Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome back to Day 4 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstater v CGD. We will be resuming with Claimant Maya Forstater giving her evidence at 2pm. Catch up with this morning here:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1501851…

Abbrevs used: Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Respondent counsel is Olivia Dobbie (OD)
EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3

We are waiting to start, meanwhile here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:

drive.google.com/file/d/145RL86…

EJ states the order again and we begin.
OD: paragraphs 57 and 58, you say you and Paddy Carter had a good working relationship and had discussions about joining CGD.. this email was starting a convo about being an employee
MF: yes that was the first time it was put in writing

OD: turn to page 542, it says here I’ve discussed with our front of house and it would make sense for CGD to host this event...theres no mention of your capacity (missed)
MF: no that's not right. The grant from the beginning was aiming to build a longer term program.

MF: I don't know who forwarded this email to me...she was putting something in writing we'd discussed already...the thing she was asking me about was moving it CGDE
OD: that's not what she says here (reads email)
MF: the aim was to build longer program ..and a bigger proposal

OD: that wasn't my question...if it gets extended do you want to be involved...firstly do you want to do a grant.. she's asking if you're interested in being involved with the extension

MF: no I'e been involved with CGD since 2016 and checking I'm still happy with the relationship. This isn't the first time it came up. When we developed the first proposal there was no question I might not what to be involved
OD: that's not what she says

MF: when I go this email I wasnt surprised this was my understanding all along
OD: this is your first thing you forever to in your entire witness statement
MF: we talked about ideas about funding for the work with the idea I would do that work

OD: there's no discussion of moving you to staff
MF: no
OD: because there had been no discussion by this time
MF: no
EJ: is that no I hadn't been or no I don't agree
MF: there hadn't been a discussion about whether I would remain a visiting fellow or staff

MF goes on to explain further
OD: page 541 we see your reply (reads) so you weren't too thrilled about moving to CGDE didn't you?
MF: no I wasn't unhappy about it, I had been working...just wanted to understand my place in the org.

OD: thats because you weren't integrated to the London
MF: yes .. (states her colleagues hadn't joined yet
OD: you understood there were two different entities now didn't you
MF: I thought I guess it would be OK and agreed with what she proposed

OD: October 3027 is the first times you were discussing in terms of employment not just interaction
MF: yes
OD: 561, we see what's being asked of you (reads email about waiting for funding and a CGD email address)

OD: (reads Maya's response) and you were awaiting funding and the funding never came through
MF: ...it was contingent on funding...
OD: you say it's this time you discussed your qualifications...its unusual for staff not to have a Masters?
MF: I don't know

OD: and you're highest qualification is a BA
MF: a first class honour degree from Newcastle...I asked if this was a barrier and she told me it wasn't
OD: I'm going to say she did say that but it was rare

OD: in para 6 of your statemen...first time MA had seen your CV...and we see you providing your CV and Vijara sending it on. This is the first time MA saw it, you didn't send prior
MF: no

OD: you knew there was a process to go through
MF: yes
OD: and you knew there would have to be perpetual funding
MF: as I say it was always contongent on funding

OD: you knew MA would have to approve the role
MF: the exchange with Vijara showed I needed MA backing
OD: you knew you'd have to do a job's talk

(Missed my connection is slow)

OD discusses correspondence with Vijaya...and this is her feeding back to you about MA and your work, (reads emails) at this point you were given a very clear msg from MA about your projects of being taken on
MF: I was given the message to work on tax & diversify on another area

MF: and I should keep going
OD: it's standard for NFP to take on staff without funding.. and why it's usually done with contractors
MF: that's not my experience
OD: you're saying that's not the case

OD: (too fast) final sentence on you from MA, 'any commitment we make will be limited in scope'.
MF: he appears to be. this wasn't a msg sent to me
OD: this view by MA that you should have limited involvement was long before any of your tweets?

MF: the msg I got from MA was that there was prospect of me being employed if we were able to raise funding
OD: you base that on the email
MF: and the verbal msgs I had from Vijaya and Owen and others in CGD if the msg had been given to me that

I'd never be employed by CGD I wouldn't have pursued that but that wasn't the msg
OD: I think you're taking an extreme position that what I suggested. Your saying expectations of others you relied on but whatever others may have thought you knew MA was the decision maker?

