Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning & welcome to Day 3 of the Employment tribunal (ET) for RM v Westminster City Council & Social Work England. Due to being refused remote access, we're tweeting in person from London ET.

10am start

Catch up with last week and case info here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/rm-v-westmin…

Abbreviations

J - Employment Judge Nicklin

RM - Social Worker sanctioned by SWE

NC - Naomi Cunningham, Barrister for RM

WCC - Westminster City Council

SWE - Social Work England

SC - Simon Cheetham KC, Counsel for Social Work England and Westminster City Council

JB - Julie Bann, solicitor for WCC

LK - Laura Kenny, SWE witness, investigation supervisor

MM - Mermaids

SFW - Standing for women

FPFW - Fair Play for Women

WPUK - Women's Place UK

GI - Gender Identity

GC - Gender Critical

BITWB - 'Born In The Wrong Body'

WORIADS - Worthy of respect in a democratic society

[Tribunal started at 10am but due to connection issues I'm just getting underway now. Currently Graham Norris is on the stand being examined by Naomi Cunningham]

NC: nothing to suggest he'd r4ad the articles? Or privacy settings on fb?
GN: no indication that RM fb settings anything other than public. No content to suggest settings were private. On page 466, in RM testimony, she states, [reads: deleted posts]

GN: this suggested to us that majority of posts may have been public.
NC: all it suggests is that she had a wider group of friends than family and friends and locked it down even further?
GN: was open to anybody
NC: you didn't ask her?

GN: account may well have been public. Later down line RM maintained private. There was a school involved.
NC: did u read original complaint?
GN: yes
NC: find it at page 253

NC: complaint calls 'hate group' of SFW, JK Rowling and (missed) Mermaids. It's tandentious
GN: what does that mean?
NC: slandered
GN: I can't comment on that

NC: no alarm bells as to way that was written
GN: I'd take exception that a registered social worker may be an activist. Don't see anything wrong with a social worker being an activist for something they believe in. RM also has opinions she's put on fb

GN: could be perceived social worker is just as relevant as RM
NC: nothing to suggest (missed as cannot hear)

GN: registered social worker who has opinions and beliefs and don't know they're a trans activist and nothing wrong with being a teans activist. These beliefs made by the complaint and by RM are irrelevant to this debate. This is about fb posts that may be discriminatory

NC: no thought that Adan Walton Act is discriminatory against RM?
GN: RM Protected belief wasn't focus of our investigation
(Missed)
NC: neither Jack or aidan is giving evidence?
GN: not
NC: does it give u cause for concern now?

GN: not a fair question
NC: well I've asked it
GN: not focus of the investigation
J: perfectly good question
GN: repeat question
J: if Mr Aiken and complainant knew each other would that concern you?
GN: that would concern me yes
J: put question again NC

[NC asks again]
GN: that would give me cause for concern but at the time didn't have info of this

NC: on this page we see u pull out 4 examples of hosts that have contributed to your visit. You say the social worker engaged in pattern of discriminatory behaviours. So fair to conclude pulling out bullet points from what u regard as long path of discriminatory behaviour?

GN: some posts
NC: you're saying there's a lot of discrim behaviour and these are just a few examples? These aren't the only posts u take exception to?
GN: concluded multiple posts considered discriminatory. Over 2 or 3 years that would be definition extend the period.

NC: u thought that pattern of behaviour (missed)
GN: selection if the posts were misconduct
NC: para 12 of your Witness Statement (WS) please

NC: u say [reads - sorry very difficult to hear] [missed]
NC: will give u some examples. 1st: noone can literally change sex. Do u think morally culpable to say that?
GN: no view on it
NC: need to press u on it [asks again]

GN: depends on context of debate
NC: assume plain statement, noone can change sex and assume on public fb page. Regard that as morally culpable?

GN: as said we focused on 4 posts that could be discriminatory by TG community. We take any element of discrimination seriously and don't define it in case law.

NC: not asking for personal views
GN: not personal they're professional views
NC: do u personally regard asocial worker saying you can't literally change sex is morally culpable?
GN: urge you have to look at end of the bundle and comparator

NC: not asking about that. [Repeats question]
GN: it's not relevant
NC: what if a social worker (SW) said hospital single sex wards should be females only
GN: my answer is irrelevant. Depends on context and why she was saying it. No reason to convey personal beliefs

NC: supposing SW tweeted there should be no males in women's prisons?
GN: urge u to consider 149 of EA10.must promote and Foster good relationships with PCs. SW bring community together
NC: question again. Do u think tweeting that would be over the line?

