Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to day 9 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 Mark Plant - Development Finance, Senior Policy Fellow (CGD); COO of CGD Europe (since September 2018).

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. Mute when not speaking to minimise background noise.

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). These people will be referred to in Court as Complainants 1 - 4.

EJ: Let us continue with Mr Plant

BC: We were exploring the message claimaint had been given about being taken on as employee if Gates funding came through.

BC: We have email from to 4/10 to Ellen Mackenzie EM saying need robust discussion about appointment. You say MF features prominently in [Gates] grant.

BC: This is when Mr Ahmed became aware?
MP: yes

BC: You say we have talked of her being made Senior Fellow when grant comes through
MP: It had only been talked about, not guaranteed
BC: I am looking at strength of message given to claimant

BC: She had heard that senior staff including you would throw weight behind that process?

MP: Yes

BC: You say "I realise there will be backlash" you meant that as reply to EM?
MP: that is correct

BC: So when we look at why MF was NOT made senior fellow, it is what happens after this email we need to look at.
MP: yes but also at earlier discussions leading up

BC: I understand but the actual discussions about whether to appoint as senior fellow took place after this
MP: Correct

BC: Email from you 19/11 just before meeting claimant 21/11/2018
MP: correct

BC: to AG & Mr Ahmed saying "need to get messages straight"
MP: yes
BC: I will say will continue with visiting fellow but that we do not see able to make her employed staff.

BC: You say "this is a difference from message given earlier" - you mean, from what she was told re Gates grant coming through
MP: yes subject to processes

BC: We will look at how positions evolved.

BC: 1/10/2018 Luke Easley emails AG and EM re complaints and you are later copied in
MP: yes

BC: Here is your response to that CC
BC: You say "I don't think her argument, have not had patience to read all, is transphobic"

BC: You say you recognise language is sensitive but her argument not inherently transphobic
MP: correct

BC: Looking at your witness statement, you say, you understood her view to be difference between sex and gender, sex = biology at birth gender = social construct, you understood argument
MP: yes I did

BC: Later you say Mr Ahmed also expressed intial view that had not looked in detail at tweets and felt discussion should be broader social media policy
MP: correct

BC: at this point senior staff were saying discussion not problematic, broader social media policy needed
MP: It was what I was saying

BC: If things had stopped there we wouldn't be here
MP: But we couldn't stop there, staff complaining, things were moving on

BC: You were not closely involved in the QI report matters
MP: No

BC: Your next involvement - you see draft from LE to MF and you suggest changes, you are disagreeing that MF tweets inflammatory and exclusionary
MP: Wanted to say "problematic"

BC: Do you agree that "a man's internal feelings don't change material" is not inflammatory
MP: With 'material' in it becomes more [bit lost]

BC: you say "I do feel she needs to be held to task about others feelings" do you agree MF always clear to differentiate feelings and sex
MP: Tweets v complex, some people can take offence

MP: that was v shortly after I first saw tweets but I think that now I might agree more

BC: Do you agree that fact that some people might take offence is not good reason not to take part in argument
MP: Yes but care must be taken with language and should be clear that S/O's belief does not harm others' - it's a dicussion

BC: Do you agree that CGD people took part in discussions with offence and disagreement all the time?
MP: yes but that was within CGD and it's complex - has certainly taken me a long time to understand

BC: But MF had not been told when and where to discuss stuff
MP: COrrect
BC: Many CGD staff took place in lots of debates using same twitter ac as for CGD stuff

MP: Yes indeed. But complaints we recieved did matter. We needed to make MF aware of sensititivies, ask for disclaimer etc

BC: If you are making this an issue internally, claimant can't be criticised for trying to make you all aware what argument is
MP: I agree

BC: Email from Mr Easley here and MF reply.
MP: She copied me in a little later
BC: But around that time
MP: yes

BC: She is doing exactly what you just said was OK _ helping people understand her argument
MP: Yes correct she is trying to

BC: She's also saying she has done what you wanted, disclaimer
MP yes
BC and she is making clear that in professional/social context she would respect anyone's gender identity

BC: when you saw this you saw no problem
MP: I was still struggling with distinction material reality / identity

BC: Fact that it's complex argument doesn't mean she shouldn't take part in it
MP yes
BC: Other people's reactions shouldn't mean she shouldn't?
MP: other people's sensitivities do matter

BC: let's break down. Did you know then belief is protected in UK law
MP: Did not then, do now