MF: this email is about a whole range of things...this is the context he's talking about me here
OD: I'm going to interupt you're not answering the question. You understood MA was the decision maker
MF: I knew he was the Head of the organisation.

OD: that wasn't the question.
OD seeks further clarity from MF and asks
OD: I'll ask you again this was long before you're first tweet
MF: yes

(Missed)
OD: surely all of this must have occurred after the February email. It was very clear there was a way to go before the discussion would be opened
MF reiterates there was good prospects to be employed
OD: that's your interpretation of the email?

MF: I interpret the email that she had a convo with MA about prospect of employment and it was positive
OD: I can read and your paraphrasing it back to me. Are you saying that's your interpretation?
MF: yes

OD: page 343 and the specific working you draw attention to we see your name 4 lines up (reads lines) it was widely socialised (missed)
MF: that's one of the reasons
OD: that's the only reason

OD brings up more evidence (too fast)
OD: so where we have an intention to recruit it specifically states that and then this final role you would recruit someone as a senior fellow...when they discuss you they talk of taking you on for tax...there's no indication to take you on

MF: its clear this is about staff appointment
OD: BC please do not interupt...there are three roles mentioned and not for you
MF: that paragraph is about staff roles
OD: precisely the conversation of taking them on but you aren't discussed

OD: you weren't there for the convo
MF: no
OD: looking at page 813, just putting context MF was on 4th contract and you're saying Hi Mark, can we have a chat about the Gains proposal?
MF: parts had been integrated...(missed)
OD reads email where MF asks questions

MF: I sent Mark my concept notes ...and now I wanted to see how it fitted in to the proposal
OD: it's clear from this convo you weren't privy to the convos as you asked to look at it

MF: yes
OD (reads another email): so this is work that was separate to the tax team coming to you as an external consultant
MF: it hadn't got that far, it was a discussion if it'd be a good idea

OD: and that came in your own regard as you were approached so it came to you MF not CGD
MF: it came to me as visiting fellow as CGD
OD: I would put it to you it came to you not CGD...this was you bringing consultancy work into CGD

OD: I'll leave it there...It'd be easier to secure contracts if it goes through CGd and funders would rather work with orgs than individuals
MF: that's not how it was
OD: but that is the usual
MF: no

OD: we know you were working on a contract and hadn't done paid tax work since 2017 for CGD
MF: I wrote several blogs and continued to engage in fundraising for CGD. There was no explicit funding tied to that

*missed)
OD: page 830 we see discussion with Mark Plant but it's been agreed your work came under his program. We can see here what he says in funding and there is no promise of work. If funding came through you would start a discussion. There's no indication MP spoke to MA
MF:no

OD: you'd asked to keep yourself available for another client
MF: to finish a project yes
(Missed)
OD: and never approved
MF: no it wasnt

OD: page 836 we can see a talk with Vishal (reads out)
MF: it all got put in a third section
OD: and one part wasn't just the initial grant and we can see they were hesitant on that work
MF: it was the tax work that went j to the proposal

OD: we know that Mark plant spoke to MA and he could 'discuss' bringing you in... and MA restated his view to me about MF to be employed 1. Full funding 2. More breadth and expertise. Neither conditions were met
MF: we don't know when it was

OD: I'll be asking a supplementary question on that
MF: your first tweet wasn't until the end of September. Now paragraph 94 you say the way you were listed it's indicative you'd be employed.

OD is still trying to assess whether MF had been given any indications of work with CGD
EJ: is MF saying that what was said to her by CGD in 2017 was still applicable in 2019?

OD: that's a good rephrasing
EJ asks MF
MF: yes, my expectation was that my ideas and my name is in the proposals
EJ says to take a break here.

