Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. We are expecting to resume at 2pm in Professor Jo Phoenix vs the Open University. Our previous coverage is here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

JM - Jane Mulcahy, counsel for the OU
JP - Professor Jo Phoenix
J - Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or Panel Member
BC - Ben Cooper, Counsel for JP

Hearing resumes. Ben Cooper KC is continuing to examine evidence from Louise Westmarland (Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current head of SPC).

BC: In bundle 2 Dr Downes sent you an email to you re JP's letter to The Times which says that the letter makes the OU a hostile environment for TP and NBs. You did think that JPs views were harmful.

[Sound gone - have to leave tribunal and re-enter]

Back in

BC: JP isn't talking about irony of OU's name but is talking about the conference topic.
LW: I understood she meant the name
BC: if it was just about that, there wouldn't be a problem with have a word and reassuring JP that there isn't anything wrong with her view

LW: I just wanted to keep everyone happy
BC: you weren't just going to talk about the WPUK video but how you could make everyone happy by getting her to stop talking about sex and gender
LW: untrue

BC: you told her that you weren't talking to her in your official capacity
LW: I was saying I'm giving you a friendly guide
BC: Keep people by saying don't say X Y and Z. Can't be anything but official
LW: that's not my view

*keep people happy
BC: in JPs follow up email after the conversation
LW: yes
BC: she says she's been thinking about what you said and about how I conduct myself. You'd spoken to her about this hadn't you?
LW: I said it would have been better if she had given context to

cancellation.
BC: the convo did go beyond the WPUK video.
LW: Not saying it didn't go beyond my points. I said my concerns and then Jo brought in other points

[problem with LW's folder - looking for a replacement]

BC: Re Notes you made after meeting - you emailed those to Dr Drake the next day. You wrote them on the following day? After JP's email
LW: I can't remember
BC: you were aware that you might have overstepped the mark
LW: no

BC: Jo had been late bc she was stuck on the motorway
LW: Not a problem that she was late.
BC: Am I right saying you wrote notes after JPs email?
LW: No. I sent it bc I'd been asked to have meeting by three people. I said that Jo had been upset

BC: There's an email from JP - talking about how upset she was about how angry you were about WPUK video
LW: I wasn't angry
BC: In your notes you said you told her you weren't happy about her comments on WPUK video
LW: yes

BC: Jo asked what she could do. You weren't saying this was just about other people's concerns - you said to her that you were upset about her comments. You expressed anger at what she's said on WPUK. She's accurately describing you as angry

LW: not angry
BC: upset
LW: yes. My suggestion to her might be to talk to relevant people before I made comments about OU.
BC: she was crying
LW: sniffling into a tissue that I gave her
BC: you didn't - you went to your computer and left her crying

LW: I gave her a tissue
BC: JP raised her upset at a letter that had gone to prof Fribance(???)
LW: you suggested counselling
BC: she was upset about the letter re The Times and you suggested that she get counselling
LW: I suggested that she go to our department which dealt with

career coaching. Jo had said she wasn't happy

BC: That's not true. Your own notes said you suggested she use the counselling hotline
LW: It's an employee assistance programme
BC: But she wasn't upset about her career. She was upset about relationships in the dept
LW: She said it was her dream job but it hadn't turned out

that way
BC: It was because of the relations with others in the department
LW: what she said was that it hadn't turned out to be her deam job. Didn't say bc of colleagues
BC: so why suggest she should socialise with her colleague? Your own notes don't say she needed career

coaching. You said she should get counselling. You said, in effect, your GC views will upset people
LW: no that's not what I said
BC: You described her as the racist uncle in the family that everyone is embarrassed by
LW: absolutely not
BC: so she made it up or hallucinated?

LW: I can't explain why she said that
[Sound gone again]

BC: you didn't take up her suggestion of further meeting
LW: offered coffee meeting and ticket to christmas get together
BC: with that comment - bc people were upset at her views she shouldn't talk
LW: absolutely not
[sound gone again]

Picking up after 5 minutes of lost sound on remote access.
BC - going to LW witness statement. You were asked about admonishing C, you said you didn't remember, you hadn't been told not to swear in meetings, you had been told not to swear outside departmental meetings.

You admonished JP for swearing
LW: can't remember but we had been told not to sweat so I may have quietly reminded her. I wouldn't have shouted at her
BC: you weren't told not to swear in meetings, were you? Just outside meetings - in public square
LW: No

LW - I was told not to swear in meetings
BC - the minutes same something different - reading from meeting minutes refers to language outside departmental meetings, colleagues should be mindful of language used outside meetings, minutes say this 3 times.
LW - I remember the

BC: re minutes that show about using language. It says it's not acceptable outside of meetings. Minutes might be inaccurate but you're saying they're not accurate.
LW: there had been a complaint about swearing in meetings - don't know by whom. If we were just in an office,

meeting this happened and it was about a complaint about language in meetings, I understood it was about language in all formal type meetings.
BC - you seem to have a clear recollection of what was said in the meeting in 2019 but a less clear recollection of this other meeting.

swearing not a problem but I understood shouldn't happen in meetings
BC: I question your memory. You remember clearly about a meeting where swearing was mentioned but you can't remember actually admonishing JP. What you are seeking to do is to say retrospectively that you

LW - I either recall or I don't.
BC - I suggest that you don't actually have that quality of recollection, and you're now saying you didn't say what you are reported as having said
LW - I may remember the swearing point because I told someone else about it.

BC - before the meeting in Dec 2019, you knew that JP must be upset,
LW - I didn't realise it was such a big deal
BC - really, how often does it happen that talks are cancelled because of someone's belief
LW - I hadn't realised it was such a bad thing
BC - I'm sorry

reprimanded her for swearing
LW: I don't remember telling her not to swear and I certainly wouldn't have shouted it across a room
BC: You knew that here was JP had an event in Leeds that had been cancelled and you knew it would be upsetting
LW: I didn't realise that it was

upsetting
BC: Really? You didn't see why it would be upsetting to have an event cancelled bc of someone's views
LW: I didn't realise why it had been cancelled. We didn't realise how important it was re freedom of speech
BC: you knew it was about sex and gender

of course seminars are cancelled from time to time but almost never because of beliefs. I'm struggling.
LW - I hadn't realised how much trouble this was going to cause in the future. FoS, etc
BC - let me suggest that you are dissembling, you knew what had happened

LW - she said in the meeting she had been cancelled. Remember this is way back when all this was just starting we didn't have any sense of how serious it was.
BC - you had reverted to 'C is going to talk about something that will cause division again, you admonished her for

LW: It started to dawn on us how important it was. We didn't have a sense of how serious it was or was going to be
BC: Before meeting you had reverted to reaction we've seen before - ugh, this is going to be an upset
LW: I knew it would be an upset

swearing. You talked about her Canadian research and about her cancellation at Essex.
BC - she wasn't talking about those issues, she was talking about how she feels about those developments.
She says her contribution was met with deathly silence.
LW - I remember there was a

silence after she said she had been cancelled, and we were thinking,
BC - after C has finished speaking, Dr D was asked to talk about her research on trans prisoners
LW - we were just working through the list of agenda items on the meeting
BC - and meeting participants were

LW: there was a silence after JP announced cancellation. Not a deathly silence
BC: Dr Drake turned to Dr Downs and asked about her research
LW: that was normal. you go through the list of things
BC: but there were congrats to Dr Downs
LW: can't remember
BC: shows how little

effusive and the contrast to the silence that met JP's announcement.
LW - no, no one knew what to say
BC - let's be clear that there was an atmosphere and it was because of her GC views and your reaction was 'sigh, I wish she wouldn't talk about this stuff, it's divisive'.

concern for JP
LW: maybe people didn't know what to say or how to respond
BC: There was an atmosphere in the department bc of JPs research on sex and gender
LW: I wouldn't say that
BC: You said "sigh - I wish she wouldn't do it"
LW: No
BC: that was the atmosphere in that meeting

LW - it wasn't Jo's fault, it wasn't adding to the harmony and good work of the department.
BC - that's not what you've described, that people were happily getting on with their own research and ignoring other issues
BC - just to understand your evidence, the discussion was

LW: no. No-one regarding Jo as not having good research topic and no-one was upset at her
BC: No-one?
LW: Some people were upset later on but it wasn't Jo's fault.
BC: You say that discussion in that meeting was perfectly routine and nothing had happemed
LW: subsequently I found

completely routine and nothing out of the ordinary.
LW - at the time I didn't understand what it meant 'cancellation at Essex', we weren't sure what the significance was, we were listening and trying to understand, there wasn't really the time to explore it.

out what the cancellation meant. Everyone was quiet bc we didn't get the significance. I was thinking "Oh, cancellation from Essex" Then the meeting went on as usual

BC - I'm not go to explore issues when you were head of the department, I believe Dr Drake was responsible for work allocations.
LW - yes
BC - those are all my questions.
J - we will take a break.

@threadreaderapp unroll.