Thread by @tribunaltweets

We will be reporting from Day 10 of Prof Jo Phoenix v Open University from 10am today.
See previous days and full abbreviations here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

This morning will begin with further examining of Dr Leigh Downes (LD), Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21

Abbrevs:
JP - Professor Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R
LD - Dr Leigh Downes

J: discussing timetable and only 7 witnesses seen so far and only 3 days in timetable left for cross examining. So that's the position at the moment and it's the timetable I'm sticking to
BC Are u saying we must finish the evidence Weds?
J Yes

J discussing possible timetable and times
JM We also have Qs for some of these witnesses
J Some are inflexible due to travelling abroad. Looking at 4 hrs or slightly more
JM Clarifies wants submissions on Weds
BC [voice is disappearing]

BC The original timetable was 7 days and 4 days for respondents and then JM increased times for 2 of her witnesses, and we started a day later and dealing with preliminary issues for half a day
J I have a record of what has happened
BC So upshot is in proportionate terms JMs

BC witnesses took longer
[discussing directional timings from a year ago and lengths of cross examination so far]
BC I'm prepared to trim the less important witnesses. But I'm not prepared to trim LD, LW and DDs timings but the others are shorter

BC I dont believe I should cut my time with these and will do my best to get through the others and dont feel we shld impose a cut off. 18 witnesses are being called by the R and a huge bundle and prepared cross examination from these in real time

BC: I haven't started my closing submissions yet which I don't often do, and article 8 but I've not spent any time with my family for a month now and wld find it v difficult to have a deadline and go straight into submissions. The bundle and witnesses were always going to be

BC difficult and both of us shld have done something about this earlier. But I need to do justice to this case and evidence.
BC We have time to see the witnesses but that might mean we leave you with little or no deliberation time and I'm sorry about that as it's not ideal

BC We cld reconvene at a later date? Do tell me to move on if you feel I shld. Please cld we have more time so I dont have to work all night to prepare
J I will consider that. Were are we with disclosures?
JM [hard to hear] It's a big topic....

JM The situation is there are docs from 2 other ppl, members of GCRN. There are ongoing issues and they are employees so we'll ask you to ask for the information about these grievances. We've found the grievance for one person, a personal harassment issue, which isn't relevant

JM Another grievance was due to the open letter, KMi and others and then a B & H issue in another dept that HSSP. We'll give you the 2 grievances which were not upheld. Re the letters grievance that went to Ben Jones, he found they hadnt looked at in terms of discrim but only

JM harassment, which wasnt found, which was appealed and not upheld. You'll see how things were dealt with and suggestions for good practice. It shows they were dealt with on an ongoing basis so we'll make them available to you and BC once you request.
J We'll take a short break

J Where we'll discuss how to deal with these issues. Back at about 10.30am
[Ben Cooper sounds very husky in the background and is losing his voice]

[Can hear discussions in the background about possible witness examination timings]

It appears likely that we'll sit until 5pm today to allow as much cross examination take place as possible

[Judge is currently not sitting and is presumably making the order for information from the OU about the two grievances discussed earlier. It was confusing to understand exactly what these were about but they related to bullying and harassment and to the open letter]

Hearing has still not reconvened...

We return...

J: So, easy decision first, we've decided not to make an order and have decided the info y've provided is sufficient. We're concerned about yr voice BC and whether y'll last to 5pm
BC Shall we see how I go
J We'll give up our 2 days so you have time to prepare your

J submissions [discussion on timetable and order or witnesses] We'll give you all of Tues and Weds for x examination and Thurs off, then Fri for submissions
JM Thank you
J 1.5 hrs for each submission with substantial written submissions
BC Thank you J

J: We'll finish LD by 12.15 if start at 11am
JM: Then PK for 1.5 hrs
J: Break at 12.15pm
J: Him until 1.15pm
JM: Next person is NS (Snarey) for half an hr
J: Until 4pm and then we'll see if CW starts until 4.30pm. We'll see how things get on

BC Good am LD. Cld we look at what happened re the LGBT history month
LD Yes, can I add to my testimony from yday as BCs excellent Qs put me on the back foot and I want to say why I was so upset
J It wasnt about yr motivation as such but what u did

J We have to consider how the C felt and the extent that you explain why u did what u did, but otherwise it wldnt be helpful to us
LD Yes it would explain this
J Let me track down the Qs you were asked
J Re WPUK question on p511...