(The last part of that was confusing and difficult to track, my apologies and we're taking a much needed break for 10 mins)

We are back. EJ reiterates the order of confidentiality.
OD: just before the break we were going through prospective employment was indicated. Few more questions. You now know MA spoke GG at the gates foundation and that GG didn't consider your tax work to be Important

OD: (reads the email)...up until this point the convo you had was with Vishal
MF: yes
OD: you describe you were shocked when the gates grant went through but you weren't taken know. Is that accurate

MF: yes I wasn't told it was funded without my name being spoken
OD: so it was the fact there was no mention not that you weren't employed.
MF: I wasn't mentioned at all and everyone knew that I'd worked on it and Mark said afterwards I wouldn't be employed

OD: starting on 2118 these are msgs with Alice Evans where you say 'in theory still waiting but starting to think CGD wants me...' you had low expectations and insecurity that you won't have a job in January. That's in stark contrast to what you say in your witness statement

MF: my experience with CGD was that the day the funder had said informally you have the green light for funding, it moved fast and didn't wait till the contract was signed to move...I tried to get a meeting with Mark and he couldn't for about a month

MF cont: and I was worried Mark wasn't returning my msgs and I now know there were meetings about me and my tweets. I didn't know that at the time and thought they didn't want me.
OD: you understand you hadn't convinced your power of worth

OD: if the last thing that was said a discussion would be had on funding
MF: I would have expected to be told the grant was signed off before the announcement and something about my work ...

MF cont: the fact it was announced without any mention and straightaway told me I wasn't to be employed it was humiliating

OD: Mark said there was no route to you eing a fellow
MF: that's not what he said to me, we hadn't discussed job titles..

OD: your work was too narrow it wasn't to do with your tweets
MF: no that's not right, he didn't say anything about the breadth of work.he aside I'd antagonised people in Washington with my tweets

OD reads another email about a discussion about being nominated for a visiting fellow
MF: Mark had said you're not going to be employed but you can stay on to do the gates work and a visiting fellow. He explained I can have one more year as a VF.

MF cont: I now know he didn't have the mandate to make that offer but that's what he offered. I don't think he said nominate I think he said renew.... (missed) it was the only offer on the table

OD: you knew you needed to be nominated and that what Mark says here but he didn't have the power
MF: he didn't raise that would be difficult

OD: now on to workplace culture, page 505
MF: yes the emails about the rules
OD: this was a reply and the context is he, Owen, was defending a complaint about your work
MF: about a blog post I think

OD reads out the email reply from Owen.
OD: you knew there was an expectation that you'd communicate in a way that was respectful of others.
OD: yes...You refer to workplace culture...part of that culture is informed by work policies and events

MF: if it was largely informal rather than written down.
OD: in March you attended an event by Alice Evans
MF: yes
OD: 'a brown bag brainstorming session'

OD: a memo on Gender equality was sent round in March and you attended
MF: yes
OD: we can see 657 a letter from CGD and which says to aware of subjects raised and also attached handbook saying it will help inform London office discussions

OD: 659 we can see the bullet points recognising implicit biases for men and women, particularly POC and LGBTQ (explains acronym)
MF: yes but it wasn't mentioned in the workshop. My understanding gender was USA for sex.

OD: meetings on Gender identity were discussed where people could group according to this and you're directed to the USA handbook...then we can see the first bullet point language, we should form rules before discussion about pronouns

OD: it was about pronouns wasn't it
MF: no
OD: it doesn't say anything like that in this .. you say you didn't understand the culture...People who have transitioned or moved away from their birth gender

MF: this wasn't about people who identify as trans
OD: that wasn't my question I wasn't suggesting the whole talk was about that...including lgbtqi and breaking down in groups, everyone who identifies as a woman on one side and vice versa

MF: sorry I don't understand. Noone asked me my Gender identity
OD: that's inclusive though isn't it
MF: inclusive for trans people?
OD: I'll use your words as I see there's no difference between sex and gender

OD states she will move on if MF doesn't answer her questions. OD goes in about circulating the policy of inclusivity.