GN: need to know circumstances
NC: given you all if them. Is it Iver the line
GN: I would not consider that to be over the line however it may impact on liklihood whether SW would receive complaint.
NC: it is likely a SW who tweeted that would be on receiving end of complaint

GN: possible
NC: Male competeing in women's sports, is that over the line?
GN: if it came to us we'd look at context and consider
NC: and lastly what if a SW tweeted 'children shouldn't be encouraged to think they're opposite sex', over the line?
(Missed)

[Moved to different topic]
NC: that's their summary of what happened?
GN: yes
NC: he wasn't suspended or taken off register. U wouldn't want it to repeat?
GN: can't comment on his case as with RM, case examination process is a paper based exercise.

Examiners will have had no idea that she felt scared, bullied. We so not get to interview SWs or question them other than paper based. Not allowed to contact complainants.
NC: u must know every professional dreads communication from regulater?
GN: dread is a subjective term.

NC: yes but stressful. U may have heard the phrase, the process is the punishment. Has he stayed quiet on the subject of sex and gender since then?
GN: we don't know. This wasn't a sanction. It was advice to include factors.

NC: if he'd done nothing wrong he didn't need to improve practice
GN: he may have welcomed it for the future
NC: what u have actually shown tribunal is someone you did discriminate against
GN: I'd say that's a significant assertion. His is different to RM and her fb posts

NC: turn to page 118. You picked out partic post as problematic which is the boy scouts cartoon. Page 341. Only screenshot, fair to conclude you thought that serious
GN: well there's another 3
NC: point to those
GN: I'd need time to do that

NC: this is a cartoon from Private eye mag
GN: distributed by FPFW?
NC: is that significant?
GN: possibly
NC: Why?
GN: posting from other orgs
NC: problem with FPFW?
GN: just statement of fact
NC: and this was Nov 3 2018. This is around time of Scotland reform of GRA

GN: this was a stand alone post.
NC: no it was in conjunction to the GRA reform
GN: but we didn't know that
NC: because noone looked into that. (Missed)

GN: we embody values of profession and have to turn question on its head and if u were member of TG community would u find this offensive and discriminatory
NC: proposal of reform GRA to remove Geneer dysphoria often referred to as Self ID.

Cartoon makes point this creates safeguarding risk
GN: again how would post be perceived by TG community. They'd be extremely offended as conflates ppl who are trans as being paedophiles.

NC: if u read it fairly, its not saying that, it's saying self OD creates an opportunity for paedophiles ro do that
GN: disagree with that. Talking about TG people and most reasonable ppl would think its offensive

NC: do u understand the risk the cartoon is saying?
GN: this is contrary of her duty as SW to bring communities together
NC: wouldn't it be contrary to SW to ignore safeguarding?
GN: safeguarding not relevant to this post

[NC then explains issues with safeguarding if orgs allow men/boys to be treated as women/girls and vice versa. SC asks if it's relevant. Judge states its relevant. NC clarifies it's about safeguarding]
NC: 4th bullet point refers to Graham linehan.

[GN mentions another woman wrote this]
NC: she brought some personal knowledge of Graham linehan?
GN: I don't know
NC: so why are u mentioning her?
GN: (missed - sound levels are exceptionally low, straining to hear)

NC: ur decision is paraphrased isn't it?
GN: (pause)
NC: shouldn't be difficult
GN: it is is difficult. I'd ask for time. (Pause) yes the statements seem to be similar yes
NC: and in investigation report that's where this comes from [reads]?

NC: you're aware this came from just reading report?
GN: and fb posts
NC: no that doesn't tell you inflammatory background about Graham linehan did it?
GN: no
NC: so u were taking it on trust from the complaint?
GN: glinner knowledge came from Miss Martin.

NC: you had to alter your decision after Graham linehan wrote to you threatening defamation?
GN: he wrote to SWE
NC: u said it was a genuine error? You put it in your decision
GN: I'd have to go back to that

[Sound is terrible, apologies]
NC: to repeat question, u and Heather had repeated material found on line which turned out to be untrue?
GN: erm. Its a factual error. Other newspapers we issued an apology in good faith [can't hear]

GN: our final decision doesn't include this because there was a factual error. This is not final version re condlsideration if this case
NC: bit in initial version u put in something u found online that turned out to be untrue?
GN: repeat the question
NC: [ repeats]

GN: colleague drafted it
NC: claiming fake news is something you thought RM had done? [Reads] this is part of the case against her is sharing fake news, right yes?
GN: in the report yes
NC: a thing that contributed to her sanctioning
GN: no
NC: no?

NC: so are u saying that sharing fake news wasn't in fact culpable in any way?
GN: (pause) certainly an area of concern. Situ in relation to child murderer Huntley and whether it was true or not

NC: lets have a look at Ian Huntley (IH) cartoon. That's a pic of 2 women tied to stake. One is saying 'what are u in for?' And the other 'for saying Huntley is a man'.
GN: was it established IH was transitioning?

