Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning and welcome to DAY 3 of Shahrar Ali vs Green Party England & Wales. Today we expect Shahrar Ali to continue being cross-examined.
10am start.

Catch up with coverage so far:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/shahrar-ali-…

U go on to make points about Mr Brown. Then u set out a list of what u say are ur proposals. In that meeting u weren't told that ur response was not relevant. U were told that historical matters wouldn't be considered as SSMG didn't have means to do so.

SA: firstly I couldn't complete the presentation. There is a dispute as what was relevant.
J: I'm slightly confused about the defence case. U comfortably took us through Brown's case. Isn't D case that Matt brown allegations were not there to be repainted to?

CC: case was that SA had been asked to address at SSMG and rather than a discussion, he presented. Then there was a serious of correspondence where he was asked to anlage about his comms and he declined.

He continued and illustrated he would continue in the style he was communicating. He didn't accept hiscomms was contrary to party policy at all.
J: the matt brown paper. That was under consideration

CC: that was the basis [confers with another person] (missed) he was invited to have more discussions and he didn't take them up and that led to the conclusion. The decision wasn't taken til after.

J: if u consider with ur questioning, it does seem to be that Mr Brown is saying its really serious and understand DA Keen to confront them in the presentation. This wasn't that Mr Brown's allegations were unfounded, it was where do they go from there.

CC: that was the function of SSMG

CC: these are the minutes about the meeting in September [reads]. (Missed) it says you didn't give an answer to this?
SA: two things here. First is I strongly contest the minutes and I was told they were. I don't accept question pit to me in

those terms
CC: u accept u were asked something along those lines?
SA: [reads] that didn't happen and bit that did happen was around Institute of Ideas. They have an obsession...

she made it sound like I had gone against either policy or specific advice and that is false
J: so it wasn't like you'd gone and spoken

SA: yes she made it sound like I breached a platform. Don't think it's her number one place to go and she made it clear I had a different threshold to free speech than she did.

CC: obvs D doesn't accept summary of meeting is inaccurate. He also says you didn't answer questions correctly?

SA: that's closer to what happened. Martha lost her temper so much the chair had to apologise on her behalf. I have more than one record of the meeting pit in to SSMG in which I recount situ where there was insufficient time to take questions.

CC: I think you've answered the question. U say ur response in meeting wasn't relevant but actually wouldn't be considered by SSMG as they didn't have the remit
SA: no those things were put in later and they were making things up as they went along.

CC: after the meeting u had agreed to another SSMG meeting?
SA: open to it and always have been
CC: well come on to whether u always have been. This is an email from Scott Catow.

Last sentence [reads] Clear from email no decision has been made as to whether u continue as spokesperson
SA: no decision by Scott katow at that point, not by other members

CC: no evidence of response. U were then sent an email by Martha James (MJ). She refers to monitoring. U respond to that email in detail [reads 'developed a brand of being gender critical']
JJ: u can't read half a sentence
CC: [reads]
SA: that's still not the complete sentence

CC: no indication in the letter about devicive that brand might be
SA: don't accept it was divisive
CC: u then received correspondence from Scott Catow (MSC)

[Confusion about bundle and docs CC is referring to]

CC: there's no invites but a lot of tooing and froing
J: what I'm particularly interested in is further invitations to meetings
CC: yes, I'm concerned about time

(Missed)
CC: u said u wanted to respond to MSC and u said u would put something formally in writing and this is a letter headed 'without prejudice' and was written in 3rd person to select people
SA: would u like an answer to that?
J: just answer questions ur asked

CC: rather than discuss how u could resolve differences with SSMG u chose to put ur response to them in this format. You say [reads 'Ali has expressed no such desire...']so you're reaffirming that what u say on women's rights and trans rights does not contravene party policy

SA: correct and further that the minutes are inaccurate. Why would I want it to be falsely attributed to me
J: can I jump in to understand your objection. Where ur letter says about expressing freely u did express a desire to express yourself freely and

continue to advocate for sex based rights as u had historically but u say that's not against party position and the people who took minutes say it is?
SA: yes

[Discussion about meeting with SSMG]
SA: by this point I'd had my line manager removed from me
CC: can we stick to question please. U were invited to meeting on 17th December and then ur substantive letter was responded to.

[Confusion about bundle]
CC: this is a response to your Substantive letter and MSC says at the end [reads] and she asks if u wish to proceed re issues raised above. One of the issues she raised is meeting with u in mediation isn't it?
SA: yes
J: sorry didn't catch that

[CC repeats]
CC: and then u send a letter on 16th Dec titled 'cease and desist'
J: just help me with where mediation is
[CC does so]
CC: and I won't take SA to letter but then SSMG met in ur absence on 17th Dec.

Won't take SA through minutes. No decision was made about ur being spokesperson at that meeting was it?
I'll move on. 6th Jan MSC wrote to u again and referred to new start in ur relationship including u as spokesperson?
SA: yes

CC: she referred to another date for meeting and (long pause) mediation again?
SA: I believe so
CC: then in 17th Jan u sent a letter refusing to meet unless u were given more info
[Judge asks for bundle place. Bundle confusion]

CC: u had ample opportunity to meet with SSMG and communicate but didn't take them up did you?
SA: not correct on the communication. At no point were comms concerned put to me in voice of SSMG and that's the problematic bit.

A completely different approach was taken with another spokesperson
CC: when u did respond in ur comms there was a indication u continued to hold opinion contrary to party policy and u continued to do that

SA: (missed) I wanted to know ahead of another meeting, can u please send allegations in your voice...
CC: This is the draft of the report from the spokespeople. Clear from this draft that the SSMG believes that ur decision to champion a highly

controversial position re trans rights was compatible...it's clear from this that SSMG believed u weren't performing ur role as spokesperson properly?

SA: no bc the connection to possible institutional racism is a greater concern. This is how I'm reading it. In absence of inquest into institutional racism, it's part and parcel of that. With worry of racism remaining they still went on recommending

something worse than this. Don't think u can say at this point SSMG had a second view
CC: erm. Erm. Can I just, I'll come back to that apologies. Just want to take u back to..
J: just mindful we've got 2 hours
CC: yes I apologise

J: u can use the 2 hours for SA
CC: no that's not going to happen.
This is an update report from Matt Brown on 19th Jan 2022. Now this is a tweet of yours, u say there [reads 'sobering analysis from blueskyallison' 'we are seeing the erosion of same sex spaces'] that's a

contradiction to trans rights isn't it?
SA: no. Competent spokespersons take notice of judicial reviews and aware that there's a tension.
(CC is moving around bundle)
CC: SSMG was the body delegated to spokesperson code of conduct?
J: speak up please
[Repeats]
SA: yes

CC: then this is the minute of discussion re your role. And they focused on performance in ur role and use of ur platform as a spokesperson that was counter to party. There was a vote and decision was to remove.

SA: that was first time that was put to me and don't see the phrase in the minutes. It was in recommendation
CC: u accept what's there?
SA: yes. I wasn't in attendance
CC: no indication u would change your approach?

SA: I'm always open to that. It was about escalation and disproportionate
J: escalation?
SA: yes I was asked about changing my approach. I objected to apparant escalation of holding another meeting, amending where I volunteer trust the minutes, I wanted things put

in writing. It's very revealing GP wants to put things in writing and things it doesn't. I wasn't greeted with clear allegations. I was always prepared to meet and discuss maturely and robustly her concerns over my comms.
CC: D doesn't agree with that?

SA: Whether or not they were invited to. As for mediation, I was open to it I simply wanted to know format
CC: u wanted a format and that's not how SSMG operated. This is the paper from GPX and the recommendation u be suspended?
SA: yes

CC: suspension based on breach of conduct
SA: alleged breaches yes
CC: next well move to a tweet but before then u were contacted by MSC about ur removal?
SA: she made attempts
CC: and u say you wanted to make a formal arrangements

SA: there was a WhatsApp message
CC: perfectly reasonable she contacted u via those means?
SA: no.
[Judge stops them talking over each other
SA: the chair refused to flatly engage with me via WhatsApp then to use it when it suited her, I regard that as

irresponsible to use a WhatsApp msg to communicate such a thing. I've still not received reasons for recommendation. I suspect she was trying to avoid a formal meeting
CC: it's what D would have done with anyone isn't it?

SA: no MSC gave specific reasons not to use it but then used it
CC: in these circumstances it's what they'd do with everyone
CC: I'll take u to a tweet. (Missed) U also complain about not being engaged in police bill when MPs who are are elected officials (lists politicians)

SA: we don't not invite spokespersons in their remit bc they're not politicians
CC: u are also claiming victimisation. U sent a letter before action on Feb 4th. U say [reads] Is it ur case that having received the letter the

response should have been to halt their action and D should have stopped as result of the letter? Is that what u were saying
SA: I'll leave that to my barrister
CC: I'd suggest there was no victimisation

SA: not entirely sure of question. follows that para are a whole series of examples
CC: a fee more questions. U sent a number of 'without prejudice' Letters. Had u sought advice before claim?
SA: can u ask that in a straight question

J: seems reasonable question
SA: the answer is no.
CC: can I have a moment?
J: yes
[Confers]
CC: as he denies all, no more questions
JJ: back to ur witness statement (WS)
SA: I thought I could speak to barrister
J: I explained yesterday you can't until finished evidence

JJ: [reads] can transwomen be pregnant?
SA: no
JJ: can transmen be pregnant?
SA: yes
JJ: does it mention transmen?
SA: no
JJ: if it were directed at women as well at trans community what would it say?
SA: there'd have to be additional statements

JJ: this is the start of the crime policy. This is the policy. Read second sentence to urself please
SA: yes
JJ: do u see there are different people categorised in the policy. Women and trans people?
SA: yes

JJ: you have 2 categories of ppl here. Pregnant women and pregnant prisoners. What does that suggest to you?
SA: were talking about ppl on basis of their sex characteristics.
JJ: now does that separate category include trans prisoners?

SA: most reasonable interpretation is that's a single sexed facility.
JJ: you mentioned yesterday the circulation of a video and WhatsApp message. Is that it?
SA: yes
JJ: (missed) Can you recall words u overheard from convo with MSC?

SA: no, was a heated discussion
JJ: u say she let on she was facing resistance. How?
SA: by saying 'it's better u don't know'
JJ: did she ever say don't worry?
SA: no
JJ: this table is broken into 2 parts. Complaints brought by you and

second part complaints against you. The table with complaints brought by you, names are duplicated, did u bring them on separate occasions
SA: yes this was double counting
JJ: explain

SA: I had to resubmit complaints, but substantially same complaint.
JJ: chandler wilson appears twice. Is this example of what ur talking about?
SA: yes

JJ: something different. U were asked about some action had been taken behind the scenes re the open letter. What facts do u rely on for that suggestion?
SA: only fact I rely on is there was a change in the letter and it was taken down

JJ: the fact it was taken down?
SA: yes they must have been spoken to or representations occurred.
JJ: it was suggested u didn't suffer a detriment - para 55 explain why it does?
SA: yes

JJ: yesterday u mentioned there's been an intervention between Matt brown, is that the WhatsApp message?
SA: yes
JJ: what does it show?
SA: that Mr Brown had inside knowledge

JJ: what's wrong with that?
SA: because he has interest in ruling going the way he wants. A member if SOC who was allowed into confid meeting, Tim kylie he had a conflict of interest
JJ: you're jumping around. Take this in stages. (Missed)
J: Tim Kylie?
JJ: yes

[Technical difficulties, apologies for interuption]
J it was exacerbated by GP for not warning u in advance
SA: they reasonably predicted a backlash against me as they released briefings to spokespersons before statement was made public,

including on trans rights and how to respond to press.
(Missed)
JJ: this is a tweet from you. What is it?
SA: me being super diligent. Any tweets within by-election period were covered by disclaimer at the

time. For period in question I did carry disclaimer on my twitter head.
JJ: that wording appeared on ur twitter?
SA: yes, I'd take it down but leave a record on my twitter as a note it'd been there

JJ: u were taken to a tweet yesterday re Marion Millar. U were then taken to Tweets in Dec 2020 which were on face of it profane and offensive. Had u seen those tweets when u showed support for her?
SA: no

JJ: u referred to a tweet from John Alston saying he singled u out. What was ur point of these tweets?
SA: John Alston retweeted about the new 12 spokesperson, missing one out. [SA takes through tweet]
J: what is the difference between quote tweet and retreat?

SA: quote tweet u are adding a contribution and personalising it. So Josh Alston personalised it [error Josh Allston not John]

JJ: [reads] what were u trying to convey by that sentence?
SA: priorities may differ from priorities of the party. Outside of election u can expect me to return to different priorities. During process u create a brand, that's all I'm acknowledging there.

JJ: final topic for re-examination. Matt brown produces this doc and states 5 breaches of code of conduct. 1st is breach of requirement to comply with party policy re trans rights. He essentially saying those Tweets contravene GP policy that TWAW.

Can u explain why those tweets don't contravene?
SA: firstly, my definition of sex based rights allows to include a right for a woman not to suffer pay discrimination in workplace. That's not contrary to policy. Matt brown also takes issue with statement I

made in 2020 elections. That statement is wholly consistent with GP policy
J: where?
SA: u can see here in question 'what is a woman?'
JJ: that tweet from previous year
SA: yes
JJ: you're quotetweeting that tweet in 2021?
J: so u expected that to be factored into the process?

SA: yes, I'd expect it to be drawn to people's attention not wait til 2021.
JJ: he says Tweets contradict policy re self id. What do u say about that?
SA: that's not in any way contradicting GP policy on self id. Simply requiring that that process exists.

All I'm talking about is what are the appropriate records that'll be required to determine someone having achieved that status. All I'm saying is that same question is same as all women shortlists

J: so ur saying when considering criteria for women shortlist is similar to changing their gender
JJ: now a tweet re Ed Davey on LBC, succinct response to that
SA: he'd done nothing to assuage concerns, that's what that's about.

JJ: suggested u weren't following guidelines on Today programme?
SA: I simply hadn't said that I wanted to breach GP guidelines, its necessary to talk about things
J: another way of putting it was this was a leadership debate, u didn't feel u needed to censor what u said?

