Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to day 7 of the employment tribunal in the case of Maya Forstater versus CGD(Europe), CGD & Masood Ahmed. We expect the Court to begin at 10:00 am. This is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually tweeting.

Tweets from all the earlier days of the hearing are collated at hiyamaya.net/livetweets-fro…

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater – Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the three-person panel hearing the case.
Panel = any one of the three members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1
CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3

Today we are expecting further evidence from Luke Easley (LE), Director of Finance and Administration / HR Director of GCD.

Later in the day we expect to begin hearing the evidence of Amanda Glassman (AG), Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe).

Both are normally based in Washington DC but are in the UK for the purposes of giving evidence. Note that the court is fully “virtual” – all participants including panel members, barristers and witnesses are participating ‘remotely’, as are all observers including us.

We begin. The Clerk to the Court is introducing the session – reminding participants of the ground rules for hearing. What to do re connectivity problems. No eating or drinking except water please. Mute when not speaking.

Hearing must not be recorded (reporting however is, and we have permission to live-tweet).

EJ: Repeats "please mute" request, to prevent background noise.

EJ: Reminds everyone of reporting restrictions in place (4 individuals’ names & their email addresses must not be reported in Great Britain; it is a criminal offence to do so).

EJ: Can we discuss timetabling.
BC: Clearly right that OD should not have to work over weekend unexpectedly. However we must do the case properly. If we finish evidence Friday we have 2.5 days next week -

- but like OD I have childcare considerations and we may need to eat into the days next week. Don't know which is lesser of 2 evils.

EJ: We must also manage the panel's time. We do need to know ASAP. Should we set Monday week aside or not.
BC: Clearly not ideal to have a big gap during / between submissions.

BC: Tuesday & Wednesday?
EJ: leaves no deliberation time. Would put off deliberations (Chambers time) to May bcs commitments.

EJ: Tribunal deliberation always seems to get factored out. However this is also using time. Counsels pls keep timing in mind. Let's continue with Luke Easley's evidence.

BC: We were discussing "arbiting other people's reality" and had got to the Quantum Impact report. I don't intend to go through all the points in detail with you you will be pleased to hear

BC: But can we take it that what struck home most to you is what appears in your witness statement and the correspondence at the time.
LE: yes that's fair

BC: We see the report summary here, begins "overall"?
LE: yes
BC: says CGD will need to decide what viewpoints are acceptable and which are not

BC: she makes an analogy - to inviting a neo-nazi to speak at a debate. Is it OK to invite provided you don't agree. Instructive? That is analogy being made?

LE: Don't really remember anything about neo nazis really.

BC: did you not think when you say it that it was an offensive analogy? Do you think so now?

LE: Didn't read it as a comparison at the time. NOt how I interpreted it.

BC: You seemed yesterdy intent on drawing the worst inferences from MF's analogy to Rachel Dolezal but see nothing offensive in this analogy?
LE: Didn't draw the analogy

BC: We also see comment on this not being MF's area of work. CGD didn't and doesn't limit what anyone can discuss?
LE: no.

BC: At the time none of you were drawing the distinction (which you are all making now) between viewpoints and mode of expression.

LE: no, it was always about how she said it.

BC: Under "other recommendations" - assessment of reputational position at that time. "Seems pretty contained at the moment". Accurate?

LE: not internally contained - much blowback
BC: I meant externally, reputationally. No blowback for CGD from MF's tweets
LE: No, not aware of any.
BC: Report is correct, "contained"?
LE: did not feel contained bcs internalities.

BC: Your witness statement (2nd one) - you mention 3 things changed your mind. 1) MF affiliation to CGD stood out on twitter bio. Lots of CGD affilicates had this?
LE: yes
BC: so that can't be the issue as such

LE: The link was being created re reputational risk.

BC: you say "exclusionary statements" and the first is re Rachel Dolezal, we won't go back over. And then the 3rd thing you mention is MF's comments re a transwoman on a "man-el". We see use of Pips Bunce to frame question.