BC: Basic principles of tolerance - means tolerating things we might not otherwise. Does not mean only tolerating what we are already happy with
MP: agree

BC: If we have someone Christian who believes gay relationships are wrong, they still have to tolerate working with gay people?
MP: yes

BC: if someone objected to gay person kissing their partner and complained to CGD, you would say "must put up with it"
MP: context does matter

BC: You might say NOBODY should kiss at office door, but not just gay people couldn't?
MP: Depends how people have found out, why they are complaining

BC: I'm trying to explore principles. Not discriminating and being tolerant means you would tell the complainer they cannot object to gay kisses?
MP: correct

BC: It means you cannot single out that characteristic -
MP:- ?
BC: Can't single out gay people from others for kissing regs
MP: correct

BC: So you, re belief, say "no discussion other that work stuff" and apply to everybody. But that's not what CGD did.
MP: certainly there was other discussion of belief yes

BC: once you single out a belief (leaving aside those not worthy of respect in democratic society) you are not being tolerant and undisriminatory
MP: about method of expression -

BC: Not about that
MP: There are some beliefs that it is going to take time and effort to get discussed properly. Some so complex that it takes away from function of workplace. We can be OK with holding beliefs and say don't discuss

BC: But either you have a rule for all beliefs, or you are saying we discriminate about some beliefs
MP: We weren't discriminating about *holding* belief

BC: but you are saying you would discriminate the *expression* of some beliefs but not others
MP: rule about *how* expressed

BC: But differently from others. Complexity or whatever. You have no example of any other belief where this was done.
MP: [pause] I did find that the atmosphere in London was too permissive, and staff had mentioned discomfort to me, about others

MP: So yes other beliefs that made people uncomfortable, where I felt statement-of OK but not discussion about

EJ: intervenes:

EJ: Not clear if you are saying other beliefs treated the same?
MP: No, but there were others that were causing discomfort at the time.

BC: Neither in Washington or London any other beliefs ringfenced for discussion?
MP: Correct

BC: It was the offence caused to other people that caused treatment of claimant?
MP: Correct

BC: You did not speak directly to any complainant?
MP: No
BC: You explicitly asked not to know their names?
MP: Correct

BC: So you were acting from what we have all seen here, tweets etc?
MP: Correct

BC: Next thing to look at. Email from Ellen Mackenzie.
BC: EM was firmly opposed to fellowship for MF from the outset.
MP: EM was unhappy about expansion of London office for financial considerations. Dim view of expanding London

BC: EM was firmly opposed to renewal of fellowship for MF from the outset.
MP: EM says we need robust discussion, staff backlash.

BC: You knew EM was opposed
MP: She says need robust discussion
BC: Nothing to do with finance. EM doesn't mention it.
MP: Yes

BC: Nothing to do with finance.
MP: No

BC: When EM says backlash she is talking about claimant beliefs

MP: EM is always very succinct and ...

BC: Was going to say. EM always very careful about wehat she puts in writing
MP: Yes

BC: Here we have discussion about what to say to staff re MF's farewell email.

BC: We see Ms Glassman saying EM's view is nothing in writing to staff beyond platitude. EM very careful

MP: EM had said she thought we might be heading to litigation so to put nothing down

BC: Email here from EM - following up bcs something does need to be said, she suggests saying to say: advice from HR, re complaints, we never said Maya couldn't say stuff, we were unsuccessful in finding way forward

BC: You say here, disagree with EM, Maya did all we asked, management decided not to renew, for transparency we should say why

BC: Here you are clear that EM is not only short and cryptic, but that when she does to commit to writing she is capable of being less than transparent.

MP: What EM, what she says, was her viewpoint at that time. We had had not being able to find way forward

BC: But at the time you said EM was not being transparent
MP: correct

MP:. There wasn't. She felt. We hadn't. EM felt that we hadn't found way forward - I thought we had.

BC: Not so. You say "there was no negotiation to find a way forward". You are saying to EM: what you are proposing to send to staff is not transparent

MP: I disagreed with her interpretation yes

BC: Another thing we see is EM not saying things herself but instead getting other people to say them
MP: We can explore as we go

BC: this is ahead of the 6/12 SPG meeting we see EM organising opposition with CH and HS.
MP: yes that is what she says.

