Thread by @tribunaltweets

It's Monday and we expect Jo Phoenix vs the Open University to resume at 10am. Expecting Dr Chris Williams (CW) of the OU to be examined by Ben Cooper (BC) Counsel for JP. TBC
JP: Jo Phoenix
J: Judge
JM: Jane Mulcahy OU counsel
P: Panel sitting with J
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Hearing is resuming

J asks about evidence
BC says his solicitor has noro virus and will be attending on line also that JP is feeling a little bit run down and may need to move around during the session

BC to examine the OU's Dr Chris Williams, History.

JM affirms witness statement with CW
BC: Looking at page 389. Do you recall this email exchange with Helen Bowes Catton (HBC) in 2018
CW: Yes
BC: HBC says she's struggling with Supreme Court Justice Hearings and the ? is getting her down

BC: You reply using reference 'term' - you're using it as a signifier or disapproval, a slur
CW: NO
BC: Clear that you hold a visceral reaction to pp with GC beliefs
CW: NO
BC Hurt that someone you admire has beliefs you disagree with ?
CW: Yes

BC: HBC extends sympathies in response and talking about letter in Guardian
CW: Context from my reply - 'no it wasn't JP' - I read the email from HBC assuming it was about the claimant, but it wasn't
BC: you then go on to say things about claimant - very concerned about Guardian

BC connection between GC research and children's rights research quotes 'ideally I need to keep JP away from them' *reads from email re Luise Westmarland and getting an injection* is that because LW was on the research ethics committee at that time
CW : no that's not why but I

CW Did know about her. The reason was that she was a friend and an academic I could trust, and she would know the procedures and I knew she would be able to lay fears at rest
BC the very idea that JP could be doing research with kids from GC perspective is you found so distressin

BC you would take legal action to stop it
CW No it wasn't the idea, it was addressing specific circumstances
BC None of it is the least bit rational. JP was not proposing research about gender and kids, that's your prejudice about what she might intend to do and you're applying

BC it to the claimant
CW No. Might not be certain but I was worried cos claimant had mentioned that she would be looking at so called transgenderism in children. that's what worried me the most. IN the bundle is the video

CW : statement and I was relieved because I thought she'd use the video to mention that she'd be researching children. I don't; have any general objection to her researching children, she's done it for decades. It was the specifics. Not that GC academics in general or

CW: the claimant should be researching children in genderal
BC That wasn't after the WPUK talk?
CW I associate my worry with the idea that she would be researching TW in children
BC JP had never said she was going to research TW in children
CW I'm not sure
BC This was you

BC Applying your irrational fear and dislike of what u perceived to be a particular line of those with GC beliefs and applying it to the claimant weren't you
CW No the reference was the letter that appealed to the govt to overturn Research Council decisions about

CW: funding. The ppl that signed that letter called on govt to overrule the RC's ruling and the fund their research anyway. Context is that I was worried that GC academics were attempting to call on govt to overturn status quo on what research is allowed, in their favour

BC: The letter just called on govt to protect GC research from being shut down didn't it
CW: No it wasn't just that. It was about things not being funded as well as being subject to criticism
BC : You are applying your irrational fears and saying you will try to stop research

BC you thought she'd do
CW No it was not irrational , it was specific concern at that specific time about how it would affect me
BC referring to bundle

BC refers to further exchange with HBC 2018/2019
'been in touch about resolving some issues I have, not helped by seeing video about trans prisoners' - so your aversion to her beliefs was such that you wouldn't be her union rep wasn't it
CW Wasn't about claimant alone it was abou

CW all signatories of that letter. Thought they wouldn't respect students' gender. Thought but was wrong that uni would take action against them. I thought students might approach me and I thought that bc I had a close connection w ppl who are trans and nb I would not be

CW: give them the representation they deserved. I offered my resignation, that wasn't accepted. I was put in touch with case workers who have a different role. My role as a rep would have been merely to say 'you need a case worker' and any rep could have done that.

CW I explained that everyone deserved union representation and I felt I wouldn't be able to give them the rep they deserved for eg if they were in dispute with the uni and they lose to such an extent that they'd be able to say they had advice from uni and it was bad advice

CW I was told to recuse myself on conscientious objection and to refer them on to someone who would give them a case worker
BC so Your aversion to C and her beliefs meant you didn't feel able to union rep her
CW : No
BC the mere fact she was going to do trans prisoner research

BC triggered a visceral adverse reaction in you
CW : No it wasn't a visceral adverse reaction
J - seeks clarification on whether CW able to union rep JP
CW: I did not feel able but I was not the only union rep, there were 3 or 4 and I was under the impression that one of them

CW: was sympathetic to GC. The only message I could deliver to JP was 'you need to get a case worker'. I didn't want to be in a position where JP could say: 'The rep who gave me advice does not agree with my beliefs'. Talks about role of case workers again

BC: clarifies question about visceral adverse reaction
BC moves to exchange with Dr Drake in June 2019
CW: Yes I recall
BC Dr Drake emails u 'reaching out with solidarity - scary that 2 ppl in dept , embarrassing, upsetting, many in my team are upset' - the implication is that

BC: You've talked about these things before and that you'd find it scary, upsetting that the letter was pub'd in Sunday Times - you both share same views about how problematic GC beliefs are
CW: The email does not discuss GC beliefs it discusses expression of the beliefs

BC: OK so you've discussed that the expression of such beliefs is problematic
CW : It was problematic, not to say it's always problematic
CW: I've spoken about these beliefs with DR D in union context
BC: email exchange about what's app group set up to talk about ppl expressing

BC: GC beliefs in a way you thought problematic?
CW: No it was set up to discuss how to deal with these specific expressions and impact on colleagues and students
BC: Did Dr Drake join it?
CW DR Drake was not in any conversations by 2021 - can't remember what we said, don't know

CW: how long that group lasted
BC : So how do you know she wasn't in conversations in 2021
CW: Conversations in 2021 were union conversations, conveyor was Kit Power, we discussed the open letter, we were clear we were not involving anyone with any supervisory responsibility for

CW: anyone we were talking about that's how I know DR D wasn't invovled
BC: Who was involved
CW: It's under GCPR - Kit Power and me - I can't remember, don't want to guess, don't want to get wrong, don't feel confident about any one name to confirm who was involved in 2021

prep should say GCPR
BC: Dr Drake was JP line manager at this stage, ues
CW Yes
BC: So your explanation about not having discussions with supervisory ppl doesn't seem to have applied in 2019?
CW: D/iscussions in 2019 were not held with any sense of crisis, or output , or protest

BC JP was also a union member - so this wasn't just a group for union members, it was a group for people who opposed GC views
CW: not per se, it was a group for people who wanted to discuss the impact of this specific expression of GC views

BC: quotes from email expression reaction at proposal to research trans prisoners. This is a reaction of visceral dismay?
CW: Wouldn't categorise my dismay as visceral
BC: Can't be specific because this is you expressing dismay at the mere proposition that trans prisoners might

BC Be researched from a GC perspective
CW: No. AT the time I understood there was a problem with the fact that Leigh Julia and Abby were researching trans prisoners and from what I understood was that JP had said she should be involved in that research. Not the fact of the

CW research but the fact it was part of the fraught relationship between Leigh and JO and what it would mean for their ability to go on with their research if Jo were to join it
BC But this is irrational on your part, JP had said nothing to imply or indicate that she wanted to

BC join the research
CW I was labouring under false impression
BC But this email doesn't say anything about that. She just talks about researching T prisoners
CW: I was worried that JP attempts to research T prisoners was in fact a play, a step in her relationship with

CW Dr Downs which at that point I understood was not good. It was not a general objection
BC You weren't in Dr D department - so where did all this info come from ?
CW I was a member of HERC
BC So you knew all about the discussions over the conference with CCJS and concerns

CW: the involvement of HERC was about why conference was cancelled
BC quotes email again 'atmosphere feels like minefield - meeting to strategise would be helpful' - so it is about strategising and mobilising to address what you saw as problematic GC research
CW: no the problem

