Thread by @tribunaltweets

Now resuming.

BC - you weren't a party to the discussions between MF and members of CGD, about her attendance at the office.
LE - No, I can only testify to the norms.
BC - fellows can work from anywhere they choose, but be expected to attend Thursday lunches.

Clarifying
BC - attendance at the office, same for everyone they could choose what day or days to be in the office
LE - yes
BC - there was an expectation or requirement that MF should appear at the Thursday lunches.
LE - I can't testify to that, I can only testify to norms.

BC - now talking about allocated desks
LE - no fellow is allocated a desk in the London office,
BC - no one is allocated a desk because it is a hot desking offices
LE - I had read this but had no direct knowledge.

Now referring to October 2016,
BC - work that MF would undertake was in contemplation or as groundwork for a larger multiyear project
BC - this was being presented as a CGD projects
LE - yes, I agree this would be the perspective of the funder

BC - Even when individuals are named in grant applications, CGD can and does substitute other individuals
LE - yes, I understand this is the case.

BC - I put it to you that the contracting party, CGD or CGDE, is a matter of administrative convenience based on the location of the granting party
LE - don't do a lot of work on grants but I understand that is the case
BC - revisits the 'one CGD' principle, single fund raising

BC - consistent with the one CGD principle that it doesn't matter where the funding is raised vs where the work is done.
LE - generally that is the case
BC - now referring to MF contract, it is clear that MF is expected to personally perform the services

LE - there is a mechanism for MF to assign it to someone else, more than theoretical
BC - no one entering into this contract had any expectation the work would be done by someone else
BC - explaining contract law, is it common for consultants to have been substituted

EJ - asking a different way, 'has it ever happened'
LE - Yes I know of one in Washington office.
BC - referring to deliverables in the contract, described contract and deliverables as the foundation for a multiyear CGD project
LE - yes, that is my understanding

BC - working with colleagues at CGD to build a multi-year project, including fund raising and strategy. That work is part of the core work of any staff researcher at CGD
LE - Yes.
BC - not part of the core work that independent contractors normally do

LE - I think they do sometimes.
BC - now on long term funding. Staff person 'I raised the possibility of hiring you as a consultant in the London office, pending the ability to secure funding'
LE - It was in the context of deferring the conversation until funding was secured,

LE - not a promise of employment.
BC - are you saying that all of the process for bringing someone on as a staff member is identical for all levels
LE - no. there are some differences.

BC - does MA need to approve all staff appointments,
LE - not associates or juniors, but fellows and senior fellows yet
BC - opportunistic hires from visiting fellow to staff member is a well trodden path?
LE - no

BC - lets look at 3 examples.

BC - now describing various examples. (complex will wait until BC makes relevance clear)
BC - end of first example.
LE - agree with first specific example but I do not see it as a well trodden path
BC - now moving on to second example

BC - from budget documents, another individual moving from visiting fellow to senior fellow.
LE - agreed, I see that.
BC - described as promoted from 'visiting fellow' to programme director. No one is using the terms in technical sense. Promotion from visiting to senior ..

BC - was recognised as a 'thing' .
LE - I wouldn't have described it that way but I can agree.
BC - moving on to third example, which also has a visiting fellow moving to senior policy fellow.
LE - yes.
BC - 3 examples just in the papers we happen to have

BC - that this is a regular or normal occurence.
LE - yes, there were 3 in this period but it may just have been that particular time period.
BC - this happens yes
LE - You need to ask MA that question.

BC - CGD were 'putting work her way'.
LE - I heard that in the evidence last week.
BC - Is it your understanding that work was put her way?
LE - I had not considered that at all in the process.
EJ: I don't know what that answer means?

BC - repeats the question
LE - another version of 'I don't know'
BC - assuming you don't know, does the org seek to find work for consultants that they want to build a relationship with
LE - I can't really comment but I think it reflects that she was liked and valued.

BC - now going on to work contracts from 2018. Absent illness or injury, MF was required to do the work under these contracts
LE - I can't comment except on the contract but its what the contract says.
BC - In performing the work, MF had to comply with reasonable directions

BC - and regulations. Doesn't this mean that CGD was directing the work?
LE - I don't read it as us directing the work
BC - directed in two ways, specified work products and reasonable regulations and directions
LE - its not clear to me that the contract specifies, how, when

LE - or where she did the work.
BC - in this work, it was coordination of a working group with an individual and that she had to attend the working group.
LE - yes, she had to coordinate and attend the meetings.
BC - it is inherent that claimant was working as part of a team

BC - a CGD team.
LE - yes.
BC - it is apparent MF was working on a strategic area of CGD in 2018?
LE - yes.
BC - there was also discussion of notice period,
LE - yes, there is discussion of notice period.
BC - a 90 day notice period was requested,

BC - and 60 days was finally agreed rather than the normal 30 day notice period. And that was because MF's role was described as 'integral'.
LE - that's what the staff member said.
BC - I'm not going to ask you about MF's expectation or discussions of becoming an employee

BC - If she had been put forward as an employee with the weight of the personnel behind her, and no real opposition, that would be pretty quick.
LE - 3 weeks to a month.

Now moving on to complaints received about MFs tweets.

BC - complaints referred to LE by complainant 1. Described as not good for reputation with funders.
LE - C1, described tweets as transphobic and bad for reputation with funders
BC - did any problems with funders arise?
LE - I don't think I can answer that.

BC - If you aren't aware of any problems with funders, given your involvement the investigation of the tweets, the process, the SPG, then there weren't any problems.
LE - I may not have known about them, you will need to confirm with someone else.

BC - if there were any problems with any funders you would have known.
LE - yes, I would have known.
BC - C1's view was that the tweets were transphobic, and that there had been discussions amongst the fund raising team. Did a form of group think or hardening of opinions occur

LE - no, they are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.
BC - reading out various comments from emails; dumb and transphobic debate, etc.
LE - I don't know what she meant by that as I didn't see these until discovery.

BC - are these the tip of the iceberg and there were obviously many discussions going on?
LE - I don't know.
BC - describing reactions in various emails. Now talking about tweet comparison to Rachel Dolezal, did you find that offensive?
LE - yes, I found that offensive.

BC - you will see that someone else in the tweet thread raised a comparison to race based identity. Do you see that an individual says 'transwomen are women'? Do you know that this person had previously said TWAW?
LE - No, I did not know that.

BC - that person then includes a Guardian article, and MF is responding to an invitation to comment, not is gratuitously throwing it in as a provocation.
LE - It is an offensive comparison. I don't know what you mean by invitation, she did bring it up.

BC - lets explore the concept of offense. In discussions of this type, people use analogies. Some analogies are less than perfect. Just because you find it offensive, objectively others may not.
LE - It is very offensive.
BC - from the springboard of the Manel tweet

BC - at this point in the tweet sequence MF was engaging a wider ranging debate about whether conflating sex and gender undermines the ability to clearly identify how women are oppressed and discriminated against. Do you agree?
LE - I did not understand it at the time.

BC - on the premise that I'm correct about the debate, let's examine the comparison. Dolezal has attracted criticism for presenting as black. Do you understand that?
LE - yes.
BC - on the one hand race is almost wholly a social construct,

BC - with almost no genetic or biological differences. Can you see that gives further context to the discussion from MF's discussion.
LE - I can tell you that CGD accepts race as self identification. We would never seek to verify someone's race.

BC - let's come to think about why there was criticism of Dolezal. In the real world in which we live, even if differences are only surface deep, those people experience discrimination.
LE - yes, I agree.
BC - so the reason people criticise Dolezal, is because she claimed..

BC - an oppression that she didn't claim.
LE - I object to Dolezal because she didn't have a genuine identity.
BC - the analogy is in both cases, MF's concern is that here is someone who did not experience the disadvantages of being a woman, claiming

BC - an award for women in business.
EJ - rather complicated as a question.
BC - MF made a perfectly valid question and concern about P Bunce. Is it okay for her to raise it.
LE - you're having a philosophical discussion, and I think that offense was given.

BC - the analogy is exact.
LE - its all very complicated
BC - the problem with your approach is that it ignores the context of this discussion. Asking LE to read over the relevant tweets.
EJ - we are breaking now until 3:30, directs LE to read those pages.