OD: pages 154 (reads CGD policy about treating individuals with respect) then under conduct covered and prohibits all forms and lists protected characteristics

OD: so it was very clear these were their policies...what comes through clearly CGDE is adopting the same approach including recognising gender identities and gender expression

MF: I wrote a comment to it which was that being jnclusive cannot mean prescribing everyone has a gender identity because many ppl don't believe in that. I responded asking people to separate by gender identity makes everyone hae to have that belief

OD: if an employer indicates it has a workplace culture you recognise you respect that culture...you can't just do your own thing
MF: not if the rules discriminate unlawfully

OD: you think being told to be invlusive and respectful who has a different gender identity from their birth gender is discrimination against you
MF: no being told I have to have the belief

OD: you to go along with the exercise would cause no harm to you
MF: its the same as being asked to pray when not religious
OD: do you really believe that?
MF: I believe sex is important and we should be able to talk about it

MF: I said I don't have a gender identity and we had a discussion in the women's group because being a woman getting pregnant, menopause, vulnerable to rape are not an identities they're material reality of women's lives

OD: in a workplace setting there's no risk of rape or sexual harassment you're being asked to respect differences to birth gender
MF: if we're being asked to divide by sex and sex is protected characteristic and

MF cont: women are paid less in CGD why does that need to be that we identify as that, that we choose that?

OD has moved on to when the policies will be adopted and MF says her understanding of it was it was about men and women in CGD

MF: but gender is often used as a synonym for sex
OD: you then say you went to a protest and left a pamphlet at work
MF: yes it was Fair Play for Women
OD: if we look at this doc it shows its a step by step guide to fill out the consultation

OD: the opening page we see in bold 'female rights are under attack and the government is robbing women of their right'. It's written in very dramatic language
MF: its written in campaigning language
OD: not a neutral document and it's advancing an agenda

OD: S o not neutral
MF: no
OD: we see it takes a very firm stance and opposes the proposals
MF: its a campaigning doc

OD: it says one of the ideas is self ID which will leave to the end of women's spaces...but this didn't have any bearing did it
MF: it would for women in prisons
OD: but it wouldn't would it
MF: its still being proposed in Scotland and EHRC has stated it will impact

OD: it basically means a small proportion of transwomen to get a GRC and wouldn't impact in anything else because of the Equality act.
MF: its respectable to advance this argument and changing the definition of sex of a male to be that of a female it will impact

OD: But it wouldn't have affected the Equality Act would it
MF: the Equality Act uses the words men and women and if those are defined elsewhere then it does impact
OD: a transwomen could sue as a female if they had a GRC,
MF: sue?

OD using examples of transwomen and gender recognition certificate.
MF: the case law is not settled on that. There have been cases in Scotland for the last two weeks

OD says MF seems intent on not asking questions so will move on.

OD now moves to an account set up by MF and is looking at a tweet where MF talks of a misunderstanding and how the guidance had got the law wrong...so you understood that the Equality Act and its exceptions and

that is separate from the Gender Recognition Act...an act to legally change gender
MF: sex...so the person could sue as the sex
OD: there were no proposals of that nature

MF: the EHRC said there are serious concerns of changing the basis of gender recognition which will impact the equality act
OD: I'm going to have to move on and we have to agree to disagree

OD goes on to read parts of pamphlet pointing out there is no statistics.

OD: that distinction between transexuals and transgender isn't right
MF: that's what the Equality Act says
OD: so you think to be transexual you have to have surgery on your genitals...the distinction isn't defined anywhere in law
MF: transgender isnt defined anywhere

OD: the judges handbook states transexual is an outdated term
MF: transexual remains the word used in the equality act
OD: we can see for each question in the proposal the pamphlet is saying how to vote
MF: it wasn't a vote it was a consultation

OD reads more from the pamphlet
OD: why is it suggesting transwomen are dangerous to the child
MF: the expectation is the person is male
OD: so you think men are a danger to children?

MF: its safeguarding children to say the truth about what they experience. They need to know what male and female is
ID: your saying its a safeguarding matter that transwomen are with children
MF: no its so the child can say their reality

OD: you think that's an acceptable statement to make
MF: yes ... it's child safeguarding (missed)
EJ has interrupted to ask if a convenient time to stop
OD agrees and EJ asks if she is on track for the timetable. EJ says we will resume tomorrow at 10.

Thank you for following today, apologies for any typos and parts missed, that's the nature of live tweeting and, as always, we do our best to bring you open justice. Have a good evening and tune in tomorrow at 10am when we reconvene for #ForstarterTribunal.
Thanks, @Wommando

@threadreaderapp please unroll