Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon, it's Friday afternoon and we expect Professor Jo Phoenix vs the Open University to resume at 1.55pm

We expect Jane Mulcahy KC for the OU to continue questioning Professor Jo Phoenix when the hearing resumes.
JP - Jo Phoenix
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or Panel Member
JM - Jane Mulcahy, Counsel for OU
BC - Ben Cooper, Counsel for Professor Phoenix

Waiting for hearing to resume and to be let in

The hearing is resuming and we can see proceedings. there is no sound yet.

The hearing is still muted

Sound is restored. Apologies for loss

JM: quotes from email - 'jo replied with lengthy email about difficulties she was experiencing: also send another brief email from which I took it she was feeling better' From this latter 'I had no impression she was being discriminated agAisnt'

JP: Agrees
JM: Further email talks about you being off for May - you say 'things get worse, I went back to my GP, notes from that say 'At risk state, positive screening for PTSD, nightmares"

JM: On 29 July 'been off sick from work for few months, positive screening for PTSD, feeling positive about future, mood better, no suicidal thoughts' ... 'someone needs to book review if worsening'

JM: from Community Health notes 11 Aug 2021 from CH team. Nothing in this document refers to PTSD does that accord with your understanding.
JP: Pls let me see, it's a long time since I've seen this. Yes you are correct.

JM: Am I also correct in saying these documents show there's no diagnosis of PTSD
JP: It was discussed with GP and although the notes don't show they rang me back, they did ring me back and said they were referring me to CH team because I had a positive screening for PTSD and .

JP..'I took that to be a diagnosis of PTSD
JM: there is no diagnosis in the documentation
J interjects: Are you suggesting that what's in the notes is not a diagnosis, is that your point

JM: refers back to note: PTSD is referred to as 'possible' in notes by the doctor
J: thank you
JM: the CH document has nothing at all in there about PTSD

JM: there is an error in the CH document. It says 'this caused you to be blacklisted by orgs that might employ you. the OU where you work has completed a review - that is clearly an error as it refers to Essex

JP: Yes. When I read this I was quite suprised as it didn't accurately reflect the conversation. I talked to her about what had happened in the Reindorf report.

JM: We've seen the medical information referring to PTSD, you say you swing back and forth. Quotes from JP previous evidence: 'now that I have largely recovered from the PTSD..

JM and JP referring to bundle

JM: quotes 'I've just seen statement from OU..I'm asking university to support me..if I sent this to my barrister they'd have a field day..I've had anonymous threatening emails'

JM : 'I've had emails threatening violence' that's not true is it
JP: emails from Dr Downes did not threaten violence

JM: the following day 19 June : JP said to Ian and Marsha 'I need to apologise, please forgive my intemperance, I've been the victim of a lot of violence in my life, so thank you both. The idea the letter was being organised within my dept sent me over the edge'

JP: I was checking in with them. I recognised that my previous email was swinging wildly. When I reflected on comments about barrister I accept that was not (?) and I accepted that it was a good statement

JP: I learned in Essex that one of the things one needs to do is work with management and I had been copperating with the review even though it had been 18 months in coming and even though the U of Essex gave me no notice of their apology, which came at a very bad time

JP: So this was my attempt to signal to Ian and Marsha that it was a statement that made it possible to not shut down the network. It was not open for business but it was not closed.

JM: Talks about culture of fear. Two students became involved but kept out of limelight
JP: they didn't want their names in public domain

JM: referring to bundle - We saw on Jun 18 that you decided to put in a grievance - how long before that had you started gathering material
JP: Don't know
JM: Must have been a matter of days
JP: Must have been

JM: I have never sought to discuss my views with members of the department. But would you agree that you had discussed them with Dr Downes

JP: No, that was a general discussion on meaning of transphobia
JM: By now you're a member of the GC Network
JP: Yes
JM: you said you'd been ignored and frozen out of dept
JP : yes

JM: But you had been off sick since may
JP: Yes
JM: Quotes 'During first lockdown writing retreat, X told me how uncomfortable you made Y feel with your views'

JM: One member of retreat says: 'I attended a retreat - I don't recall saying how uncomfortable the views made X feel' Are you wrong about this conversation

JP: No - I remember the conversation very clearly

JM: Another member of retreat DC says : JP makes following statement - some members told me just how uncomfortable I made Dr D feel because of my views' - DC says "I do not recall saying that' - do you accept you were mistaken
JP: No

JM: One of your 'asks' in this grievance is this: 'Removal of Dr Downes from her role as EDI lead. She's demonstrated she will be unfair towards those with gender critical views'. You said earlier play the ball not the person - that's not what you're doing here

JP: That was not playing the person, it was playing the person's capacity to do the relevant role, she showed she was able to discriminate against gender critical people
JM: do you think that was reasonable
JP: I do - if there was an EDI who was able to discriminate ..

JP ..against any group, lesbians, Jewish people, I would do the same

JM: she did not discriminate against you did she

JP: I disagree (cites examples such as emails and tweets including RT of Sally Hines
JM: that is now for tribunal to decide

JM: I put it to you that the OU has never interfered with the existence of the GCRN network
JP: The OU has not actively interfered
JM : it hasn't interfered in anyway has it

JP: One could argue that the failure to interfere is an interference in itself
JM: referring to correspondence in bundles

JM: I want to check that you're not trying to suggest that freedom of speech only applies to scholarly or academic work
JP: No I',m saying that academic freedom applies to academics, and scholarly and academic work

JM: Shouldn't it be broader? Academics should be able to share their views even if their unpalatable and contentious
eg on BBC QT if you express your views that could not be described as scholarly work but your views are still protected in that context

JP: Those are very different speech contexts. It very important that we don't present what can be debatable arguments as if they are singular truths. Academic work as opposed to a Question Time opinion is about furthering and opening up discussion.

JM: When you gave your WPUK speech you were using your right to express an opinion am I right?
JP: It was written in the form of arguments not of truths, for laymen who might not understand. And the Savage Minds podcast was relaying what had happened at Essex University

JM: You would say you were exercising your right to freedom of speech?
JP: Probably

JM: It was obviously going to take time to consider the grievance
JP: Yes I understand that
JM: 'It obviously takes time, people have to be interviewed and so on' - shows timeline from bundle

JM: There was an attempt to make a meeting with you - you couldn't make the first one so you weren't interviewed until August 19. *shows record of all steps then taken* - last comment on Jun 4th shows process being suspended due to launch of case. It's detailed isn't it
JP: Yes

JM: You say that you felt at start of Nov 21: 'I felt unable to start any new empirical work or research grant proposal' - I suggest the reason for that is because by then you knew you'd be leaving for Reading.
JP: No. I didn't know.
Mid Afternoon Break: back at 3pm 1500h

Please unroll @threadreaderapp