Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are expecting to resume at 11:20, here's the morning's thread.
archive.ph/0kcT3

We resume
J - I have a few questions, can you look at the witness statement of Prof Shakesheff (KS). Do you remember speaking to KS at the end of June?
JD - I recall I had a conversation with him
J - he said you showed him a statement, the KMi diversity statement and asked for

comments?
JD - yes
J - why did you ask for comments?
JD - there was a lot of controversy, we were trying to address a number of points, to get his input I thought it was a good idea
J - but that would mean that you showed it to him after it was published, if he had given you

comments would you have changed the statementy
JD - yes
J - did he give you anychanges
JD - no
J - did you write the statement yourself
JD - I talked to colleagues and HR but I was the lead and main author
J - you said the statement was to express neutrality

JD - one aim was that the world thought GCRN was a part of KMi, we wanted to change that
We wanted to state strongly we believe in AF, even if we were disassociating ourselves, the researchers should be free to carry out their research, I was worried about the effect on trans

staff and I wanted to support them, there was one sentence for them
J - what sentence was that
JD - 'especially in pride month'
J - none of your reasons include neutrality
JD - maybe balancing concerns is a better description
J - balancing
JD - we removed the statement on 13 Oct

once the content was moved and URL changed
J - why was that
JD - it no longer appeared that GCRN was part of KMi, no longer needed the statement
J - confirms date
J - purpose of statement to balance different concerns, those are the multiple aims you set out earlier.

J - those are all my questions, any re-exam?
JM - No
JD - steps out of witness box.
J - next witness?
JM - Louise Westmoreland (LW)

JM - taking through adoption of witness statement, affirmation,
LW - affirms, identifies,
JM - minor corrections to wit state, PERC should be HERC, (maybe Human Resources Research Centre?)
says 'replied to Louise, what should that say' should say I replied to Deb.

Another correction about a number, inaudible.
JM - please sign your statements, is your wit stat truthful etc
LW - yes
BC - I'm going to start with issues around CCJS,

BC - you were not one of the conference organisers, you understood the reasons for cancellation as their statement,
LW - yes
BC - have you looked at this recently
LW - yes
BC - no matter how you cut it, people who objected to RG's statements on trans prisoners succeeded in

getting the event cancelled.
LW - no, it wasn't like that
BC - it's a perfectly reasonable view for the C to have
LW - it may be reasonable, but it wasn't what happen
BC - lets agree, what happened was agitation by those opposed RG lead to cancellation of the conference

LW - I'll go along with that
BC and it's perfectly reasonable for C to see that as a breach of AF, that's a serious thread to AF
LW - if conference cancelled by activism it is a threat to AF but that's not what happened
BC - it's perfectly reasonable for C to see the

cancellation as a breach of AF.
LW - that's not what happened here.
BC - now on to 'review' of relationship with CCJS. Were you present at the discussion within HERC
LW - I wasn't
BC - weren't you deputy chair of HERC
LW - No, that was the correction

(clarifying the correction)
BC - you were a member of HERC but you weren't part of the discussions
LW - yes
BC - there's a ref to relationship between HERC and CCJS, 'we will have a discussion about that in response to calls from some members' Was that because of RG?

LW - are you asking me if it was because of that they wanted to talk about it
BC - yes, was that why they wanted to talk about the relationship
LW - I don't know, I wasn't part of those discussions
BC - email about the HERC board meeting, result to consult about how to go forward

given the mood of members. The mood was because of RGs statements
LW - no, it was more a general review, it had been going on for a long time
BC - were you on the Board of HERC at this time, theres an email to Board members
LW - yes to Board members

BC - that last para I want to ask you about. VC says JP has resigned from HERC this morning and further emails we rec'd that say they must resign if HERC remains in partnership with CCJS. We don't have those complaints but it's clear its about trans prisoners.

LW - I don't know, it couldn't have been other complaints
BC - I'm asking you to use your memory and intelligence, there were no other issues about CCJS that weren't do with trans prisoners
LW =- there were a number of complaints, I was complaining
BC - focus on my question

LW - we had a lot more engagement in the beginning and we seem to have lost all of that, also whereas before CCJS had 4 key members to engage with us, because 3 of 4 had gone, and not been replaced there wasn't much of a link, it wasn't just about RG

J - LW, the question was about complaints, are you saying that your concerns were a complaint
BC - not a complaint, they were probably about the two complaints and who threatened to resign, they were not making that threat to resign for any of the grounds in your answer early

earlier.
LW - I can't agree to what I didn't know
BC - I will put the question to you one more time, that it was almost certainly because of RGs stance on trans prisoners
LW - I cannot confirm or deny what I do not know
BC - what other issues were raised?
LW - I only know what

I was raising, I don't know what was in their minds.
BC - now on to minutes of meeting about future with CCJS
LW - yes
BC - were you at that meeting
LW - I can't quite remember if I was at that meeting but if I wasn't at the meeting I would have read these notes

BC - are there minutes of board meetings
LW - long pause - yes I think so
BC - we should see the points you mentioned in the meeting minutes and we don't see any of them appear
If you were at the meeting, we expect you would have raised them. This was the meeting where this was

discussed.
LW - I can't remember if I was at that meeting.
BC - the long answer you gave earlier - none of those points were raised in the meeting
LW - that's not what the meeting was about
BC - but it was about the relationship between HERC and CCJS

LW - it wasn't the forum to raise those and I don't remember if I was there or not.
BC - the review came about because of opposition from members to RGs to CCJS, isn't that the case
LW - no
BC - the review you participated in 2020 raised other issues, the review in 2019 was

wholly prompted by RGs statements on trans prisoners.
LW - been part of OU for many years, this was part of a 5 year normal review of a relationship.
BC - in 2019 the reconsideration of the relationship with CCJS, was wholly because of RG
BC/LW discussion about timing of end

of relationship with CCJS following the 2020 normal periodic review.
BC - paper from RG for the 2020 review, he sets out a number of benefits of relationship with CCJS,
LW - yes
(not following discussion)
BC - if you have members on Panels, it is a really positive thing that

you can take advantage of. Also, CCJS published the leading journal on criminology and that's a real benefit
LW - no not really, it's nothing to do with CCJS who gets published in that journal
BC - there had a been a 4 day conference with CCJS in June 2018, major 4 day intl'

conference. That's a significant event isn't it?
LW - yes, a significant event
BC - and there was a planned event in the 2019 that was cancelled, this was not a relationship that had run it's course
LW - personally, I think it had and it would have ended.

BC - email from Prof Wolf expressing agreement with C and disappointment that conf was cancelled, and he thought r'ship was beneficial and should be cont'd.
LW - as a Panel member he didn't run this email by me, but I agree that was his sentiment
BC - he was saying it was

an important r'ship if only HERC members could be found to maintain it.
LW - yes, I agree with that.
(Bundle shuffling)
BC - page and a half that HERC provided to feed into the review, the considerations that had been set out that were expressed at a board meeting in Jan 2020

BC - there should be minutes of that meeting.
LW - yes there should be
BC - and are there minutes of all HERC member meetings.
LW - yes, I think so we had an admin person who came allong to take notes
BC - were you at either or both of those meetings?

LW - I can't remember being at the full members meeting
J - whats the full meeting
BC - refers to HERC board and full members meeting
LW - but I would have been at the Board meeting unless I was ill or otherwise busy
BC - reasons included initiatives becoming problematic and

conflictual, and the abolition conf cancelled because of RG's statements on trans prisoners
LW - yes, but not just about that
BC - then 2 or 3 people left and r'ship mediated by RG, concerns about RGs stance on trans prisoners was main problem
LW - not the only reason

LW - 1 of 3 reasons
BC - most important reason, if it hadn't been for RGs views on trans prisoners then the r'ship would have continued
LW - I need to correct you on that, the whole thing had been a lovely relationship that had come to a natural end.

LW - the conference was a catalyst not a reason to end the relationship, there wasn't enough interest among the OU side, are you asking if J Wolf would have made us have this r'ship.
BC - I'm asking this - HERC was the most closely aligned with CCJS in subject matter,

J Wolf tried to keep the r'ship.
LW - you can see from the panel minutes, no one in HERC was interested in maintaining the r'ship
BC - if HERC wasn't interested, it wasn't going to happen
LW - no one in other faculties keen, including policing and psychology

BC - but CCJS is about prisons, not policing. The meat of the reason is
- will HERC be the host, if not we will look elsewhere, elsewhere there was lukewarm interest, therefore it was going to end.
LW - that's fair
BC - underpinning the HERC position was 'it's not feasible

to go on, not just last year's event, no appetite to go one from HERC' I suggest this is the main reason.
LW - yes
BC - J Wolf says this may be tricky to negotiate internally because it may upset those colleagues who complained last year, and OU accused of giving academic

legitimacy, and that was the main reason.
LW - no, it was a catalyst, not the main reason.
BC - lets move on.
(bundle shuffling - it's in 8 giant ring binders)
BC - now reaction to C's talk at Womans Place event, let's look at the transcript

speaks about cancellation of conference, the central point she makes is that conf was cancelled because RG and CCJS were deemed too dangerous to associate with.
BC - is that true
LW - some parts are true and some are not
BC - we are taking it in stages, is it true

BC - the activists and academics were agitating that we could not be associated with them
LW - well I don't think dangerous was true
BC - but several people said they felt unsafe sharing a platform with RG, is that true
LW - true
BC - activists threatened to disrupt it true?