J Was in relation to an email with Prof W. that's the Q I have
LD It might be important for the P to know is I found it difficult re my research about T prisoners around the GRC debate and when WPUK was set up to oppose this reform. Discussion about T prisoners being a threat

LD and inauthentic. Denial of item and being able to express their gender by staff. These things might feel reasonable but I found them upsetting
J Ok, thank you. Anything else?
LD Re the HERC co-directors and Q about being more likely to listen to Abi and me than the C

LD the email were about the dissolution of CCSH and the HERC
J Some ?emails were attributed to you
LD I cant remember which mtg this was about JP being forceful about cancelling the mtg
J this will be the first mtg
BC I think we're talking about the chat. This cld be in cross

BC exam and I didnt put the Q LD thinks I did. She didnt feel RG hadnt shown enough accountability
J the chat was about trying to get him to apologise?
BC Yes. She said she was a little voice in the mtg, but we cant really revisit this
J I dont see how she can expand on this

J I apologise for saying she then
J How can you assist further with this?
LD About offering a drink in the chat
BC I think we should continue
J Yes
BC Back to history month, is an email sent to all academics in all of FASS
LD Yes, but want authored by me

*wasnt
BC U sent to all
LD Yes
BC This wasnt yr personal view but sent to all
LD Yes
BC Do you agree it was mostly about T issues
LD Yes
BC It dealt w matters of some controvery, eg K Bell and consent for sex reassignment
LD It was several issues
BC Do u agree it was about K Bell

LD I understand it's a controversial debate
BC As is pronouns?
LD There is staff guidance on pronouns
BC But it's not settled ppl shld use pronouns and are a current controversy?
LD Yes there are diff views
BC There were views on ?
LD I havent read all the articles

BC Do u accept it mostly T issues rather than LG?
LD Some ppl raised that
BC That from one perspective?
LD Yes. I was quite taken back by the response to it
BC It contained matters of controversy, no?
LD In this area and with these issues I felt it was 1 week of many

BC Did u feel the complaints were approp?
LD At the time I didnt see this as controversial
BC Back to my Q.
LD I felt some things crossed the line, complaining tho the whole faculty and they shld have responded to the authors. I was shocked and felt T and NBs wld be upset

BC Did u think the Cs response went "over the line"?
LD No, not too over the line. It pointed out the invisibility of lesbians and it's her right to express her views on pronouns
BC Response from LMcG, saying that Tavistock is complex and controverisal and was surprised by the

single view
LD It's ok for her to say this as she has expertise here
BC WHat about JPk. Was this reasonable?
LD This isnt my area of expertise
BC But it's legitimate response
LD Some ppl experienced it as being over the line
BC We've been over this before

BC Email from S Taylor and apparent expectation of aligning positions. Was this a legit concern?
LD I took this as criticism of what I'd done so took to my LM
BC But it doesnt cross the line. It's about one sidedness
LD I took is as adding a complaint by adding an email

LD I found this one quite upsetting and statement Jess made about [an email re pronouns of prisoners ] I found these contestable and wrong and wld be difficult in emails to T staff
BC What about this crowdfunder?
LD I dont remember this
BC It's not using inapprop language?

LD No, some colleagues wld see this as being over the line
BC Email to H Kay and exec dean and yr concern re effect on T staff. Yr response to ppl disagreeing with you is not to enagage but treat it as a serious edi issue and raise w faculty

LD I wanted to raise it w my LM
BC Yr reply here suggests ppl shldnt have been sending emails to this list?
LD No it's about criticism and what's appropriate to send
BC You emailed France Morton
LD They work in EDI
BC She's the senior manager for edi. You discuss the effect on

BC yourself. You're saying they're hiding behind a cloak of FoS to express themselves and views you dont like?
LD I disagree. I was trying to find out how to navigate a way forward and felt some crossed the line

BC Email re newsletter, which WApp group is this?
LD I cant remember. Might have been about union debates?
BC So u might have signed up then?
LD I cant remeber
BC Which side was this group on GC FoS?
LD I cant remember views
BC What were their views?
LD A diversity I think

[discussing the SM podcast]
LD Listen to 55 mins onwards as was distressing from here, the email says
BC You raised with Prof F?
LD Yes
BC He asked u to understand what was causing offence and u identify the issues at that point
LD Yes, and I agreed it cld be crossing the line

BC 1st point is SW giving illegal advice
LD Yes
BC Had you read the RR at this stage?
LD No, only the email about it
BC Do u see the conclusion of the RR? She's dealing w Essex's policy and review of law re SW being misleading

BC It cant be inappropriate for her to say that?
LD But SW only gives advise on how to be inclusive and doesnt advise on the law. I contest SW gives legal advice
LD SW was in an misinformation campaign. The C can say that and I can disagree with her views
BC but this isnt what u

said to Prof F
BC Remember, we're focussing on what u do and not what u think. You didnt engage but going to yr dean and saying this shldnt have gone out. Can u see the difference?
BC U seem v reluctant to own what y've done. He wasnt yr councellor

LD He was to LGBT Champion and thought there was something for him to think about...
BC SW is telling women to suck female cock
LD I felt this crossed the line

BC U say this is linked to claims that some lesbians are being coerced so u understand the phrase?
LD I understood and it was a misinterpretation of difficulties in finding intimate partners. Discuss of differences on tinder... It's been misinterpreted

BC That's yr understanding and I now know a lot about this having done these cases. There's a view by some on the GC side that it's discrimination to say I rule out a T partner, and some have said it's a form of transphobia
LD No, they;re talking about their lived experience

BC There's a lot of tweets regarding abuse of lesbians of the form found in the podcast?
LD I'm not aware of these tweets
BC There have been a large no from some ppl on the GA side using v abusive terminology incl "terfs can suck on my girldick"

LD: This is unacceptable and I've never seen these types of tweets before. This isnt what I believe SW was doing on this issue. [discussing bundle]
BC: Reflecting these issues is a BBC article and a story of a "genital fetishist" as she's only attracted to ppl w vaginas

BC It reflects a longstanding concern of many lesbians and how No Debate of SW plays out
LD I disagree. It's only a few respondents here
BC [Quote from N Kelley re "how societal pressure shape your attraction"] It's a legit concern that SWs position legitimises this abuse of

BC lesbians as being t'phobic
LD No, I dont agree
BC Vigo's legitimate point was properly addressed in the podcast?
LD No I disagree

BC a short point re Vigo and men in dresses, and Diva being trans central and London being a hotbed of queer culture. And cross dressing was major in the 80s of queerness?
LD I wasnt around then. [discussing the Diva article] I thought they were talking about transwomen here

BC You wont have seen this at the time. It's from the SAR. Someone has expressed support of C and behaviour against GC ppl...and this person addressed as saying I thought this was about drag queens rather than TW
LD I disagree, it links to T by saying women in dresses

BC But it's only one comment re men in dresses?
LD No, some aspects crossed the line and could be seen as offensive
BC Re trans day of visibility, the presenter says "I dont think 50 days are enough" and the C laughs.
LD Yes

BC Point C was making was from discrimination policies to inclusion so has moved from conduct to making ppl feel included, which may not involve the underlying problems. Do u get that?
BC So Vigo making a joke rather than addressing the problems - re virtue signalling

LD I disagree, its about making safe and welcoming spaces for ppl who are different
[anti- discrimination above]
BC U dont engage w the C but go to senior satff and want an apology for it
LD I'm trying to get advice on how to handle this topic, no

BC Yr concern re GC in the name of the group?
LD Yes
BC It's a shorthand of these ppl's beliefs?
LD Yes
BC That's seen as aproblematic label?
LD Ppl might be offended
BC Do u understand stereotyping?
LD Yes
BC So it's approp for a gp to call itself that and it's

BC a form of prejudice against them to dispute this label and generalising from indivs to a whole group?
LD Can u break down the Q?
BC Yr generalising from some ppl who use this name and are problematic to all GCs?
LD There's a v abusive side to GC on SM and I found it difficult

