of CofE rules are accurate aren't they?
BR: I don't see how they could be

PW: during the disciplinary meeting, you did not change your position from original meeting.
BR: i think it is extraordinary that someone should be disciplined for doing his job, as stated on contract
PW: you felt compelled to talk re controversial issues

BR: do not accept they are controversial. It is my job to promote mutual respect and work out a way to discuss. Or not talk about at all, which nobody thinks is a good idea.

PW You say that you cannot help if you are misinterpreted
BR: this happend
PW and that some ppl chose to take offence
BR no.
PW turn to page 735-741, minutes of disc meeting, compliled with Rev Andrews
BR they were originally inaccurate, a better version (this) sent to rev A

PW You took issue with saying that you said ppl 'chose' to take offence
PW (reading) due to previous meetings, BCR thought it was ok to talk about the issues, (some missed), and that some had chosen to take offence and did not 'need' to

dispute whether the words PW read out were a direct quote, ie whether BR used terms 'chose' to take offence. Some in quote marks, some not.

BR as stated, I took on board advice given, which I could have moved forward with, but launched straight into this process instead of sorting out like grown ups, with different and equally valid viewpoints

PW: you said that you would continue to preach the word of the church in or out of season, ie whether popular or not. This shows that you did not want to change.
BR: the phrase is used in ordination service, anf job description
PW you wrote job desc
BR and it was approved

BR It is not reasonable to employ a minister of CofE and ask them to break ordinances of CofE
PW but you gave a sermon which was not appropriate
BR Something appropriate is not inappropriate

BR: i do not accept that a CE minister teaching CE doctrine in a CE school is inappropriate
PW but maybe a school in not the time or place