Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to the second part of Friday afternoon's hearing. Peter Keogh (PK) will be continuing his evidence, questioned by Ben Cooper KC (BC).

We are resuming after a short mid-afternoon break.

BC: 6th way I say this letter is disproportionate is that don't even just say the things you feel are improper, you make allegations of bad faith.
PK Yes I stand by that. We say GCRN set up in bad faith, I make take a minute or two.

PK: Prof Earle said in WS clear synergies with other SRA groups, but, no attempt made to talk to us. Furthermore -
BC: I was not asking your reasons, I was asking did you allege bad faith.
PKI: Yes we did.

BC: You allege bad faith re stating aims - which were to research importance of sexed bodies. You are alleging that is a bad faith statement?
PK Well when we said -
BC: Am asking you to agree that you are alleging that ws not their research aim?

PK: Their aims may have been genuine but the way set up bad faith. If your intention is to research re sexed bodies and health why would you not include your esteemed colleagues across faculty already working in area. Breathtaking we were not involved.

BC: They did not say they were researching *gendered* bodies, they said *sexed*. And from GC perspective.
PK: Ah yes.
BC: You say it's extraordinary -
J: breathtaking [laughter]

BC: later in letter - you are effectively saying you should have had a say in whether network could be set up.
PK: would definittely have been interested in researching -
BC: Not my Q.

PK: We felt sidelined, should not have been. No reaon why someone who disagreed with gender critical views should not be involved. No evidence of hostility.
BC: We have seen much.

BC: If not being involved in the set-up was your issue you should have simply addressed that.
PK: We did. There were lots of things.
BC: But we can't cover every thing in every answer or we'llbe here forever. We understand there were multiple things.

[PK phone rings, he turns it off]

PK sorry
BC: you have acknowledged no formal process for network set-up?
PK: informal process but no, no formal one.

BC: You are aware GCRN consulted discussed with [names those in question]
PK: Not really, not at the time
BC: JP advised to proceed with caution for obvious reasons. Not bad faith.

PK: Was shocked when I heard she'd consulted Marcia - said to me, senior people not aware of the problems. Could not understand how it was allowed to proceed. Working with colleagues in sensitive areas is very hard.

PK: working in silos is not the way a university should be, and that's what this was.

BC: It is not reasonable or fair to use the fact that someone setting up a network did not consult people who would have attempted to shut it down acted in "bad faith".

BC:I put it that you would have reacted in advance same way you did post event.
PK: Not true, that's not a fair statement.

BC: You refer identifiably to six people. Not named, but clear who they are.
PK: We did not intend personal.
BC: If you make accusations of bad faith re network setup you are making them against the people that set it up.

PK: I judge people on what they do not what they say -
BC: not answer to my Q. [repeats]

PL: unfortunate when you have to make allegations against individuals. Not how I would describe it.
BC: Action you sought from OU would have affected those six individuals.

PK [some talk]
BC: That is not what I asked. [repeats]
PK: Happy to answer if I can comment too.
J: Answer first please

PK: Yes those six individuals would be affected. But my own department, also affected, relations with orgs we worked with -
[BC and J intervene - J asks politely for no repetitions]

BC: Gender critical beliefs - sex binary, immutable, sometimes more important than 'gender identity'. Term "GC" now widely known.
PK: It's a complex broad church, JP herself has said so. Some cd be constructive, some is nasty. let me go back to catholic analogy - abortion -

J: We only need the answers to the question.
PK: what was the question
BC: Network chose that name because term widely known; not bcs of bad faith

PK: Agree, but when you look at what they did/said online you have to ask what kind of GC they are.
BC: You have alluded to the savage minds podcast.
PK: yes

BC: You've said even if the member in it did make comments you object to, it is not right to say the memberS plural are transphobic.
[some date checking]

PK: When I compiled that list of tweets it was reponse to complaint by JP against me. Didn't collect earlier ones. So they're not there. But we wouldn't have said it if they hadn't existed. Auckland member had been banned from Twitter for transphobic comments -

BC: Your WS say you are referring to podcast. Not to tweets.
PK: I wrote a letter.
BC: Your WS says, podcast.
PK: I may not have put in evidence but, isn't one instance of transphobia enough?