BC: So you are descsribing Pips Bunce as a transwoman.
LE: yes
BC: you say the tweet is misgendering
LE: MF says later Bunce is a part time crossdresser
LE: Seemed to me MF is saying Pips Bunce would not count a s a woman on a "man-el"

BC: How much trouble did you take before deciding MF was misgendering Pips Bunce and was wrong to say part time crossdresser, how much did you investigate about Bunce?
LE: recall finding PB is non binary

BC: here is PB profile on Credit Suisse website. Uses word "trans". You understand this is umbrella term?
LE: yes
BC: includes cross dressers. See eg Stonewall.
LE: not seen
BC: no sign PB views "cross dresser" as offensive
LE: agree

BC: We see PB saying OK with both parts of himself. Does not use "non binary" at all. His ID is about dressing up in both gender forms
LE Yes I see that
BC: so what is offensive about saying crossdresser about someone who dresses in both gender forms

LE: I thought offensive bcs PB actually nonbnary/genderfluid
BC: here is article you may be thinking of, uses those phrases.
BC: PB says no intent to transition. Says it is exactly like deciding what clothes to wear.

BC: PB says here being genderfluid is exactly like a lady choosing dress+heels one day and flats+no makeup the next

BC: If we are looking for offence potential can you see how many women might find it offensive to hear that when they wear trousers and flats they are somehow less female?
LE: yes can see that

BC: can you see women esp feminists might fnd it offensive to see being described in let's face it gender stereotypes
LE: Can't do the feminist view no

BC: Did you read press reporting re PB at the time?
LE: Don't recall
BC: Here is Times article. Respectable publication?
LE: Honestly don't know.
BC: Headline "anger over award for crossdressing banker"

BC: you regard on your own account "cross dresser" as beyound the pale, even tho the Times is happy to use it
LE: yes very offensive
BC: article says banker sometimes goes to work in wig and dress.

BC: Did you understand claimant and others were angry about woment's award going to a man who sometimes wears women't clothes to work?
LE yes understood that
BC: Anger about award going to a man that does not identify as a women? NOthing transphobic about anger?

BC: you regard anything that differs from your OWN view of what is offensive as crossing a line. I ask again. Is tyhere anything transphobic / offensive about MF and others being angry that a man that does NOT identify as a woman accepting an award for women in business

LE: Yes it's offensive
LE: PB was awarded the award
LE: Presumably FT thought PB met criteria

BC: Did you understand that the reason people were cross is that awards for women are designed to address discrimination against women?
LE: don't know. Perhaps they're not all.

BC: Did you understand that MF & others with her views think the reason for distinguishing gender identity and sex is to be able to describe & develop policies etc that protect both
LE: Not at the time

BC: Did you understand that MF et al are concerned that conflating the 2 tend to undermine protections for women
LE: Do now, not then

BC: says here PB climbed career ladder as a man, only came out very late. Did you not understand that MF & others see this as example of that?
LE: um

BC: Did you understand offence and anger re this example?
LE: No did not
BC: you were looking for offence by MF and used your own views to find it?
LE: No don't agree

BC: The Times re PB said "part time cross dresser" again only last week. Do you still think it's offensive of MF to use the phrase
LE: YEs still offensive

BC: At the time MF recommended an article by Kathleen Stock to you, it's in the bundle. You said yesterday you skimmed this. I suggest illustrative of your attitude. You didn't take seriously, you were lookng for offence.
LE: No I took things seriously

BC: Did you notice KS was professor of philosophy at Sussex.
LE: Don't recall
BC: did it not lend some authority to discussion? Clear this is a leigimatye public debate?
LE: Access public debate was happening yes

BC: You are avoiding "legitimate". I suggest because you are firmly on one side?
LE: Please re-ask
BC: Legitimate public debate. You deliberately omit "legitimate". I suggest this is relevant; you approached from 1 side
LE: I accept "legitimate"

BC: And PB is a very stark illustration of that legitimate debate?
LE: See that now

BC: So when you say one of worst thing was the misgendering of Phliip Bunce, surely you are saying that is not in fact legitimate debate?
LE No that's not what I'm saysing

BC: So after you talked to Holly Shulman and Quantum Impact and had reviewed, you write to HS "Had viewed 25% and decided innocuous, but now *educated by you* I see that was wrong". Had you been taken to task?
LE: No

BC: were you told to go and look again with a more correct viewpoint?
LE: No I made up my own mind
BC: But you were told by HS to go back. You were given the correct line to take.
LE No HS wouldn't talk to me like that

