Christine Burns has published her "Witness Statement re Edinburgh Employment Tribunal involving Katherine O'Donnell" on her blog.
Full text here:
blog.plain-sense.co.uk/2019/05/the-statement-below-is-written-evidence_9.html
---
From the blog post (rather than the actual witness statement)
The intention of this statement was to help the tribunal to contextualise other evidence that it would likely encounter in the course of hearings that are expected to span six weeks. That includes more specific evidence pertaining to any changes in the approach of the Times and Sunday Times in recent years and whether that might be related to changes at a higher level in the organisation. The tribunal is not in itself an ‘investigation’ of the newspaper’s output; however, changes in that output, and the internal decisions creating any such output, do have bearing on questions about the climate within the organisation, as might be experienced by an employee who feels affected by the subject matter. This would be true regardless of the subject in question. In this case the context is the reporting of trans lives.
INTRODUCTION
(Christine's background, employment history, activism, etc. establishing credentials as a witness.)
PRESS COVERAGE — THE LONG VIEW
(Summary of UK coverage of trans issues in tabloid and broadsheet press up to 2016.)
TIMES COVERAGE FROM 2016 ONWARD
para 1 - Opening sentences give flavour of what is to come:
"The roots of what may be characterised as a ‘trans backlash’ appear in retrospect to have been sown in 2015 and they are not specifically because of the actions of trans people or any legislative moves. The context is that trans people were suddenly becoming more visible globally in the popular media."
para 2 - runs the "The Wrong Side of History" line. Christine presents the "no-platforming" of feminist speakers as being due to "changed social standards among the young" with "young people (not necessarily trans)" reacting to these "old-school writers".
Also the usual dismissal of "no-platforming" being nothing to do with Freedom of Speech because these feminists get published anyway, somewhere, even if they were "no platformed" as speakers. (Specious argument, IMHO).
"This new visibility was met by a resurgence of commentators such as Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel and Julie Burchill. As experienced older-generation observers we saw this as nothing new. They were ‘doing their thing’. However, the ground had shifted. Just as the ‘Me Too’ has caught out many famous figures in the United States, who discover that the world views their habits differently than before, social media and changed social standards among the young meant that these commentators did not enjoy the same ride as they had been used to. The story shifted to the reaction that young people (not necessarily trans) had towards the opinions of these old-school writers. Students would picket their talks or call for them to be disinvited. The story became falsely characterised as one of ‘Free Speech’ — although it should be noted that each of these writers had no shortage of high profile platforms to express their views. Some retreated to periodicals across the political spectrum: Spiked, The Spectator and the New Statesman. An article by Julie Burchill in the Observer was taken down by that paper’s editors only to be republished by the Telegraph."
para 4 - 2016 - first allegation that The Times and the Sunday Times are doing something different to the rest of the press. A different witness might perhaps have described this difference as, "engaging in investigative journalism" vs "reporting". 
"At this point (during 2016) The Times appears to have begun to take a unique path away from the pack. The Guardian and Telegraph (plus the tabloid Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday) continued to report the story. The Times and Sunday Times began (in my view) to MAKE the story in an increasingly worrying fashion."
para 5 - Christine has a pop at Rod Liddle.
para 6 - 2017 - I have only started reading The Times recently so I was gobsmacked to learn from this how much coverage there was of trans issues!
Extract:
"That pattern changed markedly in 2017, however — and it changed uniquely for the Times. Over the course of that year the Times and Sunday Times published over 130 items — mostly news and op-ed, with news becoming the dominant position in both papers as the year progressed. Almost all could be said to be negative, with varying degrees of careful deniability. This was not normal in any sense. The level of coverage (averaging almost 3 items a week) was more than an order of magnitude greater than anything the two titles had previously published. "
para 7 - Christine has a pop at The Times editorial standards ("abandoned"), lack of balance in stories, lack of expertise, bias of contributors, "a small cohort of commentators who had appeared as if from nowhere to be interviewed as authorities on a regular basis" (how very DARE they!) and slips in the hint of an allegation of anti-semitism, "Conspiracy theories about the involvement of jewish billionaires . . . "
para 8 - Chrstine goes for the jugular, opening with a general polemic along the lines, "What a shower of imbeciles!" Editorial standards now even worse than when they were "abandoned", etc.
Then some specific complaints:
". . . the basis for many stories was later established to be false. False interpretation of statistics about trans prisoners and offending. Unbalanced reporting of the nature of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act, presenting only a one-sided pejorative view of the implications. False insinuation about the leadership of the trans charity Mermaids — even after the Heritage Lottery Fund had reexamined plans to award a grant to them in 2018."
para 9 - Editorial control is the problem - not clarified whether due to continued lack of it or suddenly there is some but it is the wrong sort.
para 10 - Everyone else everywhere else in the world is happy but the problem in the UK is . . . The Times!
" . . . there is no moral panic to compare with that conjured up in Britain and championed by The Times."
para 11 - The Times has a "vendetta" against trans people!
I cannot work out what Christine means by the final sentence of her witness statement - I cannot parse it at all.
"Finally, I come back to the point that the Times coverage of these affairs since late 2016 and the beginning of 2017 is of a level sufficient to qualify as a vendetta. There is no historical precedent. Neither the Times nor the rest of the press showed excessive (let alone obsessive) concern when the matters in question were originally being framed. Indeed, many of the articles in question proceed as though trans people have only suddenly surfaced as a subject for moral panic in the last 3-4 years, disregarding generations of low key and episodic reporting before."