BC: We are not having an argument, I am asking you Qs. I have asked. *Even if* podcast was transphobic, which I dispute, it is wrong to say memberS plural.
PK: Don't know where to go with this
J: Let's leave this.

BC: You accepted [missed]
PK: It is hard in any of these areas for your research not to touch on health at times. Health is not GCRN primary area.
BC: But not basis for accusing 6 people of bad faith.

PK: If you take it all together - way set up, what went on website - there are yes questions to be asked.

BC [bundle ref] by June 24th you'd listened to the podcast and you have realised that highly probably JP a member of LGBT network?
PK: Not everyone is but yes

BC: So you knew there had been barrage of hostility including the open letter.
PK: Dispute your description
BC: You knew strongly hostile messages.
PK: Not on Twitter so no would not have known at the time.

BC: So you would know that to have that newsletter pop up in JP email inbox would be very upsetting for her.
PK: was not thinking of JP at all.

BC: You are very clearly opposed to OU giving any platform to GC research at all.
PK: this is the maybe once I mentioned earlier.

PK: we were considering in depth about how university should go about all this. We are not talking about GC research, we are talking about *this particular network*. Truth is I am not hostile to GC research.

BC: You signed another open letter, [reference] which also called for GCRN to be shut down.
PK: Yes [everyone looking for page]

BC: Explicit call for OU to dissociate entirely from GCRN
PK: Yes
BC: You intended to add to significant outcry
PK: Adding my voice to show solidarity to trans ppl.

BC: You are calling for GCRN to be shut down.
PK: Not my motive. Was not author. Was solidarity.
BC: We appear to have people signing letters nobody actually agrees with.

PK: Objecting to words deeds of *this network* not to research in general.
BC: You were calling for resarch to be shut down
PK: Absolutely not.

[BC is checking his notes]

J: I have a question several parts. Suppose no podcast and no tweets, and suppose you'd had notice of set-up of network, and that would be joining SRA. Would you still have signed the open letters.

PK: Would have been unhappy if no notice.
PK: would I have signed the letter. Not sure. Never been asked that.

J [release PK]

JM [reexamining v hard to hear] [bundle ref]

[cannot hear JM at all, she is reading from bundle I think]
PK: this was a project re gender services for adults, including clinics, all expressing concern about what happening at OU, putting pressure on us, I understood why

[end of PK evidence]

J: are we going to fit next witness in?
JM: yes we must, she must be today, childcare

[Next witness is NS = Nicola Snarey
JM takes her through witness statement and affirming TWTNBT]

JM: there is a missing half sentence - this is it [hands to BC]

JM: corrections
NS: p24 says "GCRN itself consider" - should say "I consider"
NS: p13 says "gave huge it" - should read "gave huge validity to the network and by association to wider gender critical movement and by implication those elements in it I referred to earlier".

BC: Will keep as short as I can.
BC: You believe GC beliefs fundamentally transphobic
NS: don't know about individual beliefs, I mean the gender critical ideology.

BC [bundle ref]
BC: Written response by you to JP grievance. You say GC thought has transphobia at its core.
NS: the broader umbrella. Yes.

BC: You are not referring to the claimant necessarily but to the thought over some years.
NS: Yes, the movement, its effect on people I love.

BC: You are tarring the GCRN with same brush as your view of extremes.
NS: disagree, do not mention any GCRN members.
BC: But you extended your wider view to the GCRN members.

NS: did not know much about the individuals.

BC: [bundle ref] [not sure why there is so much delay on this]

[still delay]

[sorry about this but nothing is happening except chatting]

[or if it is, I can't hear it]

[court still waiting for something]

J: let's go on. Though I think we have tech problems. Have checked listeners can hear us.