BC: Having changed your mind you email the core group + HS to suggest 2 steps - a) tell staff who had complained that there would be training & MF's position not that of CGD, and b) tell MF her position is not CGD's
LE: yes

BC: in this email you pick 1 example "a man's internal feeling has no basis in reality". This is a misquote. You omit 'material'".
LE: Accident
BC: Telling however. You said yesterday you didn't focus on "material" you focussed on "reality"
LE: I don't recall deciding to omit

BC: You said yesterday your focus was on "reality".
LE: Don't know. Can't talk about subconscious motivation. Didn't mean to omit.
BC: but your subconcsious /unconscous bias is what we have to explore at tribunal

BC: You just didn't take any trouble to understand the claimant's, other women's, view about the importance of the material facts of their reality. Prejudice you brought to bear.

OD: Can you break Q down

BC: Prejudice you brought was that any hint a TW is not a woman must be offensive and transphobic
LE: that's not a prejudice, it is offensive.
BC: Can I clarify - this is your conscious thought. Transphobic, bigoted, offensive.
LE: offensive yes

BC: And HS prompted you to go back to tweets with that in mind
LE: No

BC: So here we see Mr Ahmed agrees with your proposals. You draft email?
LE: yes

BC: You use the same example, misquoting it in the same way, as inflammatory statement
LE: yes
BC: You also say CGD has institutional position on this: that someone's gender identity is recognised. This means CGD has institutional position on nature of womanhood?

LE: No mention of womanhood. Position is that CGD always accepts someone's gender identity.

BC: You write here that MF should acknowledge that her position is contrary to CGD's. Not just about internal CGD policy
LE: I understood it as being internal only

BC: But later this is taken out becasue CGD does *not* tell people what to say externally.
LE: Yes it was taken out

BC: You also wrote to complainants, here is email to them "have contacted MF to let her know her views are contrary to CGD views, asked here to tweet that

BC: This is C1 and C2 that you are emailing and we can see basically they were happy with your actions, They didn't say you hadn't investigated or sorted.
LE: No
BC: no intimation they thought you should do more
LE: no

BC: MF replies to your email. Says she has added disclaimer
LE: Yes
BC: She doesn't say she'd tweeted additionally. But nobody ever mentioned that to her thereafter.

BC: at this point nobody thought she had not done what was requested.
LE: Her response was problematic in many ways.
BC: On this one issue please. As far as you know nobody thought she had not done what asked re thse being her own views.
LE: yes AFAIK

BC: You say you took from all this, to me this was also indicative of the risk she posed in the workplace of misgendering humiliating transpeople.
BC: But we see her claimant saying she would respect in any professional or social context

BC: Is she lying?
LE: But she contradicts that, says she will continue to say stuff.
BC: But that is in debate. Not in work. Two very distinct things.
LE: she was trying to convince me of her views

BC: This is after the event. It is entirely clear 2 things. MF is is explaining what her views are, and why this is a legitimate debate.
OD: that's 2 questions
LE: my response is no to both

BC: this theory of MF "proselytising" never came up at the time. Never discsussed
LE: But it's what she's doing here, it's obvoius to me

BC: It is a misreprestenation to describe any explanation of beliefs as proselytising
LE: I disagree
BC: only if you bring your own prejudices to bear wd you be thinking "this bigoted woman is proselytising
LE: Disagree

BC: At no point does anyone say to MF stop tyring to convert us
LE: NO
BC: never comes up in communications between all of your discussing her
LE: No

BC: So looking the blog piece MF was proposing. COmmon CGD practice for people to circulate these widely.
LE: I had never had one in all years at CGD
BC: But you can see Owen Barder has said she should send to you

You can surely see that you have been writing to her about the issues, she's proposing to write a blog about them, not pushing for CGD to publish just offering as option.
LE: She's saying CGD would be first choice.

BC: So you've been writing to her about her views, she's proposing to write, you can't object to her copying you in?
LE: I thought it highly unusual, I'd told her they were offensive, idea we would want to amplify v unusual

BC: So you weren't interested in the language she used. You are saying the views themselves are offensive and should be blanket banned

LE No I didn't squash it, went to other people more used to dealing with blogs

BC: You say offensive and proselytising. There is NO other topic CGD take this stance on.
LE: It seemed like she wasn't explaining, she was trying to convince she was right. Absolutist.

