MA: in my mind, it was distracting and we had no reason to be involved with this debate.
BC: Agree facts. No tweets on which CGD rely as being examples of improper comms on this after the CR tweets?
MA: N
BC: MP agreed on Friday that he had noticed the chronology and that was the reason he said in his emails that MF had voluntarily modified her tweets?
MA: Y
BC: She was telling you she would not tweet so much on her main account?
MA: Y
BC: You didn't go back to her to clarify?
MA: N
BC: Difficulty now is that you say she was going to carry on and this was a risk, is that it doesn't match the facts? No evidence she was going to do this, and therefore for the risk. Agree?
MA: N. Having reviewed the material and her response I was not convinced she would be able to refrain. She felt strongly. I came to view rightly or wrongly.
BC: No one asked her. She made clear she would engage away from those platforms. No one asked her what she meant. She could have told you.
MA: Y
BC: I suggest we don't see this identified to MF at the time and we find it hard to identify a factual basis, is that you didn't have it in mind at the time?
MA: I did, but I didn't think I needed to go through every reason with the claimant. I could give a couple of headline reasons and move on to what we were going to do. I didn't think I was obliged.
BC: Next reason is resources.
MA: Y
BC: Let me suggest this is a bit rich. Effect of what you are saying is 'knots we have been tying ourselves in for months were something to lay at MF's door'. That is effect?
MA: Simply to say I felt we would continue to spend resources on this.
BC: That is revealing. Because what you are saying is 'because of the objections of some staff and some managers to MF's tweets, you were going to expend resources monitoring her in a way you don't do to anyone else?
MA: Y. Concerned we would continue to have more incidents that could raise issues.
BC: We've been over the evidence or lack of it for further incidents. Your answer reveals that your position was about the ongoing objections of staff and senior managers about the possibility of her expressing her views?
MA: In a way that would have spillover that would have to be dealt with.
BC: Next reason is risk to existing staff and alienating future applicants. You mean staff objecting to working with MF?
MA: Y
BC: It's clear from evidence of their objections that they objected to her core views.
MA: I... We could have a discussion about that... I took the worry about people objecting to the way she was characterising TW in ways people considered to be offensive and transphobic.
BC: We don't have a lot of time and I've been through this with other witnesses. Next reason you give is proselytism of views.
MA: Y
BC: Do you agree that reason isn't given in your call to MF?
MA: Y
BC: And not reflected in talking points?
MA: Y
BC: That is because not true that she did that? She engaged in a conversation that was commonplace.
MA: N. I agree with second part but not first. I thought the pamphlet was over the line.
BC: paint me a picture. Where were you when you sat down to read the reports and response?
MA: Physically?
BC: Y
MA: I sat down and went over all of it in Australia.
BC: On what? Had you printed them?
MA: Ipad.
BC: When did you see the pamphlet? Where was that?
MA: Where?
BC: How did you see it?
MA: As I recollect on the ipad.
BC: How did you access it? Where from?
MA: As I remember, I accessed it... by looking at the FPFW website on which... to which there was a link in MF response.
BC: If you look at the response...
MA: Continuing tech difficulties.
BC: This is claimant's response. You had this on your ipad?
MA: I do.
BC: At the time you were reading it? You had this on your ipad?
MA: As I recollect.
BC: Did you note that in second paragraph MF noted there had been effort and pressure to shut down debate on this issue?
MA: Y
BC: Did you click on the link she had given to provide evidence for that?
MA: I don't recollect that.
BC: Over the page, did you click on the link in footnotes to show you definitions in human rights law of woman as a sex?
MA: Where?
BC: Tells him.
MA: I did not. Took her word.
BC: Did you see she referred to statistical importance of that and provided link to UN stats site?
MA: N. I didn't think I was particularly focused on that.
BC: Did you click on examples of how CGD itself uses statistics distinguishing on basis of sex?
MA: N
BC: Did you click on the EHRC statement on gender reassignment?
MA: Don't recall.
BC: How many did you click on?
MA: I'm inclined to say maybe two or three.
BC: Just so happened that footnote 17, you chose to click on FPFW?
MA: Y. If we go to the text, that would help explain that...