LD as GCs have a fixed view of sex and gender
BC But nothing wrong w this. was hard for them to do research and not be attacked
LD I can only comment on my experiences and diff doing research
BC Yes, it's entirely proper to do this...that wasn't my Q

LD It cld be seen as provocative as it cld be seen that the OU took a partic position on this
BC No, you understood this didnt express a side of the uni as u understand aca freedom
J The Q is was it legitimate?
LD I dont know

BC You helped set up the open letter on google docs? What did you do?
LD I created the form to add signatures?
BC Who sent it to you?
LD I cant remember
BC How did it get to you?
LD I cant remember
BC You dont remember who wrote it?
LD I think it was anonymous

BC You dont remember who u were offering support to? tell us some
LD K atherine Median, Etchy? I really dont know. It was written collectively by a no of individuals
BC Yr recollection is better than this
LD No
BC This WApp group morphed into..was it the letter?

LD I cant remember
BC Was DD part of the group?
LD No
BC Last chance to tell us a better recollection. Can u remember anything more?
LD I havent been able to discuss w others. It's consumed me since then.
BC When did u delete the WhatsApp? Might u still have them?

LD No. I have no WApp from 2021 as I changed
JM He shld fairly put his case re WApp?
J No I think he was trying to tease out what had happened about writing the letter
BC I will be putting the case that u cant rely on this witness
J I think it was fairly put to the witness

BC Shall we break now?
J At 1/4 past
BC You obvs read this before u signed it?
LD Yes, I was on AL at the time...
BC U presumably agreed w it?
LD Yes, with the sentiment..and points made
BC U agreed with its aims, what it was trying to achieve?

LD I was trying to make the OU an inclusive place to work
BC What about the 1st two issues?
LD This came out of nowhere and we were alarmed w what the uni was doing
BC If this is what u want to achieve why not write yr own comms?

LD I felt I had and wasnt getting anything back to address my concerns
BC But the letters objectives are different?
LD Lots of diff reasons why ppl signed this. For me it was the shock of the RG opening and how nasty that side can be. OU siding in the debate

BC The letter primarily covers GC views being hostile to T ppl and platforms shld be removed?
LD No I didnt understand it like that but how the uni deals w T staff and students
BC That's not a true answer, w a modicum of intelligence
LD Ppl are really hurt and distressed

BC U are not owning yr own actions but euphamising them, you are asking for specific actions
LD I disagree and I understand there were multiple complaints
BC What view was shared amongst the ppl u were encouraging to sign?

BC U set it up to try to deplatform the group?
LD I didnt use that language
BC But that's what..[missed] Do u agree it was asking the OU to remove all platforms [No], due to a fundamental dislike of GC beliefs?
LD Its about actions to be inclusive workplace

LD It's up to the VC to decide
BC [repeats the Q again]
LD They still did research
BC Not my Q. [Repeats Q again..]
LD I disagree
BC U knew there was a big response to the launch and were aware it was negative?
LD I didnt know it was -ve. I knew I was contrib to a diversity of

LD reactions.

BC Re tweet about Forstater ruling and celebrating the right to be a bigot
LD This isnt my comment and comes from a place of frustration by Sally Hines. I dont beleive any GC belief is dehumansing. I was panicking and didnt understand the ruling.

BC U were soliciting a pile on / biggest response to the letter?
LD It was for ppl to express their concerns and only went to OU staff so not the largest response
BC U retweet about GC movement causing harm and next uses t'phobic, terf and includes C's photo

LD Yes, I know terf is a difficult word. It's regretable and I only intended to retweet Finn
BC The embedded tweet was prominent
LD It wasnt that big at the time
BC U kno it breaches Coc?
LD It want found to but I regret sending it

BC Re retweet of fiona Robinson and Ruth Page describing GCRN as openly transphobic. U were name calling effectively?
LN I was relaying opinions
BC U understand this is name calling?
LD I'm not a name caller and I say retweets arent an endorsement

BC Do you agree the SM policy says you should not post or share defamatory info? Not good enough to say retweets arent endorsement?
LD I donr believe I defames or name called anyone
BC U have a responsibility
LD I didnt do anything wrong. Ruth Pierce's tweet is her opinion

J We've gone over and think we should take a break and return at 12.35pm
[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp unroll