BC: You picked "absolutist" from earlier tribunal?
LE: Yes because fits
BC: You think any statement of the view is offensive and trying to convince you.
LE: She said anyone with other view delusional, not based in any reality

BC: She said in *material* reality
LE: Yes
BC: And it's your prejudice distorting.
LE: Disagree

BC: There is NO other viewpoint CGD takes stance on. (Leave aside nazism/extermination - we're not in that terrirtory). NO other viewpoint.
LE: We would always require respectful language. This was first time it came up

EJ: Has there been any similar situation at CGD in the past
LE: No
EJ: And Q could be asked hypothetically also.

BC: On hypothetically - you use example of pro-choice vs pro life. This is false I put to you. If a discussion re abortion rights or sexual health. If someone had pro-choice position there is no way anyone at CGD would object.

LE: If someone brought in leaflets or tried to persuade somone to vote on the issue we would.
BC: People in london brought in leaflets all the time

[Bit lost]

BC: Suppose a Christian employee said homosexual relationships were immoral would you object?
LE: Yes. Not appropriate at work
BC: Sort of convo happening all the time in London office
LE: Don't know

BC: I'm a gay man and can imagine having such a conversation at work respectfully. Are you saying you'd object?
LE: I'm gay too, if someone brought in leaflet saying "vote against gay marriage" I'd object

BC: of course. But whould you stop them putting the argument? I'd expect to be able to argue in favour of same sex marriage?

LE: provided respectfully

BC: You are only objecting to the claimant becasue you disagree with here
LE: Disagree

BC: Here in statement. You note that MF says she'd had several informal chats with colleagues and that you were concerned she would upset them and was proselytising. This was your thought at the time
LE: yes

BC: So you would presumably have investigated whether a problem?
LE: I didn't do that no

BC: If you were going to take it further wouldn't you find out facts?
LE: No what MF said was enough

BC: Considering chronology. I sggest that on 2nd october, when MF responded, she had done all she was asked re tweets.
LE: No only 1 thing
BC: she had done enough
LE: disclaimer yes

BC: there had been no problems at all with funders
LE: no
BC: Complainants had been informed and were happy.
LE: Not sure they used that word
BC: we have covered it.

BC: Quantum Impact had said things were contained
LE: I didn't think they were contained
BC: Problem was you had no policy

BC: the ONLY thing was MF had not agreed to stop talking about her protected belief
LE: She didn't make it clear she meant externally
BC: She did, she made clear she would be respectful professionally and socially
LE: Not clear

BC: And nobody went back to MF and said more needed
BC: what made it still an issue after this was Ellen MacKenzie saying she didn't want MF's fellowship renewed.
LE: It was lots of discomfort not just EM

BC: EM said needed robust debate about renewal.
LE: Not as simple
BC: Perhaps good time to break before we disucss in detail
EH: Agrees, restart 11.40

We are restarting.
EJ: reminds everyone of reporting restrictions in place (4 individuals’ names & their email addresses must not be reported in Great Britain; it is a criminal offence to do so).

BC: This is email from Ellen Mackenzie that kicks off all the process over next few months.
LE: Disagree it kicked it off, would have happened anyway
BC: EM is from the outset oppose to renewal of MF position
LE: Disgree this email is saying that

BC: Clear EM's disconcertedness related to content not tone of MF views. EM still at CGD? Senior role
LE: yes
BC: She is clearly against from the start
LE: No she's asking for robust discussion

BC: she says what about backlash from staff. Either this is an assumption?
LE: yes possible
BC: Or she's been discussing with staff already
LE: also possible

BC: You've intimated you wouldn't think it appropriate to tell other staff that a fellowship or position up for renewal and for staff to discuss that
LE: Don't recall saying so
BC: Have you ever said X is up for renewal, what you do think
LE: Wouldn't probably

BC: EM is not here. Is there anything substantive in what EM is saying about staff backlash. All we know is what you and I have discussed re C1-C4
LE: yes

BC: Email from you about this. You say "we should be well prepared to discuss if we renew becasuse they will demand it". "They" is other staff?
LE: yes
BC: Assumption is other staff will kick off. Will demand explanation
LE: yes

BC: But we have looked at your response to C1 and C2 already, saying re disclaimer etc, and they responded saying that was OK
LE: But they said they couldn't work -
BC: that's later. I am talking about at the time of this email. 4 October. Staff demand was untested assumption

LE: No, there was a growing body of staff very uncomfortble.
BC: "Growing"?
LE: yes
BC: THere was lots of discussion going on in the Washington office

BC; You say "growing". We have only heard of 4 complainants.
LE: yes but there were lots of others
BC: I repeat, there was lots of talking in Washington.
LE: Yes C4 has said she wanted to talk to me. And there was the [missed] team, I know they were talking about it.

BC: We have not had clarity on timing of C4.
LE: It was about then.

BC: Attitude seems to be that you shouldn't employ someone if it might upset others.
LE: It was an open Q at that time

BC: Do you understand that belief is a protected characteristic in UK law? Like sex and others?
[LE has to pause for tech problems]

BC: If a growing body of staff came and said we are offended by male colleague X kissing his male partner goodbye at the door, you would view complaint as unaceptable?
LE: Well people can complain about what they want but no it would not have escalated like this, of course not.

BC: Do we agree principle. CGD would not act on anything if a growing group of staff were complaining based on prejudice

LE yes agree

BC: So if you are going to act on complaints from staff, you should take the trouble to really understand claimant's views.
LE: I thought we had

BC: You should also take care to work out who is complaining and what they relationship to claimant.
LE: Yes I appreciate I didn't know everything at the time re |London staff.

BC: You say here "people express unpopular views all the time". Unpopular things, controversial things, people get offended, happens all the time in the office.
LE: But people don't often come to me about it.

BC you say here "inflammatory rhetoric". You mean her saying TW is not a woman
LE: well that and other things

BC: You describe as "decision to hire" but say that in US that just means "engage". I have looked at US disctionaries - all say it's about employing for particular job
LE: no it's much wider meaning

BC: But even if we say "engage" - you have tried to present fellowship as honorific. "Engage" doesn't mean that.
LE: disagree

BC: MF then sent you the proposed blog post. She's v clear she's not pushing strongly for CGD to publish.
LE: Agrees
BC: She says its only "exclusionary" in that she will say female excludes male and vice versa.

BC: She is clearly responding to your email to her, about "exclusionary" language
LE: I read it as proselytising

BC: But we can see she is clearly setting out that this is a topic for legitimate debate~
LE: But there are mentions of predatory men. Offensive comparison. Nobody had ever sent me a blog before.

BC: It is clearly not a proselytising blog. Sets out issues, invites discussion.
LE: I disagree.

BC: And this thing about predatory - what did you say about it?
LE: [reads out a phrase including it]
BC: is this what you meant by "fearmongering"?
BC: I will raise further with other witnesses but I suggest this is revealing:

BC: Did you understand that there are two parts to the argument for single sex spaces. The first is that most acts of violence are committted by men and women need single sex spaces for that reason
LE: Understand that now yes

BC: And you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory - that would be an anti-feminist backlash -
LE: Don't understand
BC: you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory
LE: please re-ask

BC: Do you understand that saying "most crimes are committed by men" is not the same as saying "all men are predators"
LE: yes

BC: And you understand that some women have experienced serious sexual violence from men.
LE: of course
BC: and for example in rape refuges women need to feel safe and comfortable
LE: yes

BC: And you know many women expeirence many levels of harassment
LE yes
BC and that women therefore value and need those same sex spaces, and that saying that is not the same as saying TW are more threatening than other men

LE: But I read it as, presence of TW would make uncomfortable
BC: We have to break that down. A TW might feel harmed by being kept out.
LE: yes

BC: Do you know that most TW have male genitalis
LE: Don't know proportion
BC: Do you accept that though people try to accept and respect identities, many people still percieve a TW as male
LE: don't know what they see

BC: Most people see the material materiality.
LE: Don't know what they see. Don't know what other people see.

BC You are eager not to reject other people's realities. Blog says some women happy with TW sharing space, others not becasue they experience as man. Do you understand
LE: I understand that is what is said

BC: Do you understand that is not the same as saying that any one TW inherently a danger any more than any one man?
LE: Not what blog says
BC: going to read it.

BC: Reads/explains: Some women may be quite happy and that's all there is to it, but not all women are. Those latter women should have the right to single sex spaces.

BC: SHe says arguing this is not the same as saying that any individual man that identifies as a woman is any more of a threat than of any other man.
LE: but she talks about predatory men

BC: Yes,she says that predatory men would be able to take advantage. She says such men do dishonest things. Men not TW.

LE: Don't know.
BC: you don't know?!
LE: Nobody would dress up as a woman
BC: You are saying nobody would?
LE: It's fearmongering

BC: Even if it was, it's about men. Not transwomen. Please read the actual words.
LE: She goes on to say -
BC: And she has just said what I have read. Must read the whole thing. Her "however" introduces predatory men. Men.

BC: What you do when you frame as fearmongering is you are ignoring what MF and those with her views are actually saying, and are bringing your prejuduces to bear.

LE: No.

BC: You did not respond to blog post so won't take you through the rest of its progress.

BC: So I think next we should look at SPG meeting 6/12/2018

BC: In run up to that there were ongoing discussions among the core group about renewal, though you were not particular central to them
LE: yes that's right

BC: You email Ms McKenzie just before SPG meeting saying you ithink Mr Ahmed leaning to not renewing. You had info from conversing with him to get that impression. There were converstations not included in these emails
LE: Yes other conversations going on

BC: You understood MA was also talking to Ms Mckenzie Mr Plant etc about this
LE: Probably vaguely, would have assumed so, they are senior
BC: You knew EM was organistion opposition to renewal
LE: Not really

BC: Here EM emails you to encourage you to come to SPG meeting. She had been letting you know MF's views were inherently bigoted and transphobic.
LE: Don't recall those words

BC: Unacceptable? offensive?
LE: don't recall words. It was more she thought it was all taking a lot of time and should be resolves quickly. DOn't recall her saying offensive.

BC: there are no minutes of this 6/12 SPG meeting, that was standard practice?
LE: Yes at the time
BC: Your statement has description of your contribution but nobody else's?
LE: I do sort of say a bit about them a bit later

BC: You mention that your impression is that there was a lot of opposition but no detail
LE: yes

BC: you say you said you would have prob supporting renewal bcs of your mandate as HR to secure safe and respectful working environment for all. And you mention risk of misgendering.
LE: yes

BC: This presupposes claimaints views would damage that
LE: More about actions
BC: Why mention misgendering, MF had told you she would not.
LE: Didn't feel sure that was 100% sure

BC: But unless you are claiming she lied, you are saying that the "misgendering" consisted only of her view that TW are not women?
LE: there was risk
BC: I think we have understood as much as we can here

BC: You say no final decision taken at the meeting
LE: yes
BC 3 options on the table: a) renew fellowship b) don't renew but retain as associate c) end relationship
LE: yes

BC: So all options being considered as a bunch - all options on table at all points.
LE: yes

BC: We see suggestion from MA - do factfinding as if investigation in line with DEI policy
LE: DEI = diversity equity inclusion
BC: This was an investigation effectively
LE: No wrong term.
BC: Agree "establish facts"?
LE: [ pause ] was about preserving evidence

BC: not trying to trip you up. Pulling together what you already have is not the same as establishing the facts. Was it about establishing the facts.
LE: Um yes
BC: Do you agree purpose was to enable SPG to proceed on informed basis
LE: yes

BC: do you agree that at least one purpose of enabling SPG to proceed on informed basis was in order to enable a decision about whether MF had done things that were inappropriate offensive & discrimnatory?
LE: yes agree

BC: As a matter of basic fairness the claiminant needed to be part of that process.
LE: She should have ability to respond yes
BC: She should see evidence of what complained of
LE: I felt she already had had it

LE: She had responded to my email, she had responded to QI report
BC: No. so far the only thing she had had chance to respond to was email for you, which she had done.
LE: yes.

LE [warns his computer is failing to load bundle, he will need to use paper version]

BC: Your first step was to email 5 members of staff asking for their views of MF's tweets.
LE: yes

BC: Here is the email. You BCCd so none of the 5 could see names of other 4.
LE: yes
BC: you say you want broad perspective of view
LE: yes

BC: Laudable aim. You need broad range of views across Washington and London offices
LE: Yes
BC: but these 5 people are all known to you as having stated hostility to the claimant.
LE: But those were the people I knew had taken interest

BC: You could have asked claimant to say who had she talked to .
LE: I did not do that.
BC: Kendra White is included here, why
LE: I knew she was aware of the issues but had not said views.

BC: You were not interested in locating a range of voices that would support claimant. Only in views hostile to her.
LE: Could not canvass all staff.

BC: Did Ellen Mackenzie suggest this course to you.
LE: Don't recall that happening. Think it was my idea.
BC: you got 1 response
LE: yes

BC: And that 1 response, C1, very clear she did not require confidentiality.
LE: Yes she says she'd be happy to share views internally and externally. Not sure exactly how confident.

BC: And C1 says she takes view it is inherently unacepttable and offensive to take view that TW are not women and that anyone that takes that view should not be allowed to do any work with or for the respondents.
LE: yes

BC: So the result of your factfinding was that one response, plus, a compilation of what you already had - the Quantum impact reivew, your email to MF and her response, and a timeline document of MF's tweets and reactions to them
LE: Yes

BC: And here we see Ms Mackenzie asking you to add to timeline a discussion Mr Plant had had with MF re not employing her
LE: yes
BC: EM not here to say why she wanted it added but she was right, wasn't she, part of timeline

BC: And you did add it to timelines
LE: yes
BC: So that timeline, C1 response, and a later contribution from Ms Huang, is what goes to Ms Szabo and Quantum Impact for their later report
LE: yes

BC: That is the fact-finding they based their report on.
LE: They looked at lots of tweets too.
BC: Sure. But the CGD material submitted was those things I have listed
LE: Yes

BC: At no point was the claimant asked to submit facts about what she had said or done.
LE: because -
BC: I am not asking why, I am asking WHAT happened.
LE: She got to comment on the report afterwards - -

LE: and her tweets were the facts, black and white.
BC: I'm not asking that. I will ask one last time. Before QI made report she was not asked to contribute.
LE: Disagree with your statement. But no she wasn't asked.

BC: She had been asked about one single tweet, in correspondence with you, but that was it.
LE: yes

BC: And when she WAS asked to respond to the report, it was deliberately vague.
LE: Parts of the report were for GGD and part for claimaint.
BC: The version of report sent to the claimaint was deliberately vague.

LE: That shounds as if we where hiding something

EJ: Do you agree report was vague?
LE: yes
EJ do you agree it wsa delibeately vague?
LE: yes

BC: Email from Quantum Impact with report - identifies version for claimant - says "it's vague, deliberately vague, because we shouldn't get into discussion with claimant because she knows her stuff really well"

BC: the point was precisely to prevent MF defending herself. She had had only one chance, by email, to respond to CGD at that point.
LE: No she also wrote a blog post!

BC: MF described this report as "somewhat flawed" that's fair isn't it?
LE: she had the chance to express her views but yes perhaps should have happened differently

BC: Indeed. But since it didn't, claimant quite justified in calling "somewhat flawed"? She'd been accused and found guilty without any details, without being heard.

BC: She had no idea what it was had been found offensive, which tweets.

LE: [starts discussing the FPFW leaflet]

BC: we can come back to that if necessary. Am asking if you understand that MF is complaining of having been found guilty of bad language, without being told what it wsa?
LE: Yes

BC: that she is complaining she is being judged on views not on language
LE: not sure about that

BC: you say report is admittedly somewhat flawed, flawed in some ways, you are acknowledgign that MF's criticims are justified?
LE: No am acknowledging some sloppiness of language particularly around her title.

BC: Any fair reading of her response - impossible to reach view that she is proselytising and trying to persuade you of her views. What she is doing is arguing against claim the views are offensive. That ought to be possible -
OD : too complex Q
EJ agrees

BC: She is not proselytising?
LE: I thought she was trying to persuade us her views wehre right
BC: No, she is saying she has a right to hold /expresss them
LE: not how I read it

EJ intervenes, can we conclude you with LE before lunch?
BC: Yes I hope so

BC: I am pretty much there, but in fact would prefer break now.
EJ: We resume 2pm, remind Mr Easley not to speak to anyone. [BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll