Thread by @tribunaltweets

AP: won't go through all transcript but theme is ppl were anti GC and pro trans and upset about grant. Bulk of it?
SM: certainly lot of people who asserted LGBa was anti trans group and disagreed with DF comments.

AP: u didn't say u disagreed u just ignored her comments
SM: the ppl disagreed
AP: re ur decision about ur opinion that LGBA being anti trans...where 2 beliefs are protected it's not appropriate for senior manager like u to comment on your opinion

SM: don't think so. No issue with LGBA but this plan was specifically abpit bringing communities together. I'd have been against funding them.

AP: if you senior management of police service say in Northern Ireland, do u accept its not up to u to support one side and accuse Catholic group of being hateful.

SM: not good analogy. Ppl in the Arts have strong views and merits of partic apps and staff at AC and partic staff involved in decision making are used to robust convos. That context of AC convo has different analogy to police in NI

AP: where ur employed as a manager in UK u have duty to uphold the EA10. perfectly good analogy. Do u accept its inappropriate for senior manager in NI to go about reassuring protestants in partic and label catholics devisive
SM: not helpful for to second guess situ

AP: u seem to abdicate responsibility in u saying LGBA is a hate group
SM: what's the Q?
AP: do u not see taking a side on this issue, one designed to reassure those unhappy about the gear, u have a personal responsibility as to DF being attacked left right and centre

SM: don't see in chat that DF was attacked left right and centre. They disagreed with her. I don't see language used jn chat as inappropriate. Ppl in AC are used to being robust. It's appropriate for me to express personal views provided I make clear they are personal views.

AP: sir shall we take a break at this point?
EJ: yes

[Tribunal adjourned]

[We return.]

AP: next thing I wanted to ask re that meeting. DF says u ignored question 'how are GC views protected in ACE?' Turn up 288. We also see 2 questions. First from a man who asks 'how are we supporting entire staff in light of direct hate to inboxes'

and one from woman 'hope it won't prevent us taking this type of small grant in future' and then the answers in the transcript at 273. U see answer to man's Q.
SM: yes
AP: then u see answer to woman's Q
SM: yes
AP: and below that responding to a comment from another man

AP: so in the screenshots at 293. We have the question from that man 'would be good to hear from X how lived experience has shaped' and then comments not taken as questions. You skipped over answering question from DF?
SM: I did

AP: is that bc u weren't interested in reassuring ppl with her concerns?
SM: no was end of the meeting. This is problem of separating transcript from chat. Wanted to raise question of training and I genuinely pick up all the comments and questions.

Didn't pick up DF question towards end. Wasn't a deliberate attempt to ignore it.
AP: she also points out that GC belief protected in law....there's a question from a woman who responds to DF question with [reads

ACE doesn't have to protect views. Trans isn't a view it's being a person'] they're saying trans is protected but not GC views
Sm: I agree and she's wrong
AP: bc AC does have an obligation to protect those views
AP: did u know at the time?
SM: yes

AP: how?
SM: formed part if our discussion at the time
P2: not in ur policy?
SM: think ur correct. Were consulting on that at the time. New policy does reflect that.
AP: u should've corrected those views in the chat?

SM: was coming to the end
AP: u say that bit answered another one
SM: wanted to pick up training Q
AP: isn't DF question also a training Q?
SM: could be
AP: u were only interested in lgbt training and not GC?
SM: not accurate

(Missed)
AP: [reads] u seem partic interested again to reach out to that sub sector of employees. Anyone who identifies as LGBatQIA and whatever the plus mean. Why?

SM: we could see both through meeting we were hearing loudly from that group of staff were upset by LGBA decision. Wanted to reassure we had heard that.
AP: were u aware that DF had expressed GC views for some time
SM: no
AP: noone mentioned
Sam: no

AP: this is team's meeting. You say [reads 'you must be feeling bruised'] you mention someone promted u to send this msg.
SM: don't recall. Got msg saying concerns about denise
AP: can u remember anything?
SM: no...no..
AP: and this wording is your own?
SM: yes

AP: when u say uncomfortable and bruised, came from u not person you can't remember who sent it
SM: from me
AP: Fair to say she doesn't accept ur wording. Fair to say she left u in no doubt she was angry and upset?
SM: yes that's why I offered to meet with her

(Missed)
AP: [reads 'includes trans and NB and wider LGBTQiA+'] so start with everyone but then makes special ref to those people. Why?
SM: for same reason. I didn't write this. Same reasons I explained in my email about partic concerns we were receiving from our LgBTqiplus staff

AP: this decision is to exclude people GC and LGB people
SM: repeat question
AP: they wanted to make film but grant rescinded bc of ppl opposed to Gc views
SM: no that's not why it was turned down
SM: no it was the challenge to their charitable status
AP: bc of GC views

SM: LCF took decisions. Challenge to charitable status wasn't disclosed.
AP: u agreed with this statement I know u didn't write it
SM: yes
AP: you're seeking to appease and reassure LGBTQIA ppl. That's why it's in there?

