Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to part 2 of the afternoon hearing, day 4 of Melanie Newman v the Metropolitan Police Service. The court is currently taking a 10 minute break.

NC: Are you able to help the tribunal know who the officer is here responding to SA about 'the binder incident'
KM: I can't remember which staff present other than me or [?}Sunny. It wasn't me, but I'm not sure if it was Sunny.

NC: Were you concerned at all? That Mermaids was being given advice?
KM: No
NC: Does it worry you now?

KM: No, I think the assistance was about how things were handled in the media - I think, there was a link in the media made to FGM, can't remember whether mainstream or social media, I think Met made a reference to it.

NC: Are you saying the report put Mermaids in a worse light than fair?
KM Yes
NC: Why was the Met acting as Mermaids PR agency?

KM: Not as PR, but someone said "oh the Met will investigate Mermaids" so it was appropriate that Met respond.
J: You're saying the police issued a statement because an incorrect statement had been made?
KM: Yes

KM: I can't say what advice Mermaids had been getting, but if they'd been misrepresented in the media they might have viewed that as a crime and approached the police for help

NC: If misrepresented in the press, they would think that was a crime maybe?
KM: Yes

NC [ref] this is minutes of another TNB forum mtg 9/1, you were there?
KM: Yes
NC: This section - your inttials visible this time - you talk of a space to ask questions

NC: S/O asks you about mandatory vs optional training - this an unfair way to put it but what is being said is, indoctrination should be made mandatory for new officers?

KM: Yes unfair, esp 'indoctrination'
NC: Training should be made mandatory?
KM 'training' isn't how we think about trans issues - and this doesn't say 'training'

NC: Is this not discussing training on trans issues?
KM: Yes training on trans issues but I think this comment is by a member of the community, their opinion, they'd prefer a more pro-trans approach or at least a neutral one.

NC: Are you saying training at the time was gender critical?
KM: No
NC: You say that senior leadership rather than new recruits might need such pro trans training more?

KM: Am thinking more of elements of policy - more likely that a senior leader would be managing s/o transgender so more important for them to be aware of searching policy re trans officers, re uniform, facilities access, warrant cards.

J: The question about training on gender critical issues?
NC: I was asking whether KM suggesting that the training at the time was gender critical, but the answer was 'no'.

NC: Taking the 2 sets of minutes together - it looks as if the TNB forum is being given opportunity to influence policy - is that fair?
KM: Forum v welcome to raise issues and make suggestions - doesn't mean Met will follow that - opportunity to hear from community.

NC: I am suggesting this group had too much access and influence
KM: I disagree - access in that formal group set up, but I don't agree re influence over the Met.

NC: Either way, there is a level of engagement and that has not been balanced in the slightest by engagement with GC groups.
KM: I don't know what engagement Met has had with GC groups or invidividuals - best to ask other witnesses.
NC Of course.

NC: All names redacted nearly. Is it OK for Met to be lobbied in secret in this way?
KM: Don't agree with 'lobby in secret'. Mtgs are closed because most of the members are trans, want to protect their identities.

KM: I think the fact that there are minutes (tho yes these are redacted) is evidence the meetings aren't being held secretly.

NC [ref] back to relationship EE-Met.
NC: Announcement here of event, panel discussion, being made available now on Youtube. Described as a Lesbian Visibility Week event. Says LGBT+ women in the Met panel discussion. Widely publicised
KM: Yes

NC: Says led by EE. So, on 25/4 EE hosted an event at Met premises, with 4 women who worked for the Met, for LVW.
KM: Yes am aware EE chaired, spoke to officers, I didn't attend myself.

NC: Is it fair to say that if EE is chairing a panel of 4 women officers, that it looks as if he's in a position of some trust at the Met?
KM: Depends how you interpret position of chair of panel - not automatic assumption that a chair has particular influence over panel members.

NC: Giving EE some prominence, asking him to preside?
KM: Wd certainly show EE's work with the Met, make it visible and accessible.

J [Q]
KM: It being widely available - youtube and elsewhere - making EE's work with the Met widely accessible.

NC: I would call EE a trans-identifying man and you would call a transwoman?
KM: Yes
NC: S/O biological male, structure to produce sperm not eggs, who now says he's a woman?
KM: Def different language, AMAB now identifying as a woman.

NC: But we are disagreeing about language not substance.
KM: Yes
NC: And having him chair a LVW event is saying that a man is a lesbian?
KM: I think EE does identify as a lesbian but I don't think Met is doing more than supporting EE's self-identification.

J: Q was, the Met is promoting EE as a lesbian?
KM: Yes - and I said nobody can determine anyone else's sexual ID - Met isn't saying it exactly, it's EE's ID - Met is just being supportive.

J: But could be viewed as promoting?
KM: Cd be - but of course it isn't necessary to have a lesbian chairing an LVW event.

NC: Can you understand why quite a lot of female lesbians might find the spectacle of a man declaring himself a lesbian and doing LVW, offensive?
KM: Can understand why those with GC beliefs might object.

NC: They might think their lives, their experience, is being appropriated by a man?
KM: I disagree with that. And EE was chair, not a member of the panel talking about experiences. Can understand that some ppl wd have concerns.

NC: Quite a lot of lesbians - will be more direct. It's homophobic isn't it, to tell lesbians that they have to accept men who identify as women as lesbians?
KM: I disagree.

NC: You think it's OK to tell lesbians that they have to accept men - transwomen you'd say - as lesbians, as partners?
KM: There's a difference between respecting someone's identification as a lesbian, and dating or whatever. It's not transphobic not to *date* a TW.

J: Can I clarify. You said diff between respecting identity, and - I missed the other thing?
KM: Was trying to think how best to word it. I don't think you missed anything, I sort of changed tack with the wording, to be clearer.

NC: The idea that ppl have to accept men who say they're lesbians, as lesbians, is not just about accepting their identification. It has practical consequence - not being allowed to exclude men from their dating apps for example. Isn't that a problem?

KM: Some ppl would think so but for example dating apps, there are settings you can use, it's not about TW not being honest on dating apps, a lot of it comes down to ppl's personal views.

NC: I suggested homophobic. It's the same old thing isn't it? "You just haven't met the right man yet"?
KM: Am not sure I follow.

AM: I don't see the relevance of all this to the claimant's claim.
J: I tend to agree that interrogating this witness's views to this details is relevant?
NC: It is not so much about this witness views, it's about the Met inviting EE to host a LVW event.

NC: This was a victory parade demonstrating the influence of gender-identity ideology within the Met?

KM: Don't think I agree. I think it wd perhaps be expected the chair wd be a lesbian woman but I don't think it wd be compulstry. ID of chair not that relelvant, so not sure Met making any statement by having EE chair.

NC: This brings me to another topic - not sure of time?
J: How long will you need?
NC: Will go into tomorrow. Am not saying we should stop now, just alerting court.

J: Well - it's obviously important for the tribunal to understand the issues being discussed, and to explore them, but perhaps we don't need to spend so much time on them?
NC: Yes I should be able to speed up, but that issue was an important one.

J: This is an area that has many aspects to it, but not all will be relevant to this case. Shall we continue?

NC: Going to discuss relationship SA-Met now. [ref]. Picture of an in-person event, SA is in picture. Says "who am I" - TBN forum, {missed] Advisory Group, Community Engagment. 3 links?
KM: Yes

NC: Refers also to 3 interest areas within the Met
KM: Yes

NC: [ref] SA Linkdn post - talking about attending a round-table event about learning for new police recruits, opportunity to influence that?
KM: Can't speak to influence - roundtable says it's about raising awareness, so information from community to Met.

NC: A roundtable has no influence?
KM: I don't know what - you'd assume some I suppose or roundtable wd have been a waste of time. But I don't know what came out of it.

NC: Fair to say nobody GC at that event?
KM: I don't know. I can see some other names but I don't know who attended.
NC: Not what I'm asking. Given culture at the Met, were there likely to be any GC there?
KM: Can't say.

NC[missed]
KM: Wouldn't say so.
NC {sound is inaudible - there is noise of pouring water]

NC: SA has had a number of advisory positions with Met?
KM: Yes engagement and advisory groups in a number of areas.

NC: [lists a number of groups - I think about 8]
KM: That's not surprising.

NC: [ref] Email from SA to you Feb 2023, SA says she's happy to support you at an event unless everyone's fed up with her. Acknoledgement she's around a lot?
KM: Yes - lighthearted, but saying she often works with the Met.

NC: I suggest a 5 minute break?
J: Of course, and we'll carry on afterwards.

[BREAK]

NC: [ref] just picking up something to clarify. The blanks here are BCC and date. I suggested redacted by respondent - would like to clarify they were blank when disclosed, by both sides.

NC: We were talking about SA relationship with Met. Looked at p237.
J: I think you put, she's acknowledged frequent meetings, KM said yes, lighthearted.
NC: And your response here - you say, fantastic if she takes part, always glad to see her. You had a close relationship?

KM: Yes, a friendly professional relationship.
NC: And SA and EE both continued to attend frequently, after the TDoV event.
KM: Yes I know further events.
NC: And earning from the appearances.
KM: I haven't seen the payment information.

[NC and AM direct KM to this]
NC: Shows a list of attendances - names, dates, payments.
KM: Yes
NC: First few months of the list. SA 3 in Oct 22, 5 in Dec 22, 4 in Jan 23, 3 in Feb 23, 4 in March, 2 in April, 3 in May, 8 in June ... bulge for Pride month?
KM: Perhaps.

NC: If we look at the bottom Oct 22 to Feb 25, SA earned just under £26K?
KM: Yes
NC: Not surprising claimant sought [missed]
KM: Not sure I was involved in those convos.

NC: It's fair isn't it that someone seeing this much engagement, this frequency, would think that the Met was authorising what the person was saying and doing?
KM: SA more than EE I'd say

NC: It's a Met seal of approval, they're involved in training and public events?
KM: Not certain what you mean, seal of approval. I accept that the level of interaction with SA and EE that Met thinks they're appropriate ppl to engage with, interact with, is that what you mean?

NC: In the context of those kinds of appearances, the frequency, I'm suggesting that the TDoV event doesn't have the flavour of being one where the Met is seeking to find out the views of extreme activists, it's one the Met is looking to learn from?
KM: Yes I'd say that's correct

J: I'm not sure what the Q was?
NC: That the Met at TDoV was celebrating and seeking to learn from trusted partners - witness said yes to that.

NC: Para 26 of your WS. You twice describe TDoV event as an MPS event?
KM: Yes, MPS LGBT+network event so yes and MPS event by definition, yes.

NC: And held at prestigious HQ at NSY.
KM Yes at NSY
NC: Was asking specifically, holding it at NSY, HQ, presitigious, MPS event.
KM: Yes, and, but also bcs central London.

NC: Not sure whether you are agreeing with me. Am saying, nature of it as an MPS event underlined by being at NSY
KM: Yes I can agree with that.

NC: Many attendees, in working hours.
KM: Imagine so yes.

NC: Another TNB forum meeting [ref]. Were you at this one?
KM: I think so.
NC: You're not sure?
KM: I think I would have been, can't say I recall the details of the discussions though.

NC: If we look at this page. Context is discussion of RHSE curriculum, says Muslim women are being groomed by gender criticals to object to things. EE appears to agree with this, is that fair?

KM: Wouldn't say it's entire clear it relates to that - two points raised, not necessarily related, and then it mentions Mumnet, I'm not sure it was one linked discussion.
NC: The numbers are all there though?
KM: Yes agree it's complete, just not sure it's all related.

NC: Will put differently. There's no evidence anyone there did disagree with anything said there?
KM: No there isn't.
NC: Is this typical of the kinds of discussions the forum had?

KN: Well yes we'd expect members of the community to bring up issues, things that had upset them. Not unusual.
NC: Do you find anything disturbing about it now? That muslim women being groomed?
KM I can't remember if I did -
NC: Asking about now.

KM: Only that one sentence to go on but yes, concerning, any mention of anyone being groomed or targetted for hate speech, all disturbing topics. If I saw this in isolation I would be concerned, wd want to know context and get full information.

NC: But surely it's obvious that women from some religions might be especially concerned about say sharing changing rooms with men, or searched by them?
J: Not sure I understand point you are making? There's no ref to changing rooms.
NC: You're right, it's re RHSE

NC: But my point is that women of faith might be particularly concerned by pro gender identity theory RHSE content, and it's patronising to suggest that Muslim women are only objecting bcs they're being groomed?

J: That's reading quite a lot into that passage. The words on the page are the Muslim women are being groomed by gender critical women into anti-trans speech - that's all.