BC: We see her saying claimaints beliefs unacceptable.
MP: we would have to look at detail

BC: "amplification technique" means getting lots of peo-ple to say stuff so it's harder to ignore
MP: My understanding yes

BC: Ms Szabo's report. She had 2 sources of info: briefing from you with attachments and a discussion in person

BC: So when Ms Szabo says "my nderstanding is" it means from yo
MP: yes

BC: You told claimant she had antagonised key people.
MP: don't recall
BC: did you say strong voices in washington opposed to her
MP: don't believe I did

BC: This is written briefing from you to Ms Szabo
MP: Yes to see if she was interested in doing report for us

BC: You say this is a live debate in UK but has visceral reactions

BC: You didn't talk to C1-C4
MP: no
BC: so "visceral" must mean your senior colleagues including EM

MP: No was more general comment, that discussion very heated, strong reactions

BC: But you've said you didn't look in any real detail at clamant's tweets etc. Can only mean your senior colleagues
MP: disagree

BC: You got the reaction at the SPG meeting
MP: there was opposition yes
BC: Visceral?
MP: yes

BC: EM said things like transphobic, bigoted
MP: Don't remember EM. Do remember a senior colleague saying that.
MP: Was why we involved Ms Szabo.

BC: OK back to how discussion developed, after EM email saying need robust discussion.
BC: After that you say you want to renew and need to think both re renewing visiting and appointing senior
MP: yes

BC: You ask will there be backlash - no actual response to that but one did develop
MP: Don't know

BC: Here [missed something re EM and AG]

BC: Here email from Mr Easley saying people fall out over unpopular views all the time
MP: yes

BC: Discussion here re proposed blog post, she'd sent to you, you never said to her anything wrong with it
MP: i did not

BC: Your view at this point was that claimant *could* discuss the beliefs she holds freely and openly
MP: that's what I'm saying there yes

BC: you also say these matters could have some impact on development policy
MP: Some yes

BC: Global education programme by CGD: says focussed on girls schooling and women's empowerment
MP: yes
BC: repeated later in programme text
MP: yes

BC: Claimant's arguments bear for example on statistic gathering re that
MP: to be discussed but yes
BC: relevant to provision of single sex opportunities re those aims
MP: could be yes

BC: Nobody is saying CGD had to publish the blog but you couldn't ever this debate has *no* relevance to international sector
MP: Subject to discussion yes

BC: blog submission v common
MP: yes
BC: normally feedback would be provided to improve a blog
MP: yes

BC: Here we see Ms Shulman, again common CGD practice, saying not suitable for us as is, this could be done to make it so, or, we can help place it elsewhere
MP: yes

BC: Email from you: saying you'd do that, try to help MF get it to work for CGD platform
MP: yes
BC: We now see EM saying her sense is it would never be OK for CGD and suggesting you don't waste your time

BC: message to you from EM is don't do what we normally do, this can never be acceptable
[MP responds but not v clear what meant]

BC: You send an article criticising Trump police re transppl. Am not saying you should not have.
MP: Wanted to show her what being said in US

BC: She replies discussing, makes point that part of problem is everything top-down and misses lots. THoughtful engagement
MP: yes

BC: makes clear problem is reconciling sex-based protections with protections for transppl
MP: yes

BC: You never thought she was saying transppl should not have protections
MP: correct

BC: She says "much more discussion needed" - her main message
MP: She certainly wanted more debate

BC: you reply you agree there needs to be more discussion
MP: yes
BC: you agree with her about executive actions instead of consultative legislation - "social dictatorhip"
MP: yes

BC: Means not to assume one side of a discussion correct and shut down.
MP: NB phrase was not mine. But yes, say not to shut down discussions.

BC: just before her current visiting fellowship expires. Email you & AG copying in others. You say let's do nothing for now and that was message you gave to claimant - that just waiting
MP: correct

BC: VF would continue until decision taken?
MP: formally it expired but we kept her on the website

BC: If both parties agree it continues it continues. No?
MP: She continued to use title and we allowed her to
BC: she continued to work under the contract terms. Working and paid
MP: that depends on the contract terms.

BC: January 2019 MF continuing to work on this contract?
MP: yes
BC: and in Feb 2019 working on that contract? Week before left?
MP: correct

BC: Ms Mackenzie is saying msg should be her contract and fellowship ending December, this is another example of EM being preparted to be untransparent?
MP: technically they ended

BC: CGD grounds of resistance: says VF lapsed in November 2018 contract in Dec 2018 thereafter no relationship. Not true is it
MP: I don't know

BC: we have seen she stayed on website, used title, worked. You can't say "no contract or affiliation" after Dec 2018. Not true
MP: there was no formal contract in play. Don't know about legalistics

BC "affiliation" is not a legalistic term. It's not true is it
MP: She continued to do some work

BC suggests break
EJ agrees
Resume 11.40 [BREAK]

We resume. EJ reminds of reporting restrictions - names and email addresses of Complainants 1-4 cannot be published in Great Britain, it's a criminal offence to do so.

BC: Mid october 2018 SPG meeting, to discuss social meeting policy
MP: not sure if formally SPG but yes group of senior employees

BC: You write to Mr Ahmed afterwards, does appear to be SPG.
MP: yes
BC: Mr Ahmed at meeting
MP yes

BC: you say to Mr Ahmed that you had been uncomfortable that it had concentrated on Maya. This is because of the same strong reactions we already discussed
MP: I felt it had been too much about MF tweets

BC: You say discussion had included the substance and form of her remarks, and what we should do about fellowship
MP: yes it did

BC: This means things like we'ave already said - "transphobic"
MP: can't rember words used but ws about her tweets.

BC: objecting to MF saying things like TW are not women. People saying "you can't say things like that".
MP: Can't remember exact words, Discussion was about way she was saying

BC: aslo about what. Substance as well as form
MP: I believe that's correct

BC: People expressing those strong and visceral reactions included Ms Mackenzei
MP I don't recall

BC: There is no doubt you found this unique. You talk of MF singled out
MP: That's right, there, it, I will stop there

BC: Another thread we can pick up is that as well as Gates grant there was by August fundraising with DFiD to make up the funding claimant was looking for
MP: correct

BC: And 19/10/2018 that effort was all set to proceed, you say in draft to Gates that other funding sought and had had interest, DFiD particularly keen on MF's tax work
MP: yes correct

BC: preliminary findings where DFiD particularly keen, your phrase
MP: yes
BC: all set to go full steam ahead with funding effort

MP: Full steam not our phrase but yes, we'd got the interest from DFiD
BC: Do you agree 19/10 CGD intention as you understood was to actively proceed urgently with DFiD fundraising?
MP: Actively.

BC: Email from EMackenzie to Mr Ahmed. Clearly another example of EM asking someone else to say something
MP: yes

BC: I infer there had been discussion between EM and MA about claimant's position because she is clearly referring to ?
MP: don't know

BC: we know EM careful about what she puts in writing
MP: yes
BC: the substantive discussion she had had must have been had orally

EJ: not sure it follows but anyway MP can't answer

BC: Were you involved in any such discussions
MP: don't recall

BC: Email here says give Mark a heads up re DFiD funding bcs Maya. Did Mr Ahmed give you a headsup to halt DFiD for now
MP: no I was not

BC: Here we see exchange re bringing another senior fellow on and we see EM taking you off the thread and then continuing that if MF taken off, funds could be diverted. Were you aware?
MP: no

BC: were you told around this time EM wanted to remove MF from Gates grant
MP: I was not

BC: Email from Mr Easley. Were you party to discussions at this time in which MA is reported to have said that he was leaning to not renewing MF
MP: dont' believe so no

BC: email from you. You've at last had convo with MA about these issues
MP yes november

BC: We see said that MA hesitant to push for funding for MF post, please convey to C1-C3. Going to break it down.

BC: you were certainly told at this point that DFiD push should be stopped?
MP: correct. MA had a conversation, he had realised MF was figuring prominently in Gates, he said that didn't want to invest heavility in that line of work, not want to invest goodwill etc re DFiD in it.

BC: MA purported that he thought this kind of work should not to be central to CGD
MP: yes he was not sure tax flows work had legs beyound what already done, nto sure to spend scarce resources on that

BC: Gates proposal was re moving from deconstructive to constructive discussions on topic
MP: [think tank theorising - sorry I missed]

BC: But Gates very interested
MP: yes MA OK with doing the part already got
BC: but DFiD wouldn't have given money for justy anyway.
MP: yes

BC: you were deliberately seeking to reduce funding to block MF work
MP: No would have redirected

BC: No you are being told to stop asking for DFiD money. Not to redirect it.
MP: No MA wanted to redirect away from one aspect

BC: Here policy areas discussion re CGD. 2014. Talks about illicit tax flows a core area
MP: Not "core". meaningful contribution not core.

BC: do you agree 2014 illicit tax flows important to CGD
MP Don't agree

BC: 2016 trustee report list strategic areas "transparency and illicit flows" will be pursued in 2017
MP Yes

BC: board meeting papers April 2017. Says CGD will focus on strategic areas. Includes transparency and illicit flows
MP yes that's what it says
BC: do you agree true
BC: was not present

MP: not present [sorry]

BC: Papers from March lists topics - includes illicit flows and tax, important area of work for 2018
MP: in 2018 yes

BC: Report to trustees for y/e Dec 2018 - says topics covered. Includes illicit financial flows and tax
MP: yes that was for that year

BC: Jan 2018 report on Ford grant. says CGD has reorganised to 4 areas, one is finance, explicit tax included and that will be done in Europe via Owen Barder.
MP: correct

BC: consistently until MF tweets - her area of expertise was core to CGD interests
MP: It was in London partly because she wsa there

BC: All thru until EM and MA intervene late 2018 there was active push for fundiing for this area
MP: yes
MP: It's MA not EM sets focus

BC: You say you need to discuss re making her employee re Gates grant
MP: yes

BC: then suddenly you say that this area you've been working on and fundraising for for years, you're not doing to do it any more

MP: MA's point was that focus and so on should be changes

BC: A Condition for MF employment = funding
BC: So you decide to stop fundraising
MP: disagrees

BC: Also existence of work to be done
MP: [This is too fast. I think, saying change of focus meant no work]
BC: But Mr Kenny was keen to work with her

BC: MF had diversified her work as required
MP: yes but was that into our CGD focus areas
BC: Into confidentiality she had. Another CGD area
MP [v fast discussion of grants including one being late]

BC: This is Mr Conrey replied to you "will be meeting C2 and C3 and will mention you will see C3 when back in London".

BC: If all of this was really about client's work and funding, there would not be all this clandestine stuff. You would have MF involved.
MP: not necessarily

BC: You are saying that this is how you treat consultants. MA changes his mind re priorities. and everyone discusses it secretly. THis would not happen. You would be open about it
MP: I did eventually discuss with MF

BC: If you stopped fundraising you would speak instantly to person involved.
MP: not necessarily immediately

BC: you would not normally brief fundraisers secretly, instead of telling the person involved. Claimant closely involved with the fundraisers but not told.
MP: In immediate moment yes but these were ongoing discussions. I discussed with MF when I was next available.

BC: you would not normally secretly tell fundraisers but not the other person involved.
MP: I might.
BC: do you have any other example where you have secretly briefed fundraisers and not individual
MP: This was my first grant so I don't klnow

BC: Says C2 and C3 informed and understand the sensitivity of it. -
[there is a sudden bleep - has to be tracked - it's EJ]

BC: It is clear this is about claimants tweets
MP: yes
BC: when Mr Conrey says "sensitivity" that is about tweets.
MP: No opposite - it's about her work not her tweets

BC: To say again. You say the decision to stop fundraising was about priorities, and not claimant's tweets at all
MP: correct

[pause while BC appears to be looking for next page to discuss and the panel members locate each other on screen]

BC: if we look at Mr Ahmed's statement. He says: he felt that since we were still working out re claimant's social media, and re policy, would be safer to pause fundraising. This means he was not honest with you?
MP: I understood it to be about priorisation of work

BC: Exchange between you and MA 6/11 re convo MA had had with Gates. He says Gates had said they only included tax stuff bcs they thought CGD were keen. That's because CGD *had* been keen yes?
MP: more that we had slotted it into something else

BC: MA says Gates happy to divert funds. MA says: what is best way to phrase this from Gates for our internal purposes?
BC: you say: using Gates for our internal purposes not maybe a good idea. You mention legalities

BC: you are in the unfortunate position of advocating transparency which your collegaues are not keen on.

BC: MA is saying he wanted Gates to be cover, pretext, for his decistion to stop fundraising for MF work

MP: I don't know what he meant but that's a reasonable conclusion

BC: that is what you undnerstood
MP that is correct

BC: What I said before is true. CGD would not normally be doing this behind an invidual's back.
MP: we would tell at appropriate moment.
BC: which wsa then
MP: discussions were ongoing

BC: you knew MF had had strong indication re Gates funding, to extent (you are saying) may even be legally binding.
MP: I am saying we do need to tell MF soon so she can plan.

BC: What is being discussed here is not just not renewing her VF, it is about trying to get her off the grant and not working for you at all
MP: It is about not continuing with that line of work

BC: You were being told it was about prioritisation but we see from MA's email you were not being told full story. It was about the tweets.
MP: More complicated than that, he says about reprioritinbg

BC: You were not told that anyof the pauses and reprioritisations were in any way influenced by tweets and what resulting from them
MP: not to my recollection

BC: You then met MF on 21/11
MP: correct

BC: we agree that you told her then she was not going to be taken on as staff
MP: correct
BC: and you needed to tell her because that was her expectation
MP: that had been option on the table yes

BC: there were 2 decisions, renewing fellowship and taking on as staff
MP: both pending yes

BC: you did not say MA had had set 2 conditions, and that they had not been met.
MP: I don't think I framed it that way, I don't recall
BC: you didn't refer to conditions at all
MP: I believe I only said reprioritisation of work

BC: you didn't say reprioritisation of work
MP: I did
BC: You said it was becasue of her tweeting about sex and gender and relationsships with key ppl in DC broken
MP: I did not

BC: This is DM convo MF had with Alice Evans about 5 days later.
MP: appears yes
BC: MF says no staff, but VF going to be renewed and work on Gates grant
MP: yes that's what I told her

BC: MF alludes to sex/gender discussions and says she understands part of reason not hired. You did say that didn't you
MP: Don't recall

BC: MF says, this is what Mark Plant told me.
MP: I don't recall

EJ intervenes
EJ: You have said "don't recall" several times. Can mean I honestly can't remember and can mean I am not saying I did.
MP: it's the former

BC: Email to Professor Stock re the blog and consequences. Says offer downgraded from employment to part time consultancy, is you answer you can't remember
MP: correct

BC: Another email MF to KS. MF says VF not staff, that she'd been fundraising that if grant came in wd be staff, grant came, complaints from US, downgrade to VF, this week saying pushback from senior staff even re VF bcs of tweets.

BC: you don't remember that you heard about tweets being a factor.

MP I don't recall one way or the other

BC: Mr Easkey compiling info for SPG after factfinding, Ms Mackenzie says to add discussion 21/11

MP: yes that was a piece of the timeline we are putting together

BC: a piece relevant to reaction to tweets.

MP: SPG mtg decided to put all timeline together and this was clearly an important date in chronology

BC: just before meeting claimant you emailed AG and MA saying MF had asked to see you presumably re grant and her position, need to get messages straight. If this was simple prioritising, you wouldn't need a 'message'
MP: wanted to know we were all on same page, in same place

MP: that we were going to retain re work on Gates grants, but not fundraise.

BC: when did the pressure from EM come in
MP: It had always been clear EM not keen but I wanted to all be same page.

BC: Thank you for confirming from outset

BC: you speak of substantial pressure from EM
MP: wanted to be sure of being same page AG/MA

BC: you understood EM "substantial pressure" was to end working with MF altogether
MP: was about being on same page about everything

BC: talk of corporate resources. we see from MA's statement that it was not only about reprioritisation.
MP: I had understood reprioritisation

BC: did you know it was about tweets and priorities was a pretext.
MP: no

BC: You note a shift in message, about corporate priorities. You did not mention to MF. You said she'd antagonised ppl in DC.
MP: don't recall saying that

BC: you report back to MA, AG, EM after meeting
MP COrrect
BC you say you had had good talk and MF enthusiastic re Gates work tho obviously disappointed re staff.

BC [reads] you are clearly saying the whole thing is related to the sex/gender debate.

MP: no I'm noting that some staff would object but that that should be explained to them

BC: EM says this is not what she had expected, she had expected consult only not visiting fellow.
MP: yes
BC had you discussed with EM
MP no

BC: Is Ms Mackanzie effectively responsible for all this
MP: no
BC: that was what EM was advocating for, no fellowship
MP: yes

BC: next day from MA has realised MF fellowship is allowed another year and saying OK let's go with that
BC: renewal of VF normally straightfowards, up to 3 year max

MP: has to be discussed SPG but normally short yes

BC: Put it to you all the complexities are re tweets
MP Not sure I understand. I wanted to renew VF, not sure what other disucssions were going on

BC suggests lunch. EJ agrees. Resume at 2 pm
EJ reminds Mr Plant not to discuss

[LUNCH]

@threadreaderapp please unroll