Thread by @tribunaltweets

NC: Talking about good practice policies for trans, eg Uni of Sheffield policy, [reads out re access on GI rather than sex] Is that the rule at SWE?
BR: It appears to say that. I don't know SWE policy
NC: This is v contentious isn't it?
BR: That's my understanding of the debate

NC: But this was whilst in SW Champions?
BR: Hard for me to comment as I'm not involved in these things and cross over of regualtory schemes
NC: It betrays a worrying concern for womens rights doesnt it?
BR I ccant say as not seen it before

NC All the evidence suggests that SWE as an org has picked a side on this debate?
BR: I don't agree with that. We don't have these discussions amongst ourselves and these discusssions may not be appropraite.
NC: You have no concerns that the group had picked a side?
BR No

NC: The group can give legal advice?
BR: We do sometimes give advice, eg on case law, and can now ask for legal advice by someone external
NC: This was treated as a high profile case?
BR: I don't think so in the early stages, but I wasn't involved then

NC: But by June 21 it was considered high profile?
BR: I wasn't involved and can't really say

NC: Email from FW of 9 July headed High Profile FTP Case. This is the 1st case of this kind [reads]. Note that nearly all the senders have pronouns in their bios

NC: Is it compulsary?
BR: I dont think so
NC Do you understand why it's important
BR I'm not aware it's recommended by SW to show allyship with trans

NC: Who is Ian Crawford?
[missed]
NC: If someone senior had realised there was a problem they cld have come forward?

BR: We could have given them advice but we never tell them what to do legally?
NC: It was clear they were discriminating. Could you have done it?
BR: Yes, we cld have referred to case examiners if we thought there was a risk
NC: So you cld have looked at Forstaters?
BR Yes if w

BR If we'd taken that view.
NC; My view is that SWE had taken a position being a SW champion.
BR I couldn't agree w that...it's about manifestation of her beliefs rather than her holding them
NC: So she's allowed to hold GC views quietly?

BR: Some of these cld be classed as offensive
NC There were points when SWE could have amended its decisions. All those opportunities were missed?
BR We didn't believe we were being discriminatory

NC: You signed off the statement of case? And looked at it closely?
NR: agrees to both
NC: Do you agree public debate is fundamental to democracy?
BR Yes
NC And u agree this debate happens everywhere?
BR Yes
NC And this might be parody and not polite?
BR Yes

NC: We need to argue and debate new ideas, yes?
BR Yes
NC It's unacceptable to bring in new rules without debate isn'y it?
BR Yes
NC People can campaign freely cant they, incl SW?
BR Yes, but they need to consider public confidence and the repuation of the profession

NC: There shouldn't be a hecklers veto?
BR No. I agree with you.
NC: Particular factions can't stop debate?
BR: Yes, I agree w you
NC: This is why freedom of political speech is so important?
BR I agree

NC: p1395 about the belief framework

NC: [bundle numbering issues again - misheard page number] para 85 re judgement needed to decide whether somethings isn't proper...
NC: The legal bit - is this your understanding?
BR: Yes
NC: Roylence is difficult and misleading test re misconduct here.
BR: I've seen this before

NC: Y're aware of need to be sufficient immoral for a case here?
BR: Yes, I've heard it before
NC: Main bulk of the document is summary of worst quotes / examples of which I counted 21, pulled from the original 70. I want to ask u about these 21

BC: 1st is about a cartoon of a skeleton "we're coming for your rights" that makes trans ppl to be malevalent. Did you know about strip searching in prisons?
BR No
NC Did you know about the female rape examiner discussions in Scotland?
BR No
NC: Have u seen the story about

NC: "punch a terf in the fucking face" and the police not looking into this initially.
BR: No. I can see how it's reasonable for them [women] to have concerns about their rights
NC: Shldn't they be terrified?
BR [missed]
NC: Read the article in para 29

NC: [reads about no platforming of GCs]. Do u think that's untrue?
BR: I'm aware that it happens..that it can happen
NC: [reads re pronouns being offensive and child transitioning] All those things are matters of legit intense debate aren't they?

BR: Yes, but we're looking at professional standards and the pronouns had the potential to fall short of this
NC: [reads about sports]
BR It's legit to public discussion about TW in sport but we didn't like male born TG and confidence of the public
NC Language taboos are diff

..difficult aren't they?
BR: I was concerned that trans ppl might not have confidence in a SW after reading this
NC: [reads about transwoman vs trans woman and ppl finding this problematic and othering] So dealing with a low threshold for offence here?

BR: Posts are on a spectrum across this
NC: on p1382, [reads re preferred pronouns and person centred approach and basic human rights] Do u agree w this?
BR: I think it's a respectful things to do
What about their human rights?
BR: It's not quite that but it is problematic

Adjourns at 12.10 until 2pm