Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are hoping that at least some of the hearing in Newman v Metropolitan Police at Employment Tribunal this afternoon will be held in public, and that we will have permission to live-tweet proceedings.

tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/newman-vs-th…

For now, we are waiting for the Court to begin the public part of the hearing; we don't yet know when this will begin.

The live stream from the Court has still not begun.

The stream has begun. We understand that the first witness is DCI Charlotte Cadden (CC), now retired.

AM: You don't say whether you regarded Shea Coffey's presentation as offensive
CC: I do later in the statement, in terms of language used.

CC: The homophobic language I refer to - I meant the use of 'queer'
AM: Not universally held view?
CC: No but it's my view.

AC: Leaving aside use of language, do you take issue with anything else SC said?
CC: Yes - the statement that children can transition from one sex to the other.
AC: You accept SC can hold that view?
CC: Yes I do

AC: But you find it offensive?
CC: Find it misinformation. Sex is immutable.

{Am not certain of the identity of the witness so shall switch to "W" for the time being]

W: my experience, police officers don't understand gender identity, self-ID. Don't understand what it means in terms of sex based rights. Don't understand gender identity ideology.

AM: Don't understand self if ...?
W: In context of sex based based rights.
J: Do you think choice of words is important?
W: Yes I do, thank you Judge.

AM: You mention booing when Kellie-Jay Keen's name mentioned - she's also known as Posie Parker?
W: Yes
AM: You definititely heard booing
W: Definintely

W: Found it misogynistic
AM: Would you have found booing at mention of Tommy Robinson offensive?
W: There should not be booing at a police training event.
AM: Was not a formal training event.
W: Was advertised for staff to attend, and people did on duty time.

AM: Was organised by LGBT network, for TDOV
W: I don't remember any of the network being there, only trans officers.
AM: Your opinion of Posie Parker?
W: She describes herself as a women's rights campainger; I don't have a particular view of her.

AM: [ref to bundle]
AM: How did you attend the event?
W: Was online.
AM: Do you know "Hope Not Hate"?
W: Yes
AM Your opinion of them

W: I think they are a third-party reporting point for hate crime, is my understanding.
AM: Your opinion of Woman's Place UK?
W: Women's rights org, I know they did an event in Manchester.
AM: They are gender critical organisation?
W: Not sure.

AM: [ref to wikipedia page for KJK]
AM: Says Jan 19, KJK did a podcast with Tommy Robinson. Wikipedia is not anti-gender-critical. Also says Sarah McBride did an event in UK and KJK and JL shouted at McB and misgendered.
If this was all true would you be troubled by it?

W: Not sure Wiki is reliable really - I can't comment on things in the USA.
AM: How closely do you follow KJK
W: have kept track of Let Women Speak events

AM: Also on the wikipedia page it says 2019 jean hatchet expressed concerns re KJK rightwing links in USA. JH is a gender critical feminist, critical of KJK links to right. Not an isolated view of her is it?

W: I think people have views on KJK but can't comment on other people's views of her. I have to keep abreast of the issues for my job, but can't comment on things in the USA.
AM: You're aware of reported links KJK to the far right.
W: I know other people say so.

AM: Put it to you that many ppl inc GC feminists might disapprove of KJK, and not for reasons of misogyny.
W: That's fair yes.

AM: You say in WS that Steph Robinson spoke of much hostility in the world, had known nothing like it, what did you understand by that?
W: That that was how SR perceieved it, yes
AM: In what capacity did SR perceive this?

W: Understand that SR had set up a trans police network and identifies as a transwoman.
AM: And says had never experienced such a hostile environment. What was your reaction to that.
W: No reaction - I was just listening to teh speakers.

AM: An officer Jan Robinson said was probably the highest ranking person there - you are DCI?
W: Yes.
AM: So same rank as you really.
W: Yes
AM: You did not challenge re KJK at the time
W: No.

AM: But are critical now. Is that not you applying one rule to others and another to yourself>
W: The event was at New Scotland Yard, officers attending on duty time, I was secondment. Several people said they were on advisory boards, well-connected to the Met Police.

W: In terms of not challenging on the day - I felt unable to, felt discriminated against becasue of what I had heard, authorised by people above me. Was at a loss what to do.

AM: But you were most senior person there.
W: Maybe, but organised by more senior people.
AM: Why did you attend the event?
W: Part of my role to be informed. And as I say, my view is police don't understand issues here.

W: for example in Jan 2023 and MPSs in Scotland standing in front of 'decapitate TERFs' sign, nobody understood why this was a problem. So went to the event to see if there was an understanding of all this.
Was invited by two different people, so I attended.

J: Was invitation a response to your raising the Jan 2023 Scottish sign?
W: I don't know - I can't answer that. It was following discussions on information collection and management, but can't say for sure.

AM: [ref]
W: Yes risk assessment - for police evaluation.

AM: [ref] Did the invitation to you look like this?
W: Yes I think so - I think it was an attached PDF.
AM: You looked at it before you attended?
W: I think so.

AM: You'll have seen here - descriptions of the talks - clear that it was a trans-focussed event, not a training event re EA2010 or whatever.
W: Yes, a trans event.

AM: So you'd have expected it to be a trans-focus, with eg what you heard from SC.
W: Did not expect the language I heard.
AM: You have mentioned objecting to 'queer' - what was the other thing?

W: Saba Ali I think it was, talking of 'cis women and TERFs'
AM: Saba Ali?
W: Think so - let me check my witness statement. [reads]

W: Paragraph 30.
AM: You find that an offensive term?
W: Yes

AM: So why? You've explained re 'queer' but what is offensive here?
W: Terms 'cisgendered and TERFs' - applied to women who are concerned about sex based rights and particularly lesbians who are.
AM: Your view that's homophobic?
W: Yes

J: You've mentioned the terms 'cisgendered' and 'TERF' - you think both are homophobic?
W: And misogynistic.

AM: Para 29. Re police searches and whether trans people can search ppl of the opposite sex. Was a complaint made?
W: couldn't see who it was, but complainer said was trans and was prevented from doing opposite-sex searching, as I would put it.

AM: At that time NPCC's position was to facilitate searching of people of the opposite sex registered at birth?
W: I believe guidance was, on a self-id basis officers cd strip search ppl of the opposite sex. Which is against PACE.

AM: But Met Police did not have that policy?
W: I think Met asked trans officers not to do searches at all.
AM: Officer had the right to speak against the Met policy?
W: Yes

AM: And Saba Ali has right to express her views, even if you disagree with views/
W: Yes of course - freedom of expression within the law.
AM: SA not advocating violence?
W: No

[Missing a bit - AM talking of ppl recruited to police force - I think, not officers but liaison]
W: Yes 32 ppl I think, 12 areas.
AM: S/O said, don't have to be LGBTQ to be in this position.

W: Discussion was re a woman not in the room, about whether suitable, bcs no obvious links to that community.
AM: And view that didn't matter was raised?
W: One person said she should not be
AM: But general view, support of room, you didn't need to be.

W: Not the response of the room. Not really a 'room response' at all. But the view that s/o not suitable because not LGBT not appropriate.

AM: You've said, event authorised bcs at New Scotland Yard. Was on 1st floor, next to canteen.
W: I don't know, never worked in that building.
AM: It's not necessary to be a senior officer to book it. Any comment?

W: 50+ officers there, on staff time so authorised by higher-up officers.
AM: Do you accept views at a TDOV event would be those of trans ppl, not gender critical ones.

W: It's possible to run such an event while using respectful language, and shd do some due diligence on speakers eg their social media.
AM: But not a training event

W: If junior staff are given a biased understanding, they are being given a view hostile to sex based rights, which is unhelpful and I'd say against the Code of Ethics.

AM: You talk of officers in the room - who do you mean?
W: The event lead.
AM: Lead was not an officer.
W: Event organiser should have done due diligence.

AM: Purpose of event was not to give a balanced view of tensions that can arise between rights. It was a trans event.
W: Then it should not have been held.
AM: Wd you say same of an event to celebrate gay rights?

W: Police job is to apply the law, there should be due diligence?
AM: Such an event would make you uncomfortable?
W: If due diligence not done yes.
W: I don't have a problem with 'days' at all - but they must not be abusive.

AM: Suppose I was a fundamentalist Christian, and attended an LGBT event, I would find it offensive and inappropriate, what do you say to me?
W: Police have brought an evangelical Christian speaker?
AM: No, an attending officer.

W: Police shd be without fear or favour, no bias. Officers have lots of different religions; will hear lots they disagree with, but must remain no bias.

AM: Not a fully day event - 10 till 2. You have guessed perhaps 100 ppl in attendance over the day. 55,000 staff at the Met. V small proportion attending.
W: Yes

AM: I've finished my Qs.
J: Re-examination?

NC: J asked if you found 'cisgendered' offensive. Can you explain why?

W: Ppl who support gender identity ideology say there are different categories of women; 'cisgendered' being the ones born female who say they are women. It's offensive that other ppl are applying that terminology to those born women. There aren't diff categories of women, or men

NC: Is that siginificant to you as a lesbian?
W: Well, Shea Coffey, at the event. He says he has 'transitioned into a woman', he was a heterosexual man with children. And that now he is a lesbian.

W: I wd say, many lesbians wd say, men cannot be lesbians and it's homophobic to say men can.

J: Can I just clarify. Someone that you consider to be a biological male who's in a relationship with a woman, and he describes himself as a lesbian, and that's homophobic because ..?

W: Biological males are not lesbians, and saying that they are - and that lesbians must date them or be called transphobic - that's homophobic.

NC: And what practical effect does men claiming to be lesbians have on lesbians?
W: Cd be subjected to sexual assault if forced to go out with men who say they are lesbians. Cannot express their preferences on lesbian dating sites.

W: Often, can't socialise with other women in single sex spaces. Have been cases in the UK where lesbians have tried to set up women-only events and either have been closed down bcs men wanted to attend, or bcs venue owner does not want men to be excluded and cancels event.

J: Thank you [discharges witness]

J: [sound is not great - I think is discussing timings for rest of the hearing]
AM: I think all of tomorrow with claimant, will do my best not to exceed that.
J: Will leave us with 2 days, 3 witnesses afterwards, could be more.

AM: Wd expect their evidence to be short and to the point
J: But there is possibility we won't complete evidence this week.
AM: We may need submissions in writing.
J: Which is manageable where all parties do have legal representation.

J: Am sure I don't need to as whether you'd prefer not to end the week part-heard but it may be that we just can't complete evidence in 3 days. If we can't - we will need to check availability. Won't decide now.

NC: I am free first days next week.
AM: I could probably - can probably do that yes.
J: Probably not impossible then - it looks as if we may have space - I have things I cd move - we cd potentially go over to Monday.

J: Let's leave it as 'a possibility' for now. I suggest that we start at 10 tomorrow. Any questions before we end?
NC: I suggested that I might recommend some reading - have not been able to discuss with AM - we will do that and send to you?
J: Thank you.

[SESSION ENDS}

@threadreaderapp please unroll