SM: we're providing info and then repeat every person to benefit of cultural and this includes LGBTQ
Ap: Why?
SM: same answer as earlier. Concerns by our staff and presented AC as 'anti trans'

AP: about 25 people including you. Particular group ur appealing to and in opposition to GC views. U repeatedly say solidarity with this group
SM: if its interpreted as that I can only apologise. It was not intended to be a critique or attack of ppl with GC beliefs.

AP: no more questions
P2: re petition
AP: no they were dealt with by IM.
P2: the drop is session was it just you?
SM: director of comms policy was speaking and other from exec board but didn't speak but sent a msg. She's our chief finance officer.

P2: u say these 2 meetings. One ur answering questions on video link and looking at issues raised in chat
SM: yes I was speaking and trying to answer questions in chat. Chat was picking up speed and momentum of its own. In effect 2 bits of dialogue at same time

P2: u got visual and oral meeting. That is ppl exchanging views and asking Qs
SM: right.

P2: this is AP has been asking u about. Ur relying on this and the letters. [Reads 'LGBA has history of anti trans'] did u say that?
SM: yes
P2: and you said it was a mistake by LCF?
SM: yes
AP: I didn't put these as thought no dispute he said them

SM: C is accurate, D E and F are accurate
P2: so what we have to decide if that is unwanted conduct relating to DF PC. Then we go on to see whether fits in with prescribed issues re harassment

SM: sorry not a lawyer
P2: I'm trying to find out if that's unwanted conduct and does it have effect. You'll see 2.3 that's the wording in EA2010. What do u say?
SM: In my WS I say.. have u got it?
P2: I do

SM: erm. Just to get to the meat of it [reads 'when sharing views my conduct was harassment and created hostile environment for ppl with GC views']
P2: so you've answered it. I was looking at actual denial of that

P2: these are the issues we have to determine.
AM: I may have re-examination on that
P2: you'll have that
Ej: 288. What we have here is 'how are GC views protected in AC'. Ur evidence u say it came late in the meeting. Did u get to see the chat?

Was anyone monitoring the chat after u finished?
EJ: not aware of. Comms team helping me in meeting.
SM: once I'd finished my video the teams function allows ppl to stay on
EJ: u could have access to this chat?
SM: I could've.

EJ: the letter to be sent out following the drop out. Did the chat feature in drafting?
SM: no
EJ: clear to me from the chat people didn't want funding with LGBA for film. what's ur position about them being funded at all?

SM: in my WS I say I'm not opposed to LGBA getting funding from AC
EJ: take u to transcript and u didn't say that
SM: I think I was clear it was about that project
EJ: do u not think u should have?

SM: in hindsight and as I said earlier there's are things we'd look at differently and what we would say
EJ: there's a comment on 271. Remind me who X is
SM: dancer GC and who's company, falling out in company around her beliefs
EJ: u say [reads - never come close to this issue]

EJ: that's the closest you've come to saying (missed)
SM: (missed too fast) need to support provocative work and that's issue I was trying to explore and did not want to give impression that bc of funding for this partic fund that work that explored GC beliefs was

somehow out of bounds.

[Technical difficulties, had to take written notes]

EJ: no more questions. AM re-examination
[AM asked about controlling emojis in the chat and SM said he couldnt]
AM: you ignored DF question...
SM: didn't ignore, I wasn't able to
AM: no more Qs

EJ: next witness is Paul Roberts. How long do you think you will need AP?
AP: the afternoon
AM: we might get to subs
P2: today?
[Question about written subs]
AP: I'm not opposed to leaving them til tomorrow
P2: how long will u need?
AM: about an hour
P2: AP?
AP: not much longer

P2: OK about an hour each
EJ: well take early lunch rather than start with new witness. Back at 2pm

[Hearing adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll