Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon and welcome back to DAY 8 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Maya Forstater vs CGD, CGDE and Masood Ahmed. We are resuming at 2pm

Catch up with this morning here:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1504032…

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 panel
Panel = any one of the 3 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

BC will continue examining Amanda Glassman's evidence (AG) .

AG is the Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe).

cgdev.org/expert/amanda-…

We begin.

EJ asks ppl to mute. He reminds everyone of the reporting restrictions order and that it's a criminal offence to publish names and email addresses of 4 individuals - referred to as do complainants 1-4.

We will complete evidence then discuss the new admission.

BC: we had almost finished with some of things you regard and offensive and deiscr8minatory in claimants tweets, yes
AG: yes
BC: and you say it's totally unacceptable to argue, eg manels, to ask 'birth sex

BC: I use your words. This is an updated blog when you were reviewing tweets. You can see a new bit which reflects what the claimant had done. (Reads) you must have been aware claimant was listening to feedback to reflect diversity of views

AG: wed already taken decision ot to post
BC: the heart of this debate revolves around balancing harms
AG: I would hope

BC: to say its totally unacceptable to argue, eg manels the balance tips in favour to ask to protect women, it can't be unacceptably unless tour absolutist
AG: it's unacceptable to interrogate someone self ID

BC: I've with manels MF view would tip in balance as keeping them all women not including TW. You say you read that the claimant was totally unacceptable
AG: anyone can have a view but suggestion is we ask sex and that's not acceptable

BC: were exploring this because you say you reviewed tweets and I asked if you were setting out your view it was offensive and inappropriate. Unless I'm misuntanding the convo we've just had.

AG: I'm or sure how to respond because we've spoke about a lot of the element. I respect that's her view
BC: do you ow agree the view is ot offensive or discriminatory
AG: the upstream view of balancing harms isn't offensive.

BC: that wasnt what it was about
AG: we'd have to look at specific tweet
BC: look at points you make...you identify 4 individuals comments to as evidence of reputation risk, right?
AG: it's an example of ppl in our network who had hurt feelings and frustration and had risk yes

BC: is it reputational risk
AG: partly its also about CGD as a partner
BC: I'm not looking at detail of this individual but stay with me.. the fact ppl disagree on twitter doesn't mean either party has been offed, agree
AG, yes not necessarily

BC: even disagree strongly
AG: yes not necessarily
BC: in terms of the 4 ppl it is your inference not your knowledge they were upset
AG: yes
BC: you didn't speak or contact them
AG: not formally
BC: It was a clear Q can I have a clear answer
Ag: no

BC: none if them had said they were upset
AG: it's not part of the bundle
BC: and there's no evidence at all
AG: it was only oral yes

BC: let's go through matt Colin, statistics tweet. That's the same point he makes interesting tweet you rely on
AG: yes
BC: ...So MF has made clear the risk on a manel but this is a test case to explore underlying issues
AG: that's what she says...but there's more tweets

AG: that shows its not a brief experiment
BC: I didn't say that, if they weren't important we wouldn't be here
AG: I agree they are interesting Qs
BC: important and serious
AG: yes

BC: this is the tweet you relied on. The tone is serious and respectful isn't it
AG: errrr...on the part of matt Collins certainly
Bc: your agreeing with claimant too
AG: yes
BC: and Collins and claimant are disagreeing but doesn't say he's offended

BC: you agree
AG: yes
BC: and in no way regards as a reputation also blow for CGD?
AG: no

BC: two tweets here prior to the one you rely on. The claimant makes the point her belief is bad experiences happen women and girls because of their sex
AG: yes
BC: and that TW get discrimination because they are TW, yes
AG: that's what she says

BC: it's a rational position to hold
AG:... it's hard to speak for TW what motivates attackers
BC: the claimant expressly agreeing that sex diversity, in manel, is not the only thing we care about...if you read in context the claimant are entirely serious and respectful

AG: er..er.. which parts
BC: the ones I've just taken you through

BC: any of these bits offensive
AG: it's OK yes
BC: she's expressly saying she recognises TW are also a group experiences discrimination and both groups need protection. That's the argument
AG: yes but what is the practical implication of that

BC: ...expresses a different view about the manels pledge yes
AG: yes
BC: but not a view ...and that anything offensive or transphobic.
AG: she's saying it's hurtful and won't participate
BC: she's not saying it's hurtful for her but for TW

BC: claimant says there's no need to collapse categories together. You had rhe blog and the central argument was balancing rights
AG: yes
BC: you can't say she's said anything offensive in respect to that

AG: er are, manels, what's the question
BC: there's nothing offensive it it
AG: i think it's what the person is expressing in their tweet.
BC: next tweet from Alice Evans and your reliance on it

BC: you saw DMs from Alice sympathising with the claimant hadn't you
AG: yes can you show me...the date is..yes ok

BC: a series of DMs between MF and Alice Evans (AE) and AE is sympathising and if you'd wanted to know about the points, you could have started with AE couldn't you?

BC: this tweet is an exchange between claimant and Racel...diametrically opposed a d AE offering a third way, which claimant doesn't agree. "The definition of female is unhelpful' not that it's offensive

BC: you're objecting to the claiments view sex is real and the reductionist view
AG is interrupted to answer the Q by BC
BC: there's othing to suggest she's being reductionist or that's she's upset
AG: 'doomed to failure' is not positive

BC: you categorise BR is reductionist
AG: these ppl in the network strongly disagreed with her views
BC: I've heard that a number of times now

BC: you've cited them as reputational risk haven't you
AG: there's were lots of ppl with negative responses
BC: this one with Rachel meagre, you presumably read though this
AG: yes

BC: Rachel describes claimants belief as pernicious...now if MF described TW as pernicious that'd be another example of transphobia as you're concerned?

AG: can you repeat.
BC repeating
AG: I'm not sure

AG speaks too fast.

BC: I've been through that discussion at length with LE. You're right Rachel leaves the debate and says there's discrimination against TW but claimant acknowledges that? The fact that Rachel takes a different view is simply a sign of disagreement ot offence

AG: I still see it as problematic
BC: all of your responses you'reobjecting to claimant expressing her belief
AG: I disagree
BC: it's fair to say you had made up your mind by SPG meeting she wouldn't be returning ad a fellow?

AG: yes but but my view wasn't relevant
BC: are you saying through the whole process you had no effect on the outcome
Ag: and that's because mckensie was fully against MF?
BC: absolutely not

BC: there's a discussion here with you all, LE and MA...those discussions you had the opportunity to influence MA?
AG: I could speak to him
BC: you said your position didn't affect the outcome are you saying you didn't try to?
AG: there was other processes going on

BC: in terms of the claimant's response to QI report, both you and claimant saw, yes
AG: yes

BC: you tell us other ppl deal with final decision...and unless I get pinged in next 15 seconds I'll finish with AG.
EJ: I'll ask tribunal members any Qs
Panel: no
EJ: re-examination Miss dobbie?
OD: I will need a quick phone call

OD is making the phonecall. We are waiting to resume.

OD: a few Qs. How often were you I London office?
AG: I'd have to look at my calender but probs twice in 2nd half of 2017 and once in 2019
OD: how long jn office
AG: about a week

OD: this doc we see a defence by OB (reads email). Can I ask would you consider it unusual to use 'fake news' when talking about a PC, eg. race, gender
AG: yes and I wouldn't expect to see that

(Missed)
OD: you were taken to this and this is the employment appeal judgement. .can u aks you if you had a core grasp of the claimnats beliefs as stated here.
AG: yes.. sex is immutable, biological reality, after this it was unclear

OD is finished with Qs. EJ releases AG.
EJ: we go on to Mark Plant's evidence next. We'll return at 3.10 please.

Next giving their evidence is Mark Plant (MP) Director of development, Finance, Senior Policy Fellow (CGD), COO of CGD Europe (DC/ London from Sept 18)

cgdev.org/expert/mark-pl…

We're back. EJ reminds everyone of the restricted reporting order and its a criminal offence to publish the names and emails of 4 individuals - referred to as Complainants 1-4

EJ asks MP to affirm or take the oath, MP chooses affirm and is sworn in. OD: I understand you have corrections you want to make to your witness statement. Have you seen email EJ?
EJ: we haven't had time (gets up email)

OD: MP are you working off a paper statement? If you go through then and just change those dates. Do you have a pen?
MP: no
OD: I don't want him to get confused so shall we get him a pen
MP: I'm sure they're on their way now

OD is going through the corrections to witness statement with MP. They include dates and when emails were sent. You say 'as this is standard paractice'...you corrected to "you wrongly believed this was standard practice"

MP: one more...in the line above...'I was not aware details had BEEN removed'
OD: on the issue of website piece, I'll ask supplementary Qs. I'll ask MP what he now knows. This will prevent a slip on timetable
EJ: BC were you aware of this?
BC: no

EJ: we need to know BCs stance before that.
OD: I'd hope it wasn't opposed as we may need to bring in another witness

BC: there isn't a license to ask supplementary Qs, they can be asked in matters arising...or where not anticipated...there's leeway and depends. I'm at a disadvantage without knowing what the questions are...I will oppose if like the other suggestion for the witness

EJ: I think OD BC needs to know what your wanting to ask
AG: how it understanding has evolved and it has during this process
EJ: are you planning to ask about ghos BC
BC: yes but in light of development then ot sure he can add much

BC: if he thought you removed things via the website and in the last week he's changed his evidence... if he's saying he had a different understanding at the time then I don't know what the evidence is.

BC: Is the evidence OD seeking is direct knowledge or a way of getting other evidence in hearsay
OD: (missed) Yes it is hearsay and the only objection can be that it's late in the day. I appreciate its unsatisfactory and often happens in trials

EJ: sounds like this evidence would be best coming from Shulman...it seems we continue with MP as expected...and address additional evidence when we evidence is completes.
OD: thank you sir

OD: when you moved to London office what stage was streamlining programmes at
MP: a work in progress, programs were being established...things weren't smooth. I was sent to ensure work progressed

OD: was the claimant required or obliged to attend Wednesday and Thursday
MP: it was highly encouraged but not required
OD: did AG ever express she thought sex is immutable and can't change sex is a belief that us bigoted or transphobic

MP: she never expressed that to me
BC: you just gave evidence which weren't addressed but I'll deal with now. Attendance on lunches, you weren't party with discussions with the claimant about this?
MP: no
BC: you didn't need to have a convo about expectations because she knew

BC: are you able to comment whether she either always attended or provided a reason she wouldn't
MP: regularly but not always and I don't know if she provided reasons

BC: when asked about the program structure, both entities of CGD and CGDE were integrated
MP: y..yes.. (missed)
Bc: the Ceo of CGDE reported to CGD and the president of Washington was chair of that board.
BC: the president was in charge
MP: yes and no

BC: function of SPG was to strongly advise and determine the strategy for organisation
MP: yes
BC: and always a huge amount of flexibility, convenient locations?
MP: a certain flexibility,

BC: a visiting fellow, the affiliation was always with the overall organisation
MP: for visiting fellow yes

BC: let's look at culture. You took over CGD from 2018
It's correct to say there was a lot of banter of work topics and non working topics.

MP: there was a lot of discussion as we worked..same when we ate...same when we moved to premises but then we were in separate rooms and banter was less.

BC: there were no real boundaries to the level of controversy of things that could be discussed
MP: there weren't and I was uncomfortable with that
BC: brevity discussed
MP : yes
BC: trump:
MP: yes

BC: Racism:
MP: I don't recall
BC: Religion
MP: I don't recall
BC: Feminism
MP: yes
BC: do you recall Mr border expressing infant circumcision is child abuse
MP: I dont

BC: he expressed those views strongly
MP: yes
BC: and (missed) is a practicing Christian
MP: I don't know that

BC: was it a statement or argument to that effect
MP: I don't know

BC: people attended protests didn't they
MP: yes
BC: and there was a library and people brought in pamphlets
MP: for related work topics

BC: ppl expressed their views candidly and strongly didn't they
MP: yes
BC: this is a think tank and ppl don't shy away from debate
MO: when people have something to say they say it
BC: and its in the nature of debate to argue and test out arguments

MP: yes
BC: It may be they try to persuade people they're wrong?
MP: Possibly based on evidence and reasoning not ad hominom

BC: this is a response you sent to LE notifying the issue had been raised
MP : yes
BC: and there was discussion and you were present when claimant discussed her views

MP: yes
BC: there were several discussions
MP: yes more than one
BC: you describe them as general discussions 'good natured intellectual debate'. Your impression of layman's discussions?
MP: that's correct

BC: you said claimant argued the views forcefully but didn't think out of culture of that office
MP: Yes
BC: and Mark disagreed and sought to persuade her to change her views
MP: it was a debate yes
BC: and on his part good natured?
MP: yes

BC: So you understood it at the time CGD did not have an institutional position between sex and gender or the nature of those concepts
MP: they've never had that
BC: they didn't have a position on how you apply it know policy areas
MP: no

BC: they didn't have a position on those topics
MP: the discussion be respectful and not harassment and based on evidence
BC: as you understand it was because they were offensive
MO: no

BC: are you saying it's part of CGDs position that ppl couldn't discuss issues they cited evidence?
Mp: no

BC: this is an email you wrote in Feb 2019, its written will full sequence of events and at the point the decision should be taken that claimant isn't renewed. ...this reflects the overall Qs you'd been debating among yourselves?

MP: claimant expressing strongly held belief and some ppl found it offensive and could impede work processes and that erm it would be appropriate um that belief wasn't central to the operations we asked the belief not come jnto workplace because it was offensive.

MP: it's best it wasn't brought in to workplace
BC at rhe time the email was written it reflects the central Q you and colleagues had been debating for some months?
MP: that's fair.

MP: that's my summary of the reports and it Central to the discussions we were having
BC: when you refer to 'abhorrent positions', there are some people who had made those

MP: no...in the workplace you will have a wide spectrum of beliefs among staff and what can be constructively expressed.. we would say a no to racial extinction...but there are beliefs that excite great passion and we need to know which can aired with respect for colleagues

BC: and the position of those on the other side of the debate, you were supportive of claimant, was her beliefs were in that category,
MP: the beliefs could be expressed but had to be very careful how they were expressed

BC: what you just described was your position. You supported aiming because her work was good
Mp: yes
BC: you thought beliefs were in the middle category yes
MP: yes

BC: my question was about people on other side of the debate and they say the beliefs were so inherently wrong they shouldn't be touched upon
MP: they said her expression of her beliefs was often disrespectful and could alienate staff and other pol

BC: you knew her from gates grant
MP: yes
BC: did you understand she was a paid visiting fellow?
MP: yes
BC: did you know that had been found for her pending securing funding
AP: I didn't know the source at the time

BC: this is an email from Mr border who at that point was the claimants contact point.
MP: yes
BC: he's been describing finding funding for MF because it was controversial in the sector?
MP: yes it's broadly correct

BC: (reads MP email) that was the indication Barder was giving to the claimant
MP: I can't say at that time.

BC: we have here a CGDE 2019 budget from 2018 and it says if funding permits we propose to take on MF on tax and transparency, recommendation we go ahead of these, incurring staff costs in short run...its clear to take on MF as a staff member, not just to retain her

MP: no er..it was for her to take on work...er.. in contrast to (names others) he doesn't give Maya any title, it could be anything
BC: except the fact you have to substitute a phrase proves my point she was already a contractor and visiting fellow
MP: she was but no title

BC: take I means to take on in a new capacity
MP: I don't agree
BC: and talking about risk and staff contribution, its always a risk taking on staff...
MP: yes
BC: the claimant is being jncluded in a group of recommended people to be taken on
MP: I don't agree

BC: your email to MF discussing expectation you will get 50% of her time from gates grant. Then say with 50% we can discuss bringing you on a staff member not a visiting fellow
MO: yes
BC: I accept discussed doesn't mean binding

MP: that's correct
BC: do we agree as a matter of practice that the recommendations made that could happen quickly
MP: no there's a process... we would have to show funding for her and be convincing of the senior fellows

BC: that's senior fellow not research fellow
MP: same process and get approval.
BC: your phrase 'my understanding' reflect you have been led to believe.
MP: yes Owen approached me and was going to make case for MF on staff. This is a vague recollection

BC: you say you had a subsequent convo with MA when he told you he'd already considered MF as employee and established 2 conditions. OD said she was going to ask a Q but that didn't happen. when was that
MP: september October er...(too fast) before November

BC: can I suggest if that convo happened it probs happened when you were discussing MF future in October
MP: (missed) I don't know when he honed in on that

BC: can I suggest when he zoned in was when you and your colleagues were discussing that fact as a factor relevant to her fellowship?
MP: you'd have to ask him

BC: you knew by early to mid Aug that MF had been led to believe when the gates grant came in shed be put into this process with the full with of you and Mr. Barder?
MP: no that doesn't mean that she would be though

BC: She'd been told you'd make a push to bring her on as a staff member.
MP: I...I don't...I don't know what she had been told
BC: the clear msg you're giving her once funding we start the process
MP: it would be a process
Bc: I agreed with you on that

MP: we could discuss the process. I stick to those words
BC: I had to do this with AG about certain words

BC: it made it clear that was as an employee didn't it
MP: the inference drawn on that was erm up, benefit costs
BC: I wondered if we could cut it short but we obviously cant

BC takes MP through table
BC: my Q again is not if intentional, this document on its face describes her ad a personnel staff member with benefits.
MP: that's what AG was a mistake
BC: and this went though rounds and rounds scrutiny
MP: yes I didn't focus on the table

BC: the idea this was a mistake with that level of scrutiny and only provided I oral evidence is not credible
MP: I believe it is
BC: how on earth did it come to this

BC: I'll repeat
OD: it'd be fair to ask if they had involvement in docs
BC: are you able to explain how the legal pleading in this case came to falsely describe the doc you just looked at
MP: I was not involved in the drafting of this doc

BC: you say to the claimant if we get funding we take you kn yes
MP: yes
BC: in carefully drafted proposal to major funder and claimant copied in, its fair says she is going to be an employee
MP: she's listed under personal and benefits yes

BC: that's a different proposal...it reflect MF hoped she would be an employee
MO: it was a mistake to describe benefits to her before she was an employee

MP: the intention was to have her work on gates work in whatever capacity
BC: So this isn't a mistake...
MP that was the mistake We assigned her as employee and she wasnt

MP: I'm lost now

BC: it's not a mistake because employees are more expensive than consultants so as far as gates concerned it's right to put her in as employee yes
MP: again we should have put her in as consultant

BC: the pleading ha e included as untrue statement you can't explain
MP: I don't know if it's untrue or not
BC: you do, come
MO: she's not listed know the consultancy line
EJ: we can see... maybe it's over the expression untrue

BC: that was my last question
EJ: maybe that's a convenient time to stop. Well reconvene at 10am tomorrow.

@threadreaderapp please unroll

Thanks you following #ForstaterTribunal with us today as we continue to bring you #openjustice. Tune in tomorrow at 10am.