CW: was atmosphere in the department not general GC research. We were trying to work out ways of supporting Deb in her role and find a non-punitive way through this
BC: You say non punitive but you were one of signatories to further email to the then acting VC Helen K and to IF

BC : You specifically identify the claimant as signatory to Sunday Times letter
CW: WE didn't name either of them
BC: But if you say there were two signatories, everyone knows who you're talking about. that's disingenuous
CW: We didn't name them, we didn't approach with the

CW intent of forcing attention on signatories, it was on what can the university do about it
BC But you asked for action from the uni, you thought that by drawing attention of two of most senior people in university, you'd be starting a process that would lead to action against

BC them didn't you
CW No
BC: Following launch of GCRN 2021 you were aware of a lot of SM activity over launch of GCRN and members
CW Yes but I didn't go looking for it

BC: you knew when you took the actions you did in response to that launch that you were adding to that body of activity adverse to the GCRN didn't you
CW: You're conflating two things. The large amount of sometimes abusive comments that were happening and of course going

CW: in both directions, and the letter that we wrote that was intended to take the tension out of it. We didn't add to the volume of it, we actually wanted to reduce the volume.
BC: You mean the open letter?you contributed to writing ofthat?
CW: Y
BC: Why isn't that in your WS

CW: I can't remember the brief of the witness statement. Can you remind me?
BC: No
CW: Well I didn't think of it at the time. Happy to answer questions about it now
BC: Had you collectively agreed that you would resist giving info about who was involved in the

B C: drafting of the letter and that you would withhold that info
CW: No I would never be a part of the withholding of that
BC : Was it because you wanted to limit culpability (paraphrase) about drafting of letter. Di you agree not to reveal the full extent of coordination and

BC: organisation about the drafting of the open letter?
CW: No
BC: letter called for denial of any institutional platform for the GCRN - do you agree that's the import of it?
CW: No
BC: it does call for OU to withdraw public support and

BC affiliation?
CW: Yes
BC quotes from open letter again about denying GCRN an 'institutional home'
CW: The letter states a position and a viewpoint. The letter was focused on achievable demands that would not be illegal, not amount to any campaign of

CW: individual harassment. It was a statement of our position not of
BC what does withdrawing affiliation mean if not removal from institutional platforms
CW: We did not want removal from *names various platforms*
BC: but those are platforms for individuals. What about a

BC An institutional platform for the network?
CW What we were hoping would happen was it that wouldn't get a network with an OU logo
BC: And not allow it a platform in the Health and Welfare SRA or any SRA?
CW: Research networks don't need to have SRA to do reserach
BC Not my

BC: Question - you are being disingenuous and seeking to mince words and answer a different question
CW NO
BC This was about denying an home for this research network wasn't it?
CW No - there's a process to go through
BC - Which the GCRN had gone through

CW: The GCRN had not gone through the same process. We are talking about diff things with institituianl home
BC: You were asking it to deny home because of GC beliefs
CW: No
BC You had a fundamental objection to a research network from a GC perspective didn't you
CW: NO

CW: I had a fundamental critique but not an objection. It was about expressing beliefs in ways thought to be harmful, in respect to students and academic work and freedom. It wasn't an objection to GC thinking but the expressions we put in that letter were about this

CW: particular centre, the degree of endorsement by uni..
BC You're being disingenuous, none of that is in the letter (quotes from open letter again)
CW No
BC You were asserting that the very existence of the RN puts the Uni in breach of the EA 2010 so you were applying that to

BC the RN weren't you?
CW: No it specifically mentions promote. No we were very clear we didn't want it shut down. It wasn't the existence, it was the promotion and approval we objected to
BC Without the approval it would have been nothing more than a pub talking group. that's

BC: what you wanted wasn't it. You didn't want them to have an institutional home
CW: We didn't want them to be called the OU GCRN and we didn't want them to have access to the brand
BC finishes with CW

Next witness to be Professor Shakesheaf. Returning at 11:20 after short break. There may be more questions for CW (not from BC)

That witness will be Kevin Shakesheff Pro-Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation @threadreaderapp pls unroll