Thread by @tribunaltweets

wait the response from the attorney general.
CC - now email from SA to MSC - I'm forwarding the below and would like to know if this is something you've been engaged in, and would like your views. Response from MSC - suggesting that there have been complaints and it borders

on contempt. You had done your due diligence and would not take down the tweet.
SA - I had written to the attorney general and I had heard that the legal team for the other side and they weren't bothered.
CC - It was a Scottish case and you didn't speak to anyone in the

Scottish Greens.
SA - this is very relevant to my brief, because it related to non-crime hate incidents.
CC - you had described the Scottish justice system as persecution
SA - no, I expressed empathy for a woman who was so distressed by the process disproportionate to any

potential injustice.
CC - this is a complaint which came in following that tweet from the individual involved in that complaint. I'm not proposing to read those out for the obvious reasons. But Patrick Harvey is named and he was the leader of the Scottish Greens at that time.

Technology failure - have lost 5 minutes of proceedings.

CC - there was a complaint from Maggie Chapman of Scottish Greens about your calling the Scottish justice system persecution.
SA - that complaint was not upheld, and I only learned that through discovery.
CC - I’m at the end of the Scottish complaint this would be a good time

For a break.
J - agreed, back at 4 pm, we will decide what time we rise on our return.
Court breaks.

We resume.
J reminding the spectators not to participate by signalling approval or disapproval through body language or expression.
CC - we are going back to the report on the tweets.

CC - after the tweet on Marion Millar goes on to a further repute breach and as part of that thread you posted criticism of GP in Brighton & Hove. And rights of women to be examined by someone of the same sex, and supporting funding for single sex refuges. And a complaint about

The council and it’s work. The author sees it as an attack on the council. Brighton & Hove is a green council.
SA - yes
CC - and by tweeting that they could have done more there’s an implication that they could have done more.
SA - yes
CC - and it is a fair comment

That this was not a comment that supported the local Green Party.
SA - it was more a generic we, the GP could do more.
CC - you accept that the refuge is based in Brighton, and therefore it’s a criticism of that council
SA - I can see that, but it’s disproportionate for me not

To be able to comment on something like this during the leadership contest.
CC - when you stood as a leadership candidate, you retained your position as spokesperson. You could have stood down
SA - that’s not normal procedure, its not required
CC - but you could have chosen to

SA - I suppose so but it wouldn’t be usual
CC - exchanges between MSC & SA ‘would you expect me to follow spokesperson guidelines during the leadership contest’ you were troubled by the code of conduct and what you could and couldn’t do.
SA - I was simply checking about what

Channels I could appear on. That was all.
CC - back to the report reference to SA supporting further attacks on colleagues, retweeting a Times article, what is a woman, GP woman’s office was a male. Did you tweet that?
SA - yes, I tweeted it
CC - the article mocked a fellow

Green when they attempted to answer the ‘what is a woman’ article.
SA - i would like to see the full text of the article
CC - do you accept that the article was mocking a fellow female green?
J - I don’t think its fair to ask someone to comment on an article that we can’t read

SA - I am quite careful in how I comment on articles. I am specifically directing attention to the quote about me and my campaign.
CC - you could have just quoted from the article not posted the whole article
SA - I could have but I also didn’t call attention to the part of

The article that might have been offensive.
CC - back to the report, its said that you have obsessively spoken on trans rights and mocking non-binary entities. Do you accept that?
SA - No. Nn the report its a characterisation, a caricature of my tweets and my stances on women’s

Issues are always called transphobic.
CC - you accept that you have violated party policy
SA - no
CC - you accept that you have breached the code for spokespersons.
SA - no. I agree that my Marion Millar tweet was unwise. But none of the tweets violated policy.

SA - even though I received a strong response from MSC, she was also saying that I shouldn’t be singled out on that basis, it was common to leadership candidates to get engaged in these issues.
CC - final page of the report - the tweet refers to vast majority of kids will know

Themselves by reference to their biological sex.
SA - yes
CC - you have retweeted about your unapologetic gender critical position and the biological basis of womanhood.
SA - where did I say this?
CC - I suggest you have endorsed these positions by RT or QT.
SA - this is

Consistent with MBs modus operandi. Goes on to describe a video that encourages children to be sceptical about the biological basis of sex. And this is inconsistent with other aspects of GP policy.
The only reason that this is surfacing in this report, is that it suits the

Agenda of my detractors.
CC - this paper gathers together a number of concerns about your conduct
SA - during the leadership election
CC - during the period of time covered
SA - during the leadership by election
CC - Jewish Greens are a members interest group

SA - a special interest group
CC - for which the D says they have no liability
SA - I don’t agree with that
CC - they are simply people with a specific interest for home D has no liability
SA - I’ve already said I don’t agree with that
CC - letter from Jewish Greens was

Covered many of the same points that were addressed in the Brown report, but didn’t introduce new useful evidence so didn’t influence the outcome. According the MSC.
SA - I was lead to believe that these complaints weren’t be relied upon at all. I was doing exactly what my

Brief was.
CC - there is one matter that I would like to ask you about. There is reference to your posting of a poll asking if it should be a prerequisite before joining a party that potential members must believe in the immutability of sex?
SA - do you have the wording of poll

I must say under oath that this paper is full of misrepresentations, misquotes, things attributed as quotes that I didn’t say.
CC - if there is a dispute over the poll I will return to it.
J - I thought you had said that this letter was taken into account when deciding to

Dismiss SA. I understand it was not taken into account was it?
CC - it was not taken into account (looks at client) it was not relied upon.
J - but why is it relevant
CC - in the same way that reports provided to GPX were not adopted but were part of a pattern of conduct

It’s relevant to rebut the allegations of discrimination as part of a pattern.
J - on that basis, we can go on.
CC - referring to letter, para referring to long standing concerns.
SA - I’ve got this
CC - this was written by JGs to comment on your unsuitability as spokesperson

SA - the JGs were not unanimous in their definition of anti-Semitism.
CC - but this was written to express concerns about your suitability as a spokesperson
JJ - the witness cannot possibly know what was in the mind of the author.
J - if the D relies on it then it must be

Discussed.
SA - no, this was part of a targeted campaign that was designed to remove me as a spokesperson, the author tweeted that the party had chosen n-1 good spokespersons. And then replied to someone thanking them for understanding what he meant.

CC - the production of the papers themselves didn’t produce a detriment to you in themselves
SA - of course they did, I was called before the SSMG
CC - you’re not complaining about the production of the report but the use to which they were put
SA - I don’t appreciate the

Distinction between the two
CC - invitation to SSMG, to discuss the report, like to offer you the chance to respond to this either in person, she’s set out the facts that this is about your communications in general, plus the code of conduct, plus the specific matters.

SA - yes, but with the caveat that I was expected to address other’s complaints which is what I was expected to do.
CC - you’ve responded to the request, describing inaccuracies in it, etc. And you’ve also said that the GP has always supported sex based rights for women.

CC - you refer to the complainant, you refer to frank conversations taking place, and then you say you’d like to address the group in person and put forward dates.
SA - yes
CC - and then there is correspondence about the format and the make up of the meeting
SA -yes

CC - there are 2 separate procedures aren’t there; complaints and code of conduct violations
SA - that is now how it took place though. It was a revolving door between the two. If it wasn’t upheld in complaints then it formed grist for the mill of the SSMG.

CC - but there are 2 processes here
SA - but they were making it up as they went along. They changed tack along the way.
CC - is this a good place to stop?
J - yes, we will sit at 10 am tomorrow.
SA - any sense of how long this will last?
CC - I’m going to take stock this

Evening, doing some cutting and hope to be finished with all of C’s witnesses by mid-day tomorrow.
J - any comments JJ?
JJ - if the defence doesn’t start by noon tomorrow we will be unlikely to finish.
J - CC if you could finish by 1 pm tomorrow I think that’s fair.

SA - I don’t understand the constraints of the oath, can I talk with my barrister?
J - not until after examination and re-examination finishes.

Court rises.
Resumes tomorrow at 10 am.

@threadreaderapp unroll please