Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon on 16/10/23 and welcome back to Prof. Jo Phoenix v Open University.
We expect Ben Cooper KC to continue examining evidence from
Kevin Shakesheff, Pro Vice Chancellor of OU.
2pm start.

Catch up with our coverage here:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Abbreviations

J: Judge
P: Panel sitting with J

JP - Prof. Jo Phoenix, claimant
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for JP
OU - Open University, Respondent
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, OU counsel

KS - Kevin Shakesheff, Pro Vice Chancellor of OU, OU Witness

GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

All other abbreviations are on our substack:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

[Tribunal resumes 1402]

J: Good afternoon everyone. KS the panel will be asking u Qs first. (Hard to hear Panel, taking KS to section)
P: that was email u received and BC read out parts. Middle para 'colleagues involved' [reads 'Jo received harassment on SM']

What did u do when u saw email re violence threat?
KS: went to working group (WG). Secretary in touch with JP about SM. I believe IF, erm, he's talking about, he knew JP well and was checking in. He took responsibility for action.

(Very hard to hear)

Panel: did you make any effort to contact JP and support?
KS: only just joined uni. Bc JP was within IF faculty, it was he who dealt with that and CM.

Panel2: first question. Go to WS. Just read para 94-96 so u know what I'm questioning.

[ KS Reads]
Panel2: was a risk assessment done for seminar on Oct 11?
KS: yes for whole series of seminars.
Panel2: did seminar go ahead?
KS: in my view yes but I didn't attend. Myself and JP talked about how to manage chat

Panel2: next Q re statement re the uni. Originally OU said wouldn't take down statements and then they did. Could u shed light on when and why 2 were taken by and not Wels Statament.
KS: can't remember. I wasn't involved.

Panel2: were u part of WG?
KS: don't remember instruction to take it down. Can't remember.
Panel2: u can't remember. That's fine.
J: KS, I'm going to ask a Q a little evidence just given. U were asked about how u perceived the KMi statement as whether it had discrim against

GCRN group and u responded group was opento everyone and group wasn't just about GC. U didn't need the belief just eesearvh into sexed bodies. That right?
KS: yes
J: In partic to KMi statement, was that YOUR decision as Pro VC or WG?

KS: (clarifies question)
J: all the consequences of views u were asked about u said it was fine, same answer so I'm asking for all, the consequences.
KS: for both I went to WG and introduced issue. Group had diff views. Me taking issue to WG, discussing and accepting position of

WG and go from there.
J: did u take all of it to WG, was it all ur decision?
KS: original q was should KMI cont to host or move to uni server. Once that decision was made there were tech aspects

J: re to RSH group, once u got letter they said they would disband. The view taken was that u or WG?
KS: I don't actually remember. I may have taken to WG. My view fine to disband if they wanted to.

J: I I.agine u say u don't remember but as far as u were concerned GC group was for everyone and not discriminatory as not directed at GC beliefs. Would u have expressed that to WG?
KS: don't remember. Was my view listening to launch was an open network.

J: I've read through ur WS but I don't see the view you've expressed today. Reason its not in there?
KS: erm. Felt it didn't need saying.

KS: academic issues can always include diff views. Clear from set up of GCRN that's what it was doing. Seemed obvious to me.
J: No Qs from JM. You are released.

[Clerk is talking but hard to hear. A new witness is preparing for the stand]

[Witness is Natalie Starkey, Outreach and public engagement officer OU. She will be known as NAS. NAS is being taken through oath and confirming her WS and signature]

BC: good afternoon. Clear from para 4 of WS that in days before GCRN there was a lot of 'uproar'. That's ur phrase. U understood by signing and tweeting you would be adding to it?
NAS: don't agree. Was supporting trans and NB colleagues

BC: by adding ur voice that GCRN wasn't welcome at OU.
NaS: disagree. It was to quieten down research. Strong feelings to do that. Trans and NB colleagues very upset and what they thought it was trying to do. I tried to support them which is why I signed

BC: in ur WS you say the reason for ur objection because GC is a dogwhistle to transphobic views?
NAS: I did research very quickly when RN came about. I don't just listen to what ppl tell me and firm my own view. That's the reason
BC: doesn't sound like u made much effort

To look I to term GCRN.
NAS: that's fair. I looked at website and saw names of ppl. Was aware of name already and had seen what they posted on twitter. Hadn't heard of any others. Didn't listen to podcast and formed view. Correct I didn't know much about ppl in network.

BC: U say u signed as senior academics did too?
NAS: yes
BC: [so it sounds like you weren't forming own views and to do with senior academics - paraphrase]
NAS: [partly but did do own research - paraphrase]

BC: this is the intro to GCRN page which sets out aims.
NAS: not read this
BC: sorry I thought u said u had looked at it and saw aims?
NAS: cant remember what I read
BC reads aims

BC: did I infer correctly from ur answer re unsure of real aims that u thought they weren't being truthful in this webpage?
NAS: can't remember reading it. Seems reasonable now but can't remember.
BC: let's look at open letter u signed.

BC: did I understand from answer before that by signing this u would be calming situ?
NAS: Fair to say. Hoping to open devateabput creation of GCRN.
BC: U say ur concern wasn't about GCRN it was concern called OU network?
NAS: yes
BC: this doesn't say that. About the name.

It's a letter to withdraw support from GCRN isn't it?
NAS: not why I signed it
BC: do accept if u sign a letter u agree with it and what it is saying?
(Pause)
NAS: I need to remind myself of the letter. Can I have a moment.

BC repeats the question
NAS: I agree with what is in the letter so I signed it.
BC: so it can't be right ur only concern was solidarity and name of the network. U were calling to remove it?
NAS: no. I dont read the letter that strong. To remove it.

BC : U added ur own comment to DR Downes tweet?
NAS: yes
BC: U clearly recognised u were adding to what u described as uproar in opposition to GCRN
NAS: don't agree.
BC: U were deliberately seeking to highlight weight of complaint against it
NAS: not a hostile way of doing it

BC: U don't think its hostile to a network of 6 ppl u should not exist as OU network?
NAs: wasnt saying that
(Missed)

NAS: I didn't understand and wanted to raise that and whether uni did wanted to support. If they said RN was fine but having heard from trans and NB students and colleagues I realised upset around it.

BC: U talk about opening a debate but debate is whether GCRN should exist?
NAS: no how its associated with uni
BC: do u not see u were adding to uproar bound to make GCRN feel unwelcome?
NAS: not my aim when signing letter
BC: thats all my questions

[Witness released.]

J: not sure if worth taking a break.
[Clerk states Helen Bowes-Catton is up next as witness.]
J: we will take a break. Back at 2.55pm]

[Back at 2.55pm]

@threadreaderapp please unroll