[we have now lost audio]

[listeners are trying to alert clerk that there is no sound]

[still no audio]

[Hearing is definitely resumed, we can see BC and NS interacting, but there is no sound on the livestream]

[It appears from comments in the court "chat" facility that nobody has audio - not just us]

[NS still giving evidence but silently as far as we are concerned]

[Another viewer has switched on his/her camera and is holding a "no audio" sign up to the screen]

{I would not expect the court to stop for this, at this stage of proceedings - it's necessary to complete NS evidence today]

BC: you were seeking to add to the weight of [missed]
NS: Fair - I was trying to persaude OU to listen. Was not expecting them to do those 3 things, but hoping they would take us sesriously.

BC: Tryting to make GCRN members lives less pleasant.
NS: Not at all, trying to improve lives of trans community. Standing in solidtarity.

BC: It is not rational to say existence of network harmed trans staff or students.
NS: Disagree. would need long time to explain but will just point to all the trans ppl that were upset.

NS: GCRN members might not understand why, but the evidence existed

BC [bundle ref] Were you adding solidarity when you retweeted abusive tweet about GRCN?
NS: was not intending to endorse. Don't remember seeing this TBH, but, intending to show distressed student that staff had solidarity. Am sorry if that caused distress. Did not know it would.

BC: You retweeted a number of things because you believe gender critical = transphobic, you gave not thought to impact on claimant, GCRN
NS: Tend to agree, was thinking instead of vulnerable minority, students, trans ppl, non binary, they are sidelined.

BC: this was first ever GC RN. Because academia very hostile.
NS: Not sure
BC: can you see how upsetting to claimant.
NS: Yes I do am sorry if upsetting but what upsets me is we only talk about hurt to GCRN instead of trans / nb ppl affected.

NS: why are we not talking about hurt to this vulnerable member of the OU who found out it was supporting a GC network.

BC [bundle ref] you tweeted link to LSE statement
NS: yes
BC: it talked of transphobia too.
NS: don't remember wording
BC: do you recall it also said shut down
NS don't recall but standing by it.

BC reiterate, you wanted OU to have nothing to do with anything called "gender critical network".
NS: Think the LSE statement was very accurate, I agree with it, would have to re-read it.

BC: You said GCRN not academically reputable. Defamatory.
NS: My academic freedom requires me to speak up when I see harm and injustice.

BC: You didn't know the members of GCRN
NS: No not my area. Looked at site but didn't know them
BC: You still felt able to criciicse their academic abilities.
NS: No was considering harm to the OU.

BC: You must have been saying, harm to OU academic credibility.
NS no, at that time they had not produced anything, was looking at OU reputation in trans studies etc.
BC: Because of your prejudices re GC thought.
NS: not prejudice.

BC: you retweeted Wells statement calling for no platform.
NS: Not no-platform - dissociate.
BC: what is the difference
NS: they all had their own platforms. Was not my decision. Did not expect OU to do what I said.

BC: you were trying to put pressure on OU.
NS: not pressure, debate. Was inviting robust debate.

BC: that's all my Qs.

[panel considering if any Qs]
P: [can't hear well]
NS: not at the time, and we haven't fully gone back to face to face tuition even now. Mostly stuff I saw on social media, I went looking. Student not contacting personally, I went looking, looking to boost and to show suppport.

P: [again not clear]
NS: They were people saying they had been thinking of signing up and might change their minds. Again not said directly to me. My teaching I'm not particularly known as trans ally so no personal contact.

P [a question]
NS: was committing to my allyship and support, important to me, people close to me.

J: in your WS, you were asked about this, asked how you had view that GC fundamentally transphobic, you said ideology and your experience. But in WS you say para 6 seems to me it's about legitimising anti-trans belief and same people have re-assembled. You're objecting to people

NS: I meant, people who used to say "trans exclusionary" and now say "gender critical". Not individuals.

J: that's all then. We will restart at 10:00 Monday.
[ENDS]

@threadreaderapp please unroll