SA: yes I was addressing potential voters
JJ: no more questions

J: as a politician if you're successful then the court will be intervening in internal matters of political parties. Isn't that rather dangerous thing for a court to be doing in a parliamentary democracy. What's your take?

SA: parties are governed by laws and any party which seeks to change law must have non violent direct action but ours takes itself to be governed by law.

the forstater ruling has application in all walks of life. It should impact how parties have these debates. I don't think discrimination has any place in political parties.

[Adjourned until 12.20]

[Court restarts]

JJ: were now calling Julia Lagoutte

[JL is taken through affirmation]

J: need to keep your voice up

JJ: This is a 4 page statement. That your sig?
JL: yes
JJ: content true?
JL: yes
JJ: questions for you
CC: u accept SSMG was set up to oversee role of spokespeople?
JL: yes
CC: and how people comply with code of conduct
JL: yes

CC: page 1482. This is the spokespeople guidelines and code of conduct (COC). look at bullet points. 2nd bullet point [reads] and then 3rd [reads]. It's right that in embracing a gender critical policy as a spokespersons contrary to party policy creates division

JL: no not right
CC: u have a different view to SSMG?
JL: can't speak for them
CC: decision of GPX was to remove SA based breaches of COC?
JL: decision was ro remove but no evidence of breaches of COC
CC: u had the paper presented by GPX?
JL: yes

CC: its considered their deliberations?
JL: paper didn't mention breaches of COC
CC: I'm putting together u that the paper talked about SA role and party unity and adopting controversial position uncompatible with spokesperson role

JL: didn't mention unity, didn't mention breaches of COC. I raised that at GPX meeting
[CC reads again position was contrary to party policy and therefore devisive]
JL: don't agree

CC: u wouldn't be aware of attempts by SSMG to meet with SA would you?
JL: I was in touch with SA and MSC and nay have been aware about attempt to find way forward. Yes so I was aware of some attempts

CC: para 9 of your WS. You refer to Catherine Rowett.....[confers] no further questions
J: JJ please
JJ: bundle 2. [Confusion over bundle]
Section headed 'domestic safety'. This was report that went before GPX. Read first part.

JJ: was that the passage u had in mind when u gave evidence a moment ago?
JL: yes
JJ: what was ur concern?
JL: my concern and other members raised concern. The last sentence

'highly controversial decision'. We were being recommended to suspend SA but this was only evidence and its not evidence. That the SSMG believes highly controversial position and we regarded subjective.
JJ: do u think highly controversial position?

JL: no
JJ: presented with anything else of his activities
JL: no. I did ask we delay decision until we had evidence and this did not happen
JJ: what were u told about evidence?
JL: MSC said there was evidence bit not time to bring it to meeting

J: re-examination is clarifying
JJ: no more questions
J: thank u for assisting us with evidence. Welcome to go.

[Another witness, Zoe Hatch, is affirmed]

[ZH affirms name and WS contents true]
CC: para 6 of your WS you say [reads 'expect pokesperson to take guidance']. We're u aware SA was given repeated opps to meet with SSMG to discuss role?

ZH: was told some meetings have occurred. Wasn't given full detail or clarity about what was happening at SSMG
CC: u had been told meetings plural had occurred. C didn't take up those
ZG: I don't know how many meetings happened or didn't.

CC: support u referred to could have been provided had SA met with SSMG?
ZH: what I'm trying to say is a spokesperson would be given an opportunity to see allegations and I don't know if that happened or not

CC: so u weren't aware of meetings offered to SA
ZH: not aware
CC: u weren't at the meeting obviously
ZH: aware people raising their hands
CC: u say u were being required to actively engage in harassment. That's not true is it?

ZH: I was required to attend ameeting where it was already determined SA was to be removed. If I'd gone I'd have had to eb a GPXmember that would vote to remove him and no evidence
CC: u had a vote and chose not to by resigning

ZH: didn't want to be part of process already decided. GPX already told me that in phone call
CC: can I have a moment please?
No further questions.
JJ: when wasthe phone call?
ZH: about 7 to 10 days before
JJ: what did she say?

ZH: customary for liz to make phone calls. It was well known this was controversial and contentious issue. She was worried about it and I said something like 'how do u think balance of votes with fall' and she said it would go against SA. Any other convos with GPX?

J: this isn't clarifying
CC: I couldn't ask about that as no direction
JJ: essentially what has happened is that a third party has provided the minutes of a disciplinary hearing showing Sian Berry had communication about managing her standing down.

J: you'll want to take instructions on that
CC: yes
J: what do u want to do?
CC: I'll make an app that that can be admitted.
J: we can sit until 5pm if convenient
[Court adjourned until 2pm]

@threadreaderapp please unroll