Thread by @tribunaltweets

We're joining the court. There is no sound at the moment. Jo Phoenix continues to give evidence.

J: Microphones charged for an hour - will try and get new batteries.
JM: checking something with her team.

JM: you say missed - are we writing individually. I think individually creates more work.
You are suggesting ...trouble making is [too fast]
JP: genuinely don't know. I like the choreograpohy here I am talking to Jon Pike (JPk) not Jess. I don't know what I was referring.

JM: Prof P - there is a winking eye [missed] you know exactly what you meant and are trying to resile.

JP: No I don't. this is before Forstater and Reindorf Report. I was deeply upset by erasure of lesbians and one sided Keira Bell report in LGBT+ History month newsletter.

JM - It's a month. 2nd week was on trans. Then dropped. Various people complained - separate emails.
JP: 4 emails in faculty of 100 people
JM - JPk said don't let them fob you off. he knew there were otrher weeks.

JP: I don't know what JPk was thinking.

JM: previous pages abt concern re Bell and Tavistock - [discussion of prepping a paper] JPk we'll be accused of being organised campiagn , Half true. Jess says solidatrity. You are working as a group,

JP: we are an organised group trying to make some points [missed] Tavistock and jurdicial review. We were organised - talking to each other - 100%. This was b4 Forstater. That link shows the shere hostility academic were facing.

JM: no individual complainst [dates missed] in 2020.

JP: yes 2020 recoivering from what happened at essex. then near cancellation at Durham. Hospitalised Feb and March with severe spine pain. Everyone dealing with Covid.

If what you are asking is none of us complained

JM: this environement - did not exist in the OU

JP: Not true. letter to Dean. My own dept being told not to talk abt Essex. Being called a racist uncle at the Xmas dinner table. Exceedingly hostile environment.

JM: if that happened it was a long time ago,

JP: No. The absolute rupture of my academic life by Essex , I still very much that today.

Prof Deveny contacted HR and Legal at Reading and made sure she was Ok (after near cancellation) and provided some funds for her to speak

JP: I feel this very deeply.[Missed].

JM: "absolute rupture" - you constructing a fanatsy - it is not true. Do you accept that?

JP: not true

JP upset.

JM: quoting re Keira Bell case. quotes - Let's get conversation open and get the education process opened.....brilliant the 4 of us shd send our responses with a little note re politicisation of EDI at the OU. I know. IRONIC. Complaining. But I know I will use whatever

JP: Yes. I do have an agenda. We have to be able to present evidence, argue and diagree. I do have an agenda abt some level of academic debate.

JM: 10 June Forstater case. page reference

J - when referring to Forstater EAT?

JM: Yes - 10 June 2021 EAT decision.

JM: reading - 16 June 2021 18.15 oh my. It's out there colleagues @OUGCCN - get tweeting.
We see tweet at bundle 3, page 1201.

Paper shuffling finding reference

JM - that's the tweet that launches the OU GCN.
By tweeting you are doing what you mentioned 4 June - WS para 219 - Proposal email - kickstarting in next few weeks conversation video launch vehicle

JP:Podcast

JM: Tweet and promote the crap out of it. Your words

JM: Your counsel said the papers in bundle [on OU GCRN website] are September ones, not June ones. At launch link to savage Minds podcast JP interview.

page 4108 - this is the OUGCRN website in Sept. Only difference a few more people names.

JP: Doesn't have the KMI branding

JM: Podcasts are added - day one JP on Savage Minds.

Faculty of Arts and Social sciences newsletter at page 1135.

JM: P1140 - in the news 7/7/21 - 9 days before GCRN launch - JP discusses being deplatformed from Essex and Reindorf, and also article on Stonewall gives bad advice. So 2 in the news bits abt you.

You suggest in yr evidence news abt you was ignored.

JP: explains uni organisation three levels - university, faculty & department. Graham Black contacted me. Reindorf coverage was the biggest story OU had dealt with. By this date I had been interviewed by RT, Economist.
Reported in Faculty.
Not allowed to talk abt it in the Dept.

JM: missed. You knew that launch of GCRN wld be controversial. You didn't want anyone to know so they could shut you down.

JP: I knew there'd be concerted attempts to shut us down.

Controversial is challenging word when talking abt research. People may chose to disagree ...

JM: Disagree vociferously.

JP: Yes - abt debate and discussion. Present ideas and discuss them eg definition of prostitution.

JM: Disrepectful to launch a group which was bound to cause comment. Not acting collegiately.

You knew there were people in yr dept who thought the launch of the GCRN was something there'd be commenting on.
[JM said something abt JP being "willfully difficult" missed]

J - split the questions - different issues. Pls answer collegiate q, first.

JP: yes collegiate with colleagues in GCRN.

J - fellow departmental colleagues?

JP - It is not normal to seek to inform people of research networks in that fashion.

J - not the question. JM was asking you if those in favour and against, do you agree keeping it secret was not collegiate?

Do you think it is not collegiate to give colleagues an opp to give a view abt it?

JP: a world of difference between disrespectful and not being collegiate

JM: DD and Abby in yr dept, other depts (sexual health) - areas are sensitive. Gender identity and GC beliefs are sensitive areas that we are making our way through and people have strong views? Do you accept that?

JP: Yes - no more or less sensitive that other areas eg child sexual abuse and prostitution.

JM: re whatsapp - I suggest it was yr intention to cause disruption without anyone having sense it wld launch.

JP: No.

JM: you said you expected quiet feedback. Pushback.

Email with Alice Sullivan UCL (AS) - March - reading
pls keep under wraps - abt to set up GC network group - proper research nt activist in formal research structure. Quietly excited - expect all sort of complaints.

JM: talking to another Uni
JP: Yes - we have a community of peers beyond our institution.
JM - you say responses were unethical [missed]
Also - I didn't expect it to get so personal. None of the responses were personal.
JP - missed. It was only me on the Savage Minds podcast.

15 minute break - waiting in virtual waiting room to rejoin the court at 3.15pm.

Waiting for audio.

JM: you set out compliants abt OU Open letter. Central to yr complaint?

JP - yes fair enough.

Finding reference in bundles.

JM - the first time trib has seen the letter.
Open letter from OU Staff.

J - on reading list.

JM - published 17/16 June 2021 on googledocs. No mention of you by name.

JP - correct

JM: No mention of anyone, by name. Mention of the Savage Minds - interview by Julian

JM - shocked letter was in piubliv. But yr tweet was in public.

JP - that was a research network.

JM - there were other lettere - guardian, stonewall.

JP - published in papers

Just giving their views. Do you agree?

JP - No.

JM - conveyed I and my colleagues were monstrous people causing the OU to breach its commitments
Not right. What was asked for.

Actions called OU to withdraw support for network, confirm trans inclusive

JP - suggest something we were doing

JM - trans hostile environment internally and exclusive.

JP - yes _ I referred to that in WPUK talk in US - Trump rolled back trans rights in military.

JM - GC can be anti trans.

JP - I don't agree. Actions of some people.

JM - Biological sex is immutable might make the trans community think that doesn't include me. Do you accept that. Must be right by definition.

JM no permission to call it the OU.

JP - no.

JM - later permission.

JP - two policies - OU logo in presentations when we were making presentations. Prof earl suggested a different policy so I immediately removed it.

JM - missed - you don't accept that the use of GC is trans hostile

JP - GC implies belief sex is immutable.

JM - that has implications. Real life. Not just ideas in the ether.

missed

JM - GC have right to belief that. People who believe that statement have every right to believe that.
... you don't agree that network was in conflict with the equality act. People who belive that have the right to believe that.

JP - yes and again we can debate that.

JP _ Re Savage Mind [podcast] was abt the Reindorf Report.

JM - Goes out 21 May. Recorded a couple of days before? So we go all the way through in this document to a discussion abt Stonewall. "I think SW has been a huge actor in this field"

JM - [missed. SW used to be a force for good. if an employer [was involved] I'd think good I can come out. No discussion policy around trans rights. missed.

JP - No debate "TWAW" can't be debated.

JM - we'll keep going. I just want to keep going.

JM - lists letter's complaints. Missed. You say prevents OU from from discharging it's duty of care.
The letter says GCRN impedes duty of care. Different thing.

JP - impeding and reventing - no substantial difference.

JM - they can voice their view

JP - yes - and we can debate it.

JM - the first ask request was not to stop the network.

JP - it is - calling on OU at the highest level of supporting - prevent us as existing as a network in the uni.

JP - That is an act asking for discrimination - treating it differently from other networks.

JM - nothing to stop me from saying withdraw support.

JP - what if it was withdrwaing support & affiliation a jewish study group. It is asking for am employer to treat amn employee differently.

JM - you say it's abt you. It's abt the podcast.

JP - I disagree.

JM - correspondence p1107.

JM - yr letter to TB, VC, Marcia Wilson and Dave 24/5.

Nice email from [missed]. TB response - sorry you feel that. I've asked for a report and Essex did the right thing.

short pause while JP reads

JM - in context - evident that you were concerned abt SM podcast even b4

JP - could I continue to read, pls

JM - I suggested even b4 SM podcast went on newsletter you were worried abt the content - yr answer to MW - she had mentioned SM podcast. I wish Julian had edited out the bits I asked her,

Were those abt men in dresses?

JP - No. I was worried abt the female cock - florid language.

JM - men in dresses?

JP - No. Suck female cock can be seen as over the top in terms of florid language.

JM - why didn't you pick up JV [abt the language during the recording]?

JP - I wld accept language like that [in course of my work.] That was the language we were using re male bodied people who ID as lesbians. Nancy Kelly's suggestion that women like me were like sexual racists

JM - put yrself back there. You accept men in dresses can be an insult.

You have elaborate reasoning as why not. You must have accepted that was problematic as [the podcast was ] promoted the most.

You must have known that would ruffle feathers.

BC intervenes - promoted the most?

JM - was in 7/6 newsletter and on website on launch day. You must have understood the reponse would be potentially problematic or concerned.

JP - no.

JM - Dr Boukli was very offended weren't they?
Did you know at the time Dr B was very offended?

JP: I don't think I did.

JM - I assumed you didn't know.

In Dr B's WS, 7/6/21 - I was upset - statement deeply problematic and hurtful, men in dresses and [too fast]
Implication as not only sex is immutable but any attempt .... [too fast missed - something abt fraudulent]

JP - I wasn't aware.

JP - can someone understand that conversation to mean that? Yes.
Can someone express their understanding of it? Yes.

J intevenes on timing.Discussion of timing and if Sarah Earle,witness scheduled tomorrow will be needed on Monday.

We'll be back at 10am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp unroll