Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon - waiting for final session of Prof Jo Phoenix vs Open University. Hearing to resume 1605-1610 for second examination of Prof Phoenix by her counsel Ben Cooper
JP - Jo Phoenix
J - Employment Judge Young
P - Panel
BC - Ben Cooper
JM - Jane Mulcahy for the OU

Still waiting for hearing

Hearing is resuming

P: asking JP (unintelligible) about a meeting
JP: I was being florid with language before the meeting
P: So the language wasn't during the meeting?
JP: No. Can't recall who was in the room

JP: It was while colleagues were gathering
Panel: What would you say was the final straw?
JP: November message from VC, the one that went out *looking through bundle* there was a Uni wide message that went out ..

JP: ..an update came when I was at breaking point, being told that there would be no outcome before Christmas about the grievance.

JP: It would be around the 9th or 10th because I was on a flight to a conference, and by the time I got this 'no outcome' message I had a long hard think. I didn't understand at this point where my future was.

P question: In regards to your witness statement Par 146 you talk about Band 1 and Band 2 and my questions are: how do you get from Band 1 to Band 2 and what's the difference in the roles?

JP: You have to apply, you have to show sufficient breadth and rigour of research, significant leadership - that you're working at altogether another level. The band salaries are capped: Prof Bank 1 is capped at £72K so I took a pay cut to take that job. Largely the

JP: distinction is money and recognition.
P: Any distinction in research and teaching?
JP: No it's like saying you've got an amazing reputation out there
P: Were you a Band 1 before you went to OU? Did you take a demotion in bands?
JP: Took a demotion in pay but can't remember

JP: if took a demotion in bands

P: Before joining OU did you have any sense of culture of the department
JP: I had a lot of sense of it, I'd been working there since 1996. Do you mean work routines etc? I knew that it was focussed on critical criminology and demonology (?)
P: Did you know what kind of

P: Environment you'd be walking into ?
JP: I expected to be walking into a department of people like me. I thought I was joining a department where we shared a lot of values. It created one of the best criminology modules that's ever existed. So it wasn't just the OU I ..

JP: ..was joining, I was very keen to join that particularly department
P: Can you describe difference between what you expected and what you experienced
JP: It was kind of what I expected, I was excited to join as it gave me greater curriculum development opportunities..

JP: I considered Head of Dept to be reasonably close friend - I had been happy
J: Want to ask about crystallisation of your GC beliefs. When would you say that crystallised for you. A date would be very helpful.
JP: That's a difficult question. The beliefs ..

JP: ..that we now call GC - I've held them all my life. That sex is immutable, I've always held these beliefs. I am a feminist and what I have always studied from prostitituion to CSE to female experiences in the CJ system I've examined the problem of ..

JP: gendered stereotypes and the impact of them
J: Open letter in the papers (Guardian) - was that the first time going public?
JP: Yes
J: When you signed that letter did you at that time understand or believe that what you believed was ..

J: ..part and parcel of who you were?
JP: I can add a short sentence - most of my academic life has been concerned with male violence - and my personal life. When the GRA came out I could immediately see some of the problems in the context of a prison.
J: So when you were..

J: ..first criticised for your beliefs did you at that point believe that you were being discriminated against for your beliefs?
JP: I knew that what was happening was because of my beliefs.
J: Most people don't think in these terms but I need to ask. Did you think you had a ..

J: ..legal right to hold those beliefs and that for someone to criticise you for it might be discrimination?
JP: No. And I didn't fully understand until the Reindorf report and the Maya Forstater ruling.
J: Did you have any understanding that people with these beliefs..

J: ..have protection under the law
JP: No and I couldn't see myself in that context. I always thought the Equality Act section was about political or religious beliefs.
J: So what was the rough date you thought or realised you were discriminated against for your beliefs

JP: It was in particular the reaction to the Reindorf report(2021) in my department that made me realise

*missed 1 minute*
JP: what happened in June 2021 is one of the reasons I kept banging on about defamation
J: When was the first time you got advice about discrimination
JP: Around the open letter time - around the time we launched the OU GCRN and shortly thereafter

J: When did you know about the time limits in bringing a defamation claim?
JP: That would be beginning of July
J: So when you got advice about time limits why didn't you bring your claim in July?
JP:In July I was still focused on the grievance. I genuinely hoped that..

JP: ..the university would do something and could ensure my protection - particularly through my friendship with Ian
Questions from Panel end
Ben Cooper, JP's counsel, to resume questions

BC: *refers to bundle* email from Dr Downes- you had been asked there was no ref to WPUK - you answered no but it was implicit.

JP: Reading references to WPUK as aiming to protect women's single-sex space and sex-based rights..quotes reference to far-right groups as if ..

JP: ..it was implicit that WPUK were included in far-right groups
BC: Can you pick out instances of hostility to GC beliefs being apparent
JP: yes - WPUK described as 'wrongly arguing that trans rights threaten women's rights (paraphrase) - the reference to Breitbart and far..

JP: ..right - the whole first page - references to GC as anti-trans'
BC: You said evidence on cancellation of conference did not square with your own experience
*quotes document* it was agreed the policy on trans prisoners might not be in line with EHRC

BC: ..that comments on blog might harm trans people..blog seen as example of not free speech but discrimination against trans people'. *This is referencing minutes of a meeting*
BC: When you saw those minutes what did you think

JP: That I was right in all my conclusions, that the conference had been cancelled on the grounds of Richard Garside's views
BC: It was put to you that this was all an assumption and that you had no evidence for it *references Downes tweet* what conclusion did you draw?

JP: That conference was cancelled because of Richard Garside's views: also the reference to punching up not down I found chilling

BC *references Dec 2019 email fro JP*
Why did you write this??
JP: Because I was asked to put out an olive branch and because I genuinely wanted to mentor people. It was an attempt by me to speak to them and offer mentorship
BC: What's the usual reaction when you as a prof ..

BC: ..offer to mentor someone in your dept on a research grant?
JP: 'Thank you'. It takes a lot of time to do something like that.
BC: Did you get a response in 30 days
JP: No
BC: Downes then emailed and said she was meeting..

JP: You replied and said you were looking forward to discussing the issues
BC: A week after Dr D indicated meeting - had your received any response in preceding 7 or 8 days
JP: No
BC: what inferences did you draw?
JP: that they did not want to speak to me
BC: They then..

BC: emailed to say they were happy to look at any research plans JP had with a view to seeing if they overlapped. What inference did you take on the interest in the mentoring?
JP: They had absolutely none
BC: It was put to you that you were brusque and rude in your

BC: correspondence with Dr - would you agree?
JP: Not at all. No.

BC: *refers to bundle* it was suggested to you that the only evidence you had that your relationship with CCJS was not renewed because of Richard Garside's view on Trans prisoners - was one word, 'just'

BC: ..but if I can take you to paper produced on the faculty review..quotes 'increasingly problematic and in some cases conflictual' - identifies contact with Richard Garside saying relationship with CCJS was mainly an RG relationship ..this presented challenges..

BC: HERC document said they didn't want to engage in future projects with CCRJ - what conclusions did you draw?
JP: That it was the same reasons, the view on trans prisoners, that OU did not want to engage

JP: I mentioned a petition being organised about me and Jon Pike signing that letter in 2019 - the 'Stock letter' as it became known.
BC: You were asked about an occasion where Dr D took to their bed for three weeks after you challenged them about a blog. Can you give me

BC Context on whether that had any bearing on sex-gender dispute?
JP: No that was a blog about the screening of a film by a man accused of sexual assault, Dr D wanted the film stopped on grounds that he wasn't held accountable
I thought it was controversial blog

BC: Asks about Reading appointment
JP: Said I would prefer 2023 start to Reading
BC: Would you have considered applying to Reading between August and November
JP: Not in a million years. Starting something from the ground up is a massive piece of work and I wanted to stay at OU

BC asks about Reading process
JP: There were other applicants. I knew one by name, I did not know anybody else. It was pretty much the same as any application interview.
BC: It's implied you were earmarked for job and interview was a shame. Did you think so

JM: I said she was earmarked I didn't say it was a sham interview.
JP: Well it was a very gruelling interview in fact.
BC closes second examination of Professor Jo Phoenix
Panel rises: to resume on Monday.
@threadreaderapp unroll please