NC: it alludes to women being punished for saying facts and illustrating that.
GN: no expert knowledge if Ian Huntley was transitioning
NC: it doesnt matter
GN: I'd have to ask myself why RM was posting stories relating to people transitioning

GN: IH is a child murderer and it establishes narrative that trans community are murderers and may be very offensive
NC: let's assume RM did share cartoon of fake news. Let's see what you did, you shared fake news on Graham Linehan

GN: it was a factual error
NC: has SWE sanctioned you for sharing fake news?
GN: not as far as I'm aware

[Court breaks. Back soon]

[Hearing resumes]

NC: the concerns for the decision thought that petition was pursuing a discriminatory role
GN: (can't be heard)
NC: can you please speak up?
GN: these facts passed realistic prospect test. Petition isn't discussed in this section.

NC: they're discussed in concerns.
GN: it's a realistic finding of fact as it might stand
NC: we see that on page 24 with bullet points. Page 545. Among multiple posts which u say could be considered discriminatory. [Reads]
GN: that's still in facts section

NC: so you included irrelevant facts in that section?
GN: we didn't think petition was discriminatory and not mentioned in warning it sanction
NC: let's look at other petitions. That's a petition shared by RM put out by FPFW. Photo is of transwoman Karen White

GN: not familiar with person surname
NC: have u heard of Karen White? Of the story
GN: see posts on fb
NC: it makes 3 assertions. If u thought any were false u would have characterised this as fake news
GN: again this wasn't featured in our deliberations

NC: but it's characterised as a discriminatory goal. You're saying sharing this petition wasn't misconduct?
GN: we didn't say anything.
NC: are u able to say now?
GN: that'd be difficult to say

NC: do u think keeping this individual in women's prisons is a discriminatory goal?
GN: no opinion on that. (Pause) I'd be interested to know what a member of trans community would think reading this post
J: can u repeat that

GN: [repeats] could be argued by trans that all TG groups are referred to as some of wording in this caption
NC: are u telling tribunal that the facts here are not all relevant?
GN: no some were not misconduct
NC: you pull out examples
GN: we say those are of concern

NC: [reads out 3 women's rights] which of those do u think are potentially discriminatory?
GN: none of them
NC: did aiden thought those were discriminatory?
GN: I don't know

NC: I'll ask u specific questions on the others and if u want to explain why they were discriminatory or offensive please do so. This is the Olympic national committee asserting males should not compete in female sports. Next one...

GN: is there a question?
NC: (explains previous again). Next one, stop Mermaids petition
GN: that's an interesting one and depends on whether RM's fb was private. May be professional questions about whether SWs should be sending petitions to schools to stop training sessions.

NC: Pink white a blue flag, misgendering is not a crime. Problem?
GN: not clear its a petition at all
NC: do u agree its proper?
FN: this isn't a petition its a statement.

NC: this is an article by Transgender trend and Tavistock experimentation. Proper for a SW to share?
GN: no concerns
NC: this is a parliamentary petition
GN: every SW has a right to engage in gov petition

NC: this one is saying that shouldn't change law for women without asking women
GN: hard to say
(Missed)
GN: all I know is Aidan was a social worker and we'd take his complaint as we would any complainant
NC: but you knew quite a lot about him

NC: you knew about Aidan
GN: this is evidence RM accepted she posted
J: no dispute they were posted
NC: did it occur to u either you or Jack aitkin should look at Aiden?
GN: would have been beyond remit

NC: if u think complainant might have am axe to grind, ought that be part of investigation?
GN: no reason to suspect that
NC: the petition about changing women's rights without asking women, clearly has very poor judgement?

NC: do u accept this is Aidans thread despite the redaction? [Reads 'proud to be a trans SW']. Look at 859 this is Jen Stoud, attempt to redact, next post down we see retweet and we can tell who it is. [Reads tweet] that's a ref to RM?, do u accept?
GN: don't know

GN: my comments were based on the investigation all this info was not known to us and so difficult for me to comment on any of these posts.
NC: top of page tweet from Aidan Wolton after redaction. [Reads 'congrats to joanna cherry']

NC: we can see from Aidan on twitter. Can u see that's an extraordinarily offensive tweet?
GN: I didn't see this
NC: supposing that tweet came from a SW do u think it crossed threshold?
GN: I don't understand the context if the debate

NC: you're aware this a trope of extreme trans activists that ppl with GC views are nazis?
GN: I'm not familiar with that.
NC: so you're happy for SW to tweet that?
GN: didn't say that.

NC: If a SW has made complaints to SWE about colleague who was black and to try to get rid of his black colleague he makes complaints?
GN: would have to be a process to establish the circumstances. These are hypothetical questions that are hard to answer

NC: did it cross ur mind that it might be Aidan wolton was trying to get SWE to discriminate against her?
GN: both entitled to make complaints
NC: but neither can on basis of a PC?
GN: they can if they wish on whichever grounds

NC: any investigation of Aidan Wolton re this?
GN: not aware of any.

GN: this Statement is as it is [reads]
NC: let's move away from Heather Martins statement. (Missed)
[NC asks hypothetical question about SWE being Institutionally racist)
GN: very difficult for me to comment on

NC: there's some slides from some training that start at 2192. We see at page 2194 that u were training about beliefs [reads]. We see you are told that it's illegal to discriminate on any of the 9 PCs. You understand that?
GN: yes

NC: this is a slide about religion and belief [reads]. Doesn't give you much help
GN: don't understand ur question
NC: EA protects on basis of belief
GN: and gender reassignment for trans people

NC: so it's ur view those two are in conflict?
GN: I'm saying there's 9 PCs and it's duty under EA10 to foster good relationships between those who have PCs and those who do not
NC: do u agree people can hold beliefs with great passion?

GN: yes
NC: and if a PC you'd be breaking the law if u discriminate?
GN: potentially
NC: the law says u can't discriminate on any belief no matter how repugnant u think it is. Agree?

GN: depends how belief is expressed and this was about RM actions of posting in fb and crossed the line
NC: have you heard of [cites case]?
Is it fair to say SWs is a pretty left leaning profession?

GN: very interesting question. Lot if SW do have a propensity to work with ppl from marginalised groups however SW comes from all walks of life
NC: and that's what gives u diversity if belief?
GN: yes
NC: but the beliefs u don't like put u at risk from discriminating against them

GN: we were looking at content of fb posts and the actions of a registered SW and whether they have dpotential to offend minority groups
NC: have u had training in Forstater?
GN: no (says they've had some training but not Forstater)
J: again, did it include Forstater?
GN: no

NC: [reads] is that an accurate description of the process?
GN: no. We examine the evidence individually and then come together and discuss outcomes.
NC: anything important about process of this case u have not mentioned?

GN: no. Difficult case re debates but was no disagreement as to outcome of this case
NC: you were at one from outset?
GN: yes
NC: if there'd been any disagreements you'd remember them?
GN: yes

NC: this is the decsion
GN: have to say most is template content
NC: seems Heather's first draft says No impairment found.
GN: that's just stock text (can't hear voice too low)

NC: page 198 please. This is Heather sharing a file with you. 'We need to talk about impairment' [reads] So you're talking about whether prospect of impairment?
GN: yes
NC: page 507 [reads]

NC: and you say this needs changing to yes. So contrary to what you said just now, this isn't preinserted text, and u persuaded her to change it.
GN: completely incorrect. We submit multiple drafts and we did agree with impairment and came to conclusion should be public.

GN: Nature of work load we often draft and redraft and send for amendments. Heather made an error in this case. From outset we both agreed this was the case.

GN: when we do disagree we have to go back to case operations team but Heather Martin, if I've ever submitted a report and we've disagreed, that'd be unprofessional behaviour, we agree on outcomes of reports (voice to low)
NC: can you speak up please?
GN:there are multiple drafts

NC: these earlier drafts weren't disclosed?
GN: yes but these are the drafts
NC: I to move on to talk about recusal requests

[There is drilling outside the room which is making it more difficult to hear, bare with us please]
NC: that's not what a conflict of interest is it?

GN: we applied 2 policies and it was my concern that due to nature of online debates that our objectivity may be affected due to high level of misinformation therefore in interests of RM and her case that this should be looked at with fresh pair of eyes.

NC: you're not specific about content are you?
GN: the info that is there is about debate on professional websites and that debate has been extrapolated from people who have no context
NC: it's right u have a strikingly low online profile for a professional with academic line

GN: I would take exception to that
NC: not much of your line
GN: maybe that's in relation to work we do
NC: you don't mention in your WS either
GN: no requirement to do so.
NC: was the recussal attempt to try and keep ur profile low?

GN: good argument but objectivity was the issue for me.
NC: question about prolonged investigation. Wasn't large investigation despite how long it took? 8 months is long time to spend under shadow of investigation. Agree?

GN: again maybe a question for team managers...
NC: would u agree a long time?
GN: difficult to answer
NC: this whole investigation bc of a social worker took exception to a SWs belief
GN: of her fb posts
NC: which were an expression of her belief

[Break for lunch. Hearing will resume at 2pm]

@threadreaderapp please unroll