NC: Moving on to question of prior notice of SA and EE extreme views. both active on social media?
KM: Yes
NC: Did you follow them on any platform?
KM: On instragram but I can't remember when I started - I think after the TDoV event - and I don't use instagram regularly.

[Have missed a bit]
NC: Do you think it's OK to describe women who object to men in women only spaces as stupid and morons?
J: Not clear to me that that's what is said here?

NC: If you look at the context - do you agree with me this about single sex spaces?
KM: Yes, about men committing offences in single sex spaces. Men not TW, to be clear, is how I understand this.

NC: So in summary, they are saying that bcs some men (who don't identify as women) are violent criminals, and won't bother to say they're women to commit crimes, it follows that it's silly to want to keep men who *do* say they're women out of SSS. Is that the argument being made?

KM: I think they're trying to say that preventing TW from entering SS would not reduce risk or increase safety for women in those spaces.
J: can you repeat last bit
[KM does]

NC: That only works if you say that men who say they're women, transwoman, change their risk profile when they say they are women - from a male profile to a female profile? That's the assumption?

KM: I think in practice it's more nuanced, stereotyping can sometimes be helpful, but it's not always the most effective way of making judgments
NC: But we agree it's what the exchange is about?
KM: Yes

NC: And SA is calling ppl that disagree with it are "stupid" and "morons"?
KM: Yes
NC: Is it OK to say that? to use that language? In public
KM: Perhaps not the best way to address the situation.

NC [ref] this is Feb 2023, re the Scottish GRRR bill - yes?
KM: Yes
NC: EE is asking why so many journos talking about it instead of eg VAWG. Did you see this before TDoV?
KM: Didn't see it but yes cd have

NC: Do you agree that there was a proper discussion to be had between supporters and opponents of the GRRR bill?
KM Am sure there was a convo to be had, to be had in Parliament
NC: It's not OK just to smear opponents as transphobic?

KM: It's EE's opinion, up to her to express it.
NC: [ref] This is Feb 2023
[Last ref to Feb 23 shd read Dec 22]
KM: Is this a linkdn post?
NC: Yes.

KM in that case would not have seen it - use Linkdn even less than instagram.
NC: But again you could have?
KM: Yes.
NC: We see SA and EE, both agreeing, criticising media coverage of death of Brianna Ghey, yes?
[all read]

KM: Yes, emphasising dangers of misinformation and inaccurate reporting in the press.
NC: You say emphasising dangers of inaccuracy?
KM: That's EE's view yes.

NC: This was v soon after BG's death, well before trial. Is there anything that troubles you about the exchange here?
KM: Not overly ... I don't think these are particularly uncommon views. I've seen v similar views elsewhere.

NC: Not troubled that 2 ppl publicly closely associated with Met are suggesting in public that the murder of BG was related to "anti trans" press, even before the trial? Not a problem?

KM: Would not say unduly concerning - SA and EE relationship with Met not the same as officers, so duty of eg neutrality isn't the same, so not unduly concerning.

NC: This is a good point for me to stop.
J: Thank you. [reminds KM remains 'on the stand' and must discuss]
J: Am concerned even Monday will not be enough to complete and we shd look for 2 consecutive days.

J: Ask that you look into that possibility - first week of April?
[S/O can't do that but I can't see who is speaking - I think the panel members at this point]
J: 24-25 March?

AM: Am very keen to get [next witness] heard tomorrow.
NC: I shall have to go faster.
AM: KM already on stand half a day.
NC: I think I will need 1.5-2 hours with this witness.

J: Best part of the morning for KM - then Mr Ecott. How long will you take NC?
NC: More than usually difficult to predict.
AM: I understand that.

[This is going too fast to write out - witness holidays etc are being discussed]
J: We have 4 more witnesses after KM;
NC: Is there a benefit to have 2 consecutive days, cd we do Monday as agreed and then 24th?

J: That cd be pragmatic solution. That may be what we should do. We must still be disciplined, and get through the witnesses properly. We always prefer oral submissions not purely written, if possible, too.

[more discussion of witness availability]
J: Will ask you to ensure it is no more than 2 hours with KM and after that we will try to hear a further witness and start another. Shd we start early?

J: It's agreed we'll start at 10 and hope for no further ancillary matters.
AM: I don't think any further disclosure.
J: We will now stop, until 10 tomorrow.

ENDS]

@threadreaderapp please unroll