LW - well, I don't know if that's true but people didn't want to come and speak at a conference that was being protested
BC - you understand that it was because of RGs views
LW - I still disagree with dangeround
Bc - nothing C says was untrue about this cancellation

LW - yes, I agree
BC - you were sent a link to the speech, you said 'I will watch it later, I can hardly bear to open it' that reflects your antipathy to C doesn't it
LW - no not at all, very friendly to C, it was just going to be upsetting to watch
BC - because C's views were

going to upset colleagues
LW - people were talking about it, I thought there might be something difficult for us as a group,
BC - what did youu think might be difficult
LW - I thought there might be something that was divisive and create difficulties

BC - it was going to be about trans issues
LW - I didn't know that
BC - you knew what Women's Place was
LW - I didn't really
Bc - are you saying that you didn't know this was going to be about sex and gender
LW - I said it was about the conference being cancelled

BC - LD said she was particularly upset. And a lot of your activity re C from this point was trying to reduce upset to LD wasn't it.
LW - no it wasn't really
BC - an email from LD, further inaccuracies,
LW - I don't know what that means
BC - you and LD had been talking and

shared a view that JP had made inaccurate statements.
LW - I don't know what this refers to.....
BC - Dr D has forwarded to you an email chain
LW - I don't see my name on that
BC - it was forwarding a chain of emails that appear on page 493
LW - I can't see that and I can't

remember getting it
Bc - you had been discussing with Dr D and agreed there were inaccuracies
LW - I don't know if I agreed on inaccuracies
BC - you then said where was the link to OU policies, were you looking for something you could discipline JP for
LW - I wanted to check the

policy I like to know what I'm talking about before I talk about it.
BC - email from Dr D to LW, wanted 3 things, stop her talking about it the conference
LW - but she was saying inaccurate things
BC - but you said that JP said nothing inaccurate

BC - reading out transcript, nothing inaccurate or misrepresents OU
LW - no that's not the only reason, that's not the only reason it was cancelled, my quibble is that there was further context that should have been included
BC - but there's nothing inaccurate in saying that it

cancelled because people threatened to disrupt.
LW - yes, but not complete.
BC - 3 things; Dr D calling for action, making OU workplace unsafe, impeding their ability to get research
LW - yes
BC - you said 'so and so is not in but I agree with you, you need to take this forward

with head of department.
LW - yes
BC - do you understand that your role as deputy head of department was to protect AF,
LW - just clarifying she was recommending further discussion
BC - this was your opportunity to protect AF and remind Dr D that AF might include people being

upset.
LW - Upset but not hurtfull. All I was saying is that she should raise it, that Vicky was dealing with it and was doing a great job, and I didnt' want to stick my oar in .
BC - all of your conduct from that point was focused on avoiding upset to Dr D.
LW - no, I hadn't

seen the video at this point.
BC - you've agreed with me that what JP said was within FoS and AF, you said you were prepared to tackle her about it
LW - I wanted to talk to her about what she said the 'Open' Uni cancelled a conf because RG was too dangerous and seeking to close

down debate.
BC - I don't think she used to word ironic
LW - I said I was paraphrasing
BC - lets look at what you were actually concerned about
J - reminder we will break at 1 pm
BC - I'm meeting Jo next week about the video and what she is saying, whether it is acceptable in a

prof to prof discussion. You are telling Dr D what it's about before you told C.
LW - yes
BC - it's extraordinary for the deputy head of department, to disclose this meeting to another employee before the meeting and before that person knew about it.

LW - several people came to me and asked me to have a word with JP, about what she said in a sort of prof to prof meeting.
BC - because she would be upset that she was being told not to express her views
LW - it' was so that resentment didn't simmer
BC - but it wasn't just about

the video, your own words in the email to Dr D.
LW - but it was about what she said in the vidoe
BC - you said 'other associated issues'
LW - it wasn't any other issue, it was just what she said in the video
Bc - you were going to tell her that w

what she said wasnt acceptable
LW - no, we were going to have a discussion about it. I wanted her to give more context if she was going to talk about it.
BC - we can see it wasn't just about the video, see Dr D response, thanking for work behind the scenes and the harms that

were caused by JP expressing her GC beliefs,
LW - there were other things going on, it was about the harms
BC - Email to Dr D, I haven't had that discussion before her surgery, will do it when she is back, it was clearly about the wider issues of her beliefs
LW - no it was

about the video, it had been sent to me, I was the messenger, I said I would do it and if I say I'm going to do something I do it.
BC - Judge, it's past 1pm should be break?
J - yes.
Ends

@threadreaderapp unroll