Thread by @tribunaltweets

[Afternoon session part 2. We begin]

JJ: MC I'm going to take u to 2 docs which are letters or motions made about SA. Then will explore ur response to SA saying u didn't do what u were supposed to do. Take a moment, its a open letter, few weeks before meeting I June. Familiar?

JJ: it's an attack on SA, u agree?
It's being g abusive and calling him transphobic.
MC: it says he has a history of that
JJ: it's attack on him
MC: it's concerns about his opinions
JJ: do u think its acceptable to call someone with gc beliefs transphobic

MC: very complicated question and need to unpack that
JJ: is it discriminatory to call someone transphobic who is not transphobic?
MC: can't answer
JJ: that letter was sent to GPX?
MC: yes
JJ: few days after he wrote to GPX and copied u in

MC: he's not written to all
JJ: select yes. He says unconstitutional harassment of him. He says requires nothing less than automatic suspension. Moving to other doc, a month later the YG pass a motion calling for his removal as spokesperson. Right?

MC: yes
JJ: u describe that in a WhatsApp msg as reprehensible?
MC: yes
JJ: after the motion was passed SA wrote to you, addressed to you, he demands action. Perfectly reason position to take isn't it?
MC: he's asking if it's perfectly reasonable? Sorry not meant to ask questions

JJ: I want to put this in some context. Following his app as spokesperson on 7th June, would u accept he'd been the target of sustained attacks on social media?
MC: didn't look, but happy to assume
JJ: won't go through the whole lot as too much. Page 92

[MC finding in bundle]
JJ: GP, when spokespeople are appointed produced this twitter graphic and posted on twitter. Will flick through some entries who look like GP members. [Reads 'one of your counsellors says its time for removal, ambarrassed by party']

JJ: [reads 'failure to deal with those openly transphobic' 'promoting a terf'
Do you know what a TERF is?
MC: yes I do
JJ: it stands for Trans Exclusuonary Rad...
MC: [interupts] thank you for explaining
JJ: do u agree a derogatory term?
MC: will not go into that

JJ: Why not?
MC: not willing to get into that.

[JJ Reads more derogatory messages]
JJ: slightly more restrained, this one says he's trying to undermine gay rights. This is Mr Catt we saw earlier, [reads] and so on. At 415, letter 'continues making allegations of divisive issues'

This is not someone who has received one open letter.
MC: these are not complaints. This is social media
JJ: letter from Baroness Jones. This is a letter from the most senior and distinguished person in ur party?
MC: yes

JJ: [reads 'nothing of scale of abuse he's receiving now'] I'm putting this out for context. By the time u get to these complaints I suggest this called for action.are u familiar with expression 'bully pulpit' meaning u have authority by virtue of ur office.

You may not have specific power but u have power and authority of ur position as chief exec
MC: I don't.
JJ: nothing in your position to stop u together with Miss Reason, as chief exec and Head if GPX if writing a

letter to members that these attacks must stop. U could have done that?
MC: if it had occurred to me yes
JJ: you could have also made a complaint re this
MC: I don't make complaints as a matter of policy
JJ: Mr Barnett made a complaint
MC: yes

JJ: he sets out the complaint there and breaches of the members' of conduct.
This is the Walton and Halton response to Mr Barnet to temerity to complain. Have u seen it?
MC: I don't know

JJ: they say calling someone transphobic isn't an attack. They say they're taking on thr argument?
MC: we went over the letter
JJ: point I'm putting to u that they felt it was perfectly appropriate to file complaint when they had temerity to complain

MC: explain temerity
JJ: I suggest you and GPX needed to take a strong line. Do u agree?
MC: no
JJ: hypothetical example. Supposing this wasn't a belief case, and about his religious beliefs and these letters

and the social media complaints were making stereotypes about his religion and they'd been abusive following Islamic faith and accused him kf being a terrorist, is it ur serious position GP wouldn't have said it was wholly unacceptable?

MC: can't answer its hypothetical. Would be treated differently by COC. Not a useful comparison
JJ: EA10 covers all
MC: shall we get out code of conduct and have a look at it?
[Bundle searching]
JJ: [reads 'noone can be discriminated against for any protected characteristic']

MC: can't answer
JJ: what I get from your inability to answer is that I'm right on that
MC: that's your assertion

[Connectivity problems apologies]
JJ: the returning officers were extremely concerned and issued recall of SB
MC: the video was taken down
JJ: what does recall mean?
MC: cease being in position
JJ: it says 'took steps yesterday' [reads 'decisive action necessary']

JJ: they would not have been involved with an individuals personal statement
MC: clearly concerned and why they wanted to take video down
JJ: they would have not been involved if it was a personal statement
MC: can't say

JJ: she did tweet that it was personal capacity later but not at the time. Would u accept, knowing history of SB and her views and SA, the reason he was mentioned was his beliefs?
MC: or a poor relationship

JJ: but you can't answer because u don't know what's in their head. U will have seen SA put on personal disclaimer?
MC: yes
JJ: this is an email u sent to SA at end of campaign [reads]

JJ: first part suggests u had no concerns about his campaign
MC: I say the same thing to everyone
JJ: you're just a nice person saying that
MC: yes just being nice. People were getting uptight and SA did good job of just saying move on.

JJ: now the removal of SA from his post. You are not the decision maker, MSC was.
Something from earlier, you say complaints are confidential. [Describes page and boxes to tick]
Here is an identical complaint, issued with no suspension then reissued with a suspension request.

JJ: this is a WhatsApp msg that we are told that you sent [reads 'he can now be suspended'] Now the complaints system is confidential.who were you sending that to?
MC: I can't remember. Probably someone in GPX. Let's go with that.

JJ: it was sent to MSC. Wholesale breach of disciplinary process wasn't it?
MC: yes you're right
JJ: it was trying to short-circuit suspension.
MC: no

JJ: u knew by then SSMG were calling for suspension through that. U were trying to head off GPX meeting coming up?
MC: I'm just telling someone the situ which I shouldn't have as I say bc it's confidential.

[Connection issues. JJ Moved on to SB]
JJ: she was looking back at her position as leader and Co leader?
MC: she's making a statement of her views of events that day.
JJ: did u have assistance drafting this paper or all ur own work?

MC: my own
JJ: did matt brown have any I put?
MC: think he'd left at that point
JJ: I'm told he was a GPX officer at that point
MC: it was my own work

JJ: there's a footnote that says 'sex based rights can be seen as questioning trans right to exist'
MC: some people say that.
JJ: ur counsel has put 'sex based rights'...
MC: [interrupts] in this I put a footnote as I know issue causes tension

JJ: you felt the need to qualify protected characteristics of sex as u were concerned ppl in ur party would object.
MC: I just knew it'd be up for discussion
JJ: as a consequence of this doc a woman resigned
MC: yes

JJ: she had gc beliefs
MC: she felt strongly enough about it to resign
JJ: thank u no further questions
CC: no questions
J: no questions for us.

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll