Thread by @tribunaltweets

Shahrar Ali vs Green Party- Day 4 afternoon Part 2
Part 1 here - threadreaderapp.com/thread/1694692…

[We return]

JJ: still on meeting in October. I was putting to u and asking u to agree with me about SA defence of these allegations, as far as hi case is, this is a longstanding attack against him, u accept?

MSC: he was taking a backroom perspective and was quite misguided how he dealt with meeting.
JJ: he produced the presentation and I'll go back to that. Point he's making there's a historical context to this agree?

[Technical difficulties apologies]
JJ: Did u tell him the historical stuff wasn't relevant?
MSC: yes
JJ: during meeting Martha James lost her temper?
MSC: defo not
JJ: after meeting u exchanged emails with SSMG members

JJ: I want to focus here. Look at second sentence [reads 'energy behind this distress is caused by critics not himself'] We've seen a few of SA tweets - he doesn't send into abuse does he?

MSC: he signals and uses dog whistle technique but civil in use of language
JJ: Why is he responsible for reactions of other ppl?
MSC: he's not
JJ: if he responds in courteous ways and ppl have extreme reaction to that, why is he responsible?

MSC: were talking about very vulnerable ppl here. I've tweeted things that cause distress and I try not to do that again
JJ: but these are important matters. We've seen the two main policies change policies on Self ID. These are

obvious matters of current political debate
MSC: I see a war on woke
JJ: so u say the no debate strategy is best
MSC: no I just think its polarised and trans ppl are victims of that and as Greens we should rise above that
JJ: these are difficult issues
MSC: yes

JJ: there are genuine concerns on both sides. Trans ppl have concerns about being erased and women have concerns about men using the loosening of criteria to perpetrate abuse
MSC: I agree ppl feel then and I agree it's difficult debate and society or the

Green party hasn't found a way
[Judge asks for clarity]
JJ: u recognised that u were at cross purposes. If u look at meeting [reads] but then say [reads]. There doesn't seem to be a meeting of minds at the meeting

MSC: with respect I hold the position of authority here. Its not equal dialogue here and I don't think SA respected that authority or that of SSMG
JJ: SA was concerned that the person who had been hounding him had put together dossier of Tweets. He was

extremely aggrieved and entitled to know that
MSC: that's why he was offered forger meets
JJ: u at no point set out a bullet point list did u?

MSC: u are suggesting a legalistic process, we are a party. I wanted to give SA a chance to draw a line and then accepted our authority and monitoring
J: I'll jump in with question. You don't think SA respected ur authority. Can u unpack?

MSC: everything I made a suggestion of he didn't take it and noone treated me this way. They all followed my advice. He comes to a meeting where we have the authority and ends with proposals and it wasn't his role to propose. He didn't understand

relationship between SSMG and me and spokespeople
J: cutting to chase when it came to what SA might say about gc issues, that wasn't his decision, it was yours
MSC: not asclear cut as that. I'm elected by party membership and I have authority. He saw us as equals.

JJ: u just said no other spokesperson treated u like that
MSC: I didn't say that
J: I understood u to say you didn't have this problem with other spokesmen
MSC: yes

JJ: this is a tweet from Catherine Ragg [reads 'has transphobes amongst its members'] That was drawn to ur attention. It took u until march to contact her. Took 2 months
MSC: I'm not seeing the date [finds it]

JJ: then she doesn't reply at all for 3 months. then u have to chase her and then u get a response [reads 'didn't reply because I was angry'] You say u had no other issues with spokespeople and u raise a perfectly legitimate response to that.

MSC: were dealing with one tweet here. She's impolite but respects my authority. We said she could not continue in this way. Its not endless negotiation which is what SA does. She did change her behaviour

JJ: her tweets have completely different to tone of SA
MSC: these are 2 specific tweets. SA had a pattern of tweets
JJ: it was end of the year u had a meeting. I suggest a disparity with claimant and Catherine.

MSC: I agree slow process but Catherine did change her behaviour otherwise we'd have suggested she didn't continue.
JJ: but in that context u never made it clear to SA what the problem u had with

MSC: I refute that. We were hoping for simular dialogue like Catherine and then he wasn't able to make himself available for more time.
JJ: at first meeting you were at crossed purposes, SA on complaints, you on broader role

JJ: what happened next were minutes were produced and he takes view they were inaccurate bc in those minutes u recorded he wanted freedom to dissent from party policy and his case is he's doing nothing against policy

MSc: we are SSMG, others can correct them,
JJ: that's not the point. The point is the minutes are inaccurate on points he's concerned with?
MSC: I can't say what he thinks

JJ: it's pretty obvious they're inaccurate as they don't reflect his slides. His case is he's complying policy. If that was his case if I said that in the meeting I wouldn't have to dissent from it. The point is I suggest to u bc he felt so strongly and bc u

hadn't made it clear he lost confidence in the process
MSC: I find it incredible that he claims his views aren't against policy.
JJ: u didn't put in writing criticisms of his performance
MSC: (missed) we don't have to keep justifying

JJ: this is a letter, SA accepts he's developed a brand of gender critical. He accepts what you criticised him for. He says [reads] He is meeting ur concerns in this para.
MSC: if I remind u of minutes in Sept, 3 colleagues asked for garantees
J: sorry

MSC: sorry, the way he was in October did not give us that assurance
JJ: he's giving u the answer [reads] then later on [reads] He's asking u to tell him the concerns.
MSC: his choice of championing this

divisive issue, we were saying we weren't convinced by the way he responded at previous meeting
MSC: u didn't pay much attention to SA twitter did you?
MSC: as much as could as I did with others

JJ: This is SA report, we can speaking engagements and media links. None of those appear to be on gc issue, all green issues.
MSC: ill point out its his report, unlikely he'll put that in
MSC: we don't have entire SM, we have samples with detail. Even there,

there's a mixture he might object to, other perfectly mainstream issues he's concerned with that u wouldn't object to?
MSC: yes
JJ: he hasn't hidden anything away. That shows him doing work he was engaged for

MSC: I never contested everything he tweeted was unhelpful.
MSC: he tweeted whole range of topics outside gc
MDC: even when dealing with that he has a focus on that. He's focusing who should be on prison estate.

JJ: u agree he tweeted about gay members of armed forces?
MSC: can't remember
JJ: u assert that and we have a list and goes on a long list. Police corruption, Sarah Everard, human trafficking, point is there were a range

of tweets, (lists), they're a range of issues and I suggest to u at SSMG became fixated on that bc they were raising it.
MSC: he didn't deal with it
JJ: he asked u to set out concerns

MSC: I was going to informally set out concerns. I didn't want to end up legally or in court case.
JJ: Moving to police bill in 2022. This is a press release.
[Judge asking for doc. Bundle talk]

JJ: the bulletin was sent out and RN emailed u in January despairing from a race perspective. He emails u. U responded and asked specific questions [reads] He's looking at it from Equality and Diversity perspective. U respond to that

[Reads] You don't answer specific question about decision making process
MSC: this was focused on legislation on police bill. Baroness Jones was leading and I'm guessing this began in her office. She's a friend of SA
JJ: u had a convo before u got back to RN
MSC: did I?

[Bundle search]
JJ: I'll come back to that when I find the doc. He had been active re police bill hadn't he?
MSC: he'd been liasing with Baroness Jones, they were close and may have had a convo about it. My memory is not that good.

JJ: there was a discussion about SA getting involved in police bill.
[Bundle confusion]
[JJ repeats and asks MSC to read]
MSC: ur talking about message from SA in Nov?
JJ: that shows he was involved
MSC: think Baroness Jones wanted him to have something to do with it

JJ: RN wrote to u in evening.
[All checking bundle]
You replied but in between u emailed Gemma Walker, head of comms. U replied to RN 35 mins later. Did u have convo with Gemma walker?
[MSC asks for clarity]
MSC: I'm sure I wouldn't have done as not my role

JJ: wondered if you had spoken to her to give info to RN
MSC: do I do that?
JJ: go back to that in core bundle
MSC: that's a response from me off the bat
JJ: so u didn't speak to her?
MDC: no
[Bundle confusion]

JJ: this is an example of SA getting involved. A talk on right to protest. Put that away and go back to supplemental bundle.
[Bundle search]
JJ: let's leave that and move to your decisions re suspension.

JJ: This is the final GPX report. It recommends in his case he received number of critics about performance. (Missed)
JJ: it's a very important doc for GPX to know why you're recommending removal.
MSC: I've summarised clearly here

JJ: nothing in this doc talks about interactions with SSMG
MSC: no
JJ: you don't say about controversial opinion and doesn't engage with us. GOX members are going to make a decision based on that
MSC: there's a lot of other info

JJ: there were forms produced and only completed by 2 people
MSC: Martha James also
JJ: not been disclosed. Where did the forms come from?
MSC: Elizabeth Reason produced them.
JJ: Mr Brown provided yet another

complaint in Jan and it wasn't taken into account as you'd already reached decision
MSC: some activity may have been taken by GPX
JJ: the complaint was never sent to SA
MSC: I think he'd sent legal action at that point and relationship changed

JJ: no not by then. u refer to his views being controversial. This is from Brown's dossier. You would expect your policing expert to comment on this
MSC: he chose to focus on Belencathra, that's the issue where ppl will be housed on prison estate

JJ: it's one tweet amongst many. Not his only focus
MSC: it's been drawn out to demonstrate the point
JJ: what in truth is happening is a vital minority are drawing these to ur attention, u got pressure
MSC: yes in both directions

JJ: I don't think so

JJ: what gave rise was to him seeking to open the debate
MSC: don't accept
JJ: his performance as spokesperson wasn't focused on that
MSC: he had issues like radical approach to free speech and also

partic focus to policing and prison
issues.
JJ: can I raise one issue your honour. I've got a whole list of complaints and I'm mindful to deal with them in closing subs but if CC feels I should put to witness?

J: MSC has accepted number of complaints so its about economics of court time
JJ: moving on to meeting. Reason for GPX decision was it...
J: [interupting] I'm reminded of time
Jj: I have another 10 mins
J: j don't want to press people. Well need to finish by 10

JJ: best we finish
J: OK 10 am tomorrow

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll