Thread by @tribunaltweets

We continue after lunch.
SC asks Laura Kenny of SWE to affirm her witness statement. One minor correction on date. Over to NC for questions.

LK - Laura Kenny
EJ - asks witness to speak up.
NC - where did your direct involvement in the case begin?
LK - there is an email that shows the case was directed to me.
NC - is that page 49?
LK - correct
NC - that's where your personal involvement began and ended

NC - if we search the bundle, your name comes up 12 times. If we search for X, the name comes up 300 times. Jack Aitken - JA.
LK - is that correct
NC - we wrote to your solicitors and we were surprised not to see a witness statement from him. Were you aware of that?
LK - no

NC - apparently he's on his honeymoon
LK - I don't know
NC - regulatory concerns to be investigated, framed for the investigator.
LK - they set the boundary of the investigation
NC - we see your comments to JA, your question is 'how did she show remorse'

NC - response was donation to crowdfunder, training etc. Now on to JA's response.
LK - inaudible response
NC - SWE described as a process focused organisation, is that fair to say discussions between a supervisor and an investigator would be minuted
LK - Yes, but important

NC - suggestions of a number of conversations, were those minuted?
LK - I don't recall how many conversations there were, there were comments on a CIR (?) and J would have seen those
NC - on investigation report; shared petitions on Facebook that were discriminatory

including a petition to prevent TW from competing in women's sport.
EJ - asking if NC means after any surgical interventions and hormonal treatments.
NC - term refers to people who were born male
EJ - they may not have male bodies at the time,
NC - clarifies, born male

EJ - born male but currently identify as women
NC - we are not talking about female people to be clear, I think we all agreed. 3 petitions; sports, against Mermaids providing training in schools, against TW in female prisoners. Do you believe that it is misconduct for RM to sign

those petitions? Does it cross the threshold?
LK - yes I do.
NC - now, RM donated money to @fairplaywomen, do you believe that is evidence of misconduct?
LK - not for me to say but would have been included in the triage material for the investigator, body of evidence

NC - could petitioning to stop Mermaids doing training in schools and police/fire service, bring the profession into disrepute
LK - should not advocate against training
NC - she did not advocate against training, it was against training from Mermaids
LK - she did advocate

against training.
NC - do you maintain that they did constitute discriminatory conduct?
LK - it would be part of the evidence
NC - and do you think that advocating against people with male bodies in women's prisons could bring social work into disrepute?

LK - it could undermine confidence in the profession, it might be dangerous to those persons
NC - other way around, would it be appropriate to advocate to include male bodied persons in female prisons, would that be good for the profession
LK - it would depend on whether and

how they shared those views.
NC - there are 2 possible views on that. Do you say that one of those views cannot be expressed without bringing the profession into disrepute?
LK - I'm trying to frame my answer.
EJ - take your time, imagine the reverse scenario

LK - if it was done in the same way, yes
NC - I've understood your answer to be that in the opposite situation it could bring sw into disrepute. Are you saying that signing either of those petitions is just as bad.
LK - yes it is
NC - is it that anyone who expresses a view

on a controversial issue with which others could disagree, brings SW into disrepute.
LK - it depends on what the matter, the context, etc.
NC - if you're right, we could expect to find exactly the same level of interest in views expressed on social media, say the anti-GC view?

LK - I can't think of any on the other side.
NC - there are no TRA activists among SW?
LK - I haven't dealt with any cases.
NC - that's because SWE has taken a side, partisan, that TR activism acceptable. Is that fair?
LK - I don't think so.

NC - now looking at links to fundraisers that RM contributed to or shared. Specifically, Graham Linehan. Complainant says has used his platform to erode trans peoples rights and has had a police caution. This is J quoting from the complaint. Is that right?
LK - yes.

NC - now quoting section from above complaint. What we see in the investigation report is a direct quote from the complaint.
LK - yes
NC - any attempts to verify that information?
LK - not that I'm aware.
NC - apparently 'details easy to find in the public domain'

NC - But J made no attempt to verify.
LK - RM's response to the complaint shaped the investigation and how much verification we did, you can see that in the template, she was going to accept the assertions, so we did the appropriate amount of work.
NC - a regulatory

investigation is a serious matter. Your evidence seems to boil down to if the sw in question seems apologetic or conciliatory then there is not really much investigation at all.
LK - no, we did the appropriate amount of work and investigations.
NC - 'donated money to orgs

that hold discriminatory views'. Did that ring any alarm bells with you?
LK - no
NC - do you think there's no problem as characterising orgs as holding discriminatory views, and then finding them guilty of misconduct?
LK - I think its wrong to discriminate

NC - donating to an org with 'discriminatory views' means that the SW supports those views. So there are certain views that a SW is not allowed to hold.
LK - the views that are being put forward, if the views have the potential to undermine the profession, then it could mean

that they treat people differenlty.
NC - the views in question -sex is binary, people cannot change their sex, and sex matters - those are the views.
LK - I don't know, exactly what is discriminatory, that is a legal question.
NC - those views, its true that many would

characterise those views as transphobic, discriminatory, objectionable.
LK - yes, many would say
NC - those views are mainstream and held by many people
LK - as you say, its a debate
NC - did you give any thought to the fact that RM's views were mainstream even if you didn't

share them?
LK - the views were not relevant and didn't impact the investigation they may be discriminatory views
NC - she gave money to @fairplaywomen what are their discriminatory views?
LK - I don't know, we got the evidence from the complainant
NC - but it's not the

@fairplaywomen complainants report is it?
LK - J got that info from complainant
NC - I don't care what J's views are. His job is not to cut and paste from the complaint. He says that FPFW is an organisation that holds discriminatory views, how did he establish that?
LK - explanation

@fairplaywomen of process.
NC - what was it about FPFW that led J to say they have discriminatory views?
LK - J showed them to RM and she agreed that she had made those donations, and seemed to accept they were discriminatory
NC - so you cannot assist the tribunal in understanding

@fairplaywomen the views of FPFW ?
NC - did you know that the complainant was a TRA? Given the toxic nature of the debate, did it not occur to you that this was a campaign against a GC person?
LK - we don't investigate the complainants as a matter of course
NC - you didn't look at his

@fairplaywomen social media?
LK - know we wouldn't do that
NC - reads out section of complaint about @StandingforXX, described as a hate group. Going on about sharing misinformation about trans community.
Didn't that make you worry that you were dealing with an activist, a campaigner?

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX LK - at the triage stage, we must respond to the complaint, and its not on us to investigate the complainant?
NC - it didn't occur to you that the complainant was using SWE procedures to punish RM for her GC views?
LK - no, we must investigate all complainants.

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX NC - are you saying that J and you had no role in evaluating the evidence presented.
LK - we gather evidence and we guide the investigation, and no info was provided to us about this individual, so we didn't do that.
NC - you've said several times that RM was accepting

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX of the allegations but you must be aware that a SW confronted with an investigation would be terrified and inclined to accept the allegations,
LK - SW has a number of opportunities to respond to all the allegations
NC - but her willingness to accept the allegations doesn't

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX absolve you of doing a proper job.
LK - we did a proper job in our procedures.
NC - what evidence of investigation did J do in this process?
LK - investigator goes through the evidence submitted.
NC - so it's not the job of the investigator to establish the veracity

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX of the allegations.
LK - more could have been done to do that, but we were at a fairly early stage and it was clear that RM was going to accept the findings.
NC - did it occur to you that the complainant was attempting to get SWE to discriminate against RM for protected belief

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX LK - we investigated the complaint
NC - if the complainant was trying to get RM punished for her beliefs, J's report was everything he dreamed of.
Tribunal asking questions now
Trib2 - explain the triage stage of the process to me
RM - walking through the procedures

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX (very difficult to hear)
Trib2 - who makes the decision if it moves forward?
LK - the decision making group
Trib2 - and then it moves forward to investigation
LK - yes
Trib2 - do you get malicious referrals?
LK - we don't have a history of such or a specific policy

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX Trib2 - what would you do if you suspected a malicious complaint?
LK - we have limited powers to ignore it, we would have to take it forward and investigate it
Trib2 - you have more powers now
LK - Yes

@fairplaywomen @StandingforXX Trib2 - says 'you shared petitions on Facebook that pursue discriminatory goals?' How did you get to that position?
LK - it's not for the investigator to substantiate that
Trib1 - about Facebook privacy settings, did you seek to clarify what her privacy settings were?

LK - no we did not until much later.
Trib1 - if you didn't look into the allegations (discriminatory or not) how do you expect the case examiner to make that determination.
EJ - how much time did you spend on this matter?
LK - I wasn't the investigator
EJ - how much time

supervising? Minutes, hours, days.
LK - maybe 2 hours
EJ - we've seen the requirement for neutrality, is there a problem with a sw expressing personal political views on topical issues. Is having a view on a political view and expressing it on social media a problem?

LK - it can, it depends on how it's expressed. It's not the view, it's how it's expressed. Is it respectful.
EJ - you've been asked about FPFW, did you do an online search on them?
LK - I didn't do it, I didn't suggest that J do it. I allowed him to make that determination

EJ - would it not have been prudent to have done that
LK - yes, looking back, I might have done it but it wasn't my role.
EJ - is there anything that prevents a sw from starting or signing petitions? For example, advocating for SWE to become a Stonewall diversity champion?

LK - it would depend on what it was and how it was expressed.
EJ - did you have firm views on these issues?
LK - I was vaguely aware of the discussion, but not deeply involved.
EJ - were you familiar with Mermaids for example.
LK - yes, but only in passing.

EJ - it is too late to start another witness, adjourning for the day
10 am on Monday to resume.
END