Thread by @tribunaltweets

Welcome to day 10 of the employment tribunal in the case of Maya Forstater versus CGD(Europe), CGD & Masood Ahmed. We expect to start at 10:00 am. This is @katie_sok in the chair tweeting for you today.

Previous days tweets can be read here: hiyamaya.net/livetweets-fro…

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for Claimant
MF = Maya Forstater – Claimant
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 to continue x-examination of Mark Plant (MP) - Director of Development Finance, Senior Policy Fellow (CGD); COO of CGD Europe.

We begin.

EJ: received email application to call Ms Shulman withdrawn - but want to add docs to bundle

BC: Become apparent not received full disclosure re victimisation claim. We asking for further searches to be carried out.

BC: No objection to add'l docs in principle provided we get search and new docs today. Lets leave this matter to later

OD: request has gone to respondents IT dept. American time expect to hear later this pm

BC: Covering email from Ms Mahesri(?) She had taken decision to do 2 reports. Not something agreed in advance?
MP: agree

BC: 'my honest assessment and convo MP needs to have with Maya.' You agree with me that report contains analysis of tweets etc. 'I also did a more public facing doc, really vague, dont get into discussion with Maya'

BC: The report deliberately didn't contain details of offensive comms?
MP: No detail but some indication why offensive
BA: ?Report says claimants comms either did cross the line or almost crossed the line that we recommend action

BC: Certain post that were disrespectful or borderline disrespectful yes?
MP: yes
BC secret report addressed this yes?
MP: yes

BC: 3 other independent reviews of social media
MP: referring to reviews already take place
BC: But relied on those in this vague report. No. 1 QI own first review, which wouldn't be entirely clear to reader

MP: could confuse yes
BC: earlier review Oct 2018 never shared with MF
No.2 external legal Ms Sabo. But she had not concluded on tweets had she?
BC: I think she looked at same info as QI

BC: QI say all 3 concurred on key finding. 1. several post offensive/disrecptful. that is not what Ms S concluded?
MP I dont recall
BC: Third item is review by internal fellow? Ms Cindy Huang?
MP: yes

BC: Not shared with MF was it?
MP: No
BC: So if Ms Sabo had not concluded and Ms Huang email... this is leading by QI on three reports isn't it?

BC: Do you agree astonishing approach by QI?
MP: No they had read , the y didn't need to hear from MF
BC: But you sent to MF 'we find you guilty' but you dont discuss the specific comms? How can that be fair?

MP: we asked her to respond and I did speak to her afterwards
BC: But there must be the proposition that there is nothing MF can say in her own defence?

MP: No its that the body of work speaks for itself
BC: But you were accepting at the time that the work speaks for itself
MP: I would give her opportunity to respond, I did.

BC: The other reason is Ms M email - MF knows the whole context really well be cautious about getting pulled in to the debate. That is the 'no debate' line isn't? There is a view those who take self ID position say no debate?

MP: Thats not how I read it. Its how we manage the workplace and not get drawn in
BC: there are not talking about general debates, they are saying not this debate. Consider not legitimate yes?

MP: No they are saying dont get drawn in to this debate when discussing how to take care of MF views in the workplace and those other staff. They were pushing me to sort this w/o going into debate content

BC:Focus the discussion on language and behaviour not her views yes?
MP: yes
BC: Let her know the topic you want her to be clear on her is her language/behaviour. Even accepting what you say re how to proceed.. just explain to me how you can tell MF where the line is between

language that is offensive or not w/o talking about specifics?
MP: there was a conflict on workplace and she needed to refrain from the topic generally. she could express but couldn't go further

BC: You are struggling because you are trying to hold a difficult line. If you are going to tell someone this isn't a ban on expression but about language and behaviour you have to be able to define that line?

MP: yes
BC: The only way of defining that line is by identifying the language and behaviour the crosses it?
MP: yes

BC: QI approach was ridiculous. Tell her its offensive but dont tell her which language. Im right aren't I?
MP: I tried to explain the line but I agree we would have had to articulate more clearly. Agree not tenable in long term to say dont express you view.

BC: Ultimate position was a firewall around the beliefs yes?
MP: I think correct yes
BC: The only belief where you have ever done this?
MP: To the best of my knowledge.

BC: You collectively accepted and sought to apply the QI report and recommendations yes?
MP: I can only speak for me, I tried to do that s best as I could
BC: You described their analysis as compelling?
MP: Yes

BC: Do you want to retract that word compelling? V poor quality work indeed. We can see Ms M describe the main finding that Maya fully knows what is offensive. She knows what is problematic in what she is saying

BC: You took trouble to understand basis for the main finding?
MP: yes I read letter and report.
BC: They give specific examples but most tellingly is that Maya retweeted open letter penned to an online news source. Its all the points QI would have used to say what is offensive

BC: Did you look at the news source referred here?
MP: yes I did
BC: this was the article Maya uses in first response to LE - did you note it was K Stock, academic author?
MP: yes

BC: Did you read response to letter?
MP: yes
BC: they say that Prof Stock article has claims that are inherently transphobic eg TW are not W.

BC: You told us that you understood MF beliefs yes?
MP: Yes
BC: You got the main issue is whether it is true that sex is indistinguishable from GI and a spectrum

MP: yes but its what follows in the article. More concerned with the academic argument as to why that was then a concern

BC: this is not your field is it?
MP: No
BC: did you look at academic writings on both side?
MP: No.
BC: did you take it at face value letter correct?

NO.
BC Prof Stock is a philosopher with expertise. Article she wrote attempts to provide academic views in a way that is understood by ordinary reader?

MP: yes. Critique here is incorrect or misleading because didn't correspond to statistics and the bothered me
BC: Did you look at authors of the letter?

MP: [not sure here]
BC: [The other letters wasn't ppl with relevant expertise] KS has the expertise why didn't you think so?

MP : misuse of statistics to stoke fear. risk for trans people is high and this wasn't balanced in her argument.
MF understood the controversies
BC: when they accused Stock of saying TW are predators did you understand that is unfair?

MP: er its an inference ..
BC: Ive explored with other witnesses... its not about stats is it? there is no doubt that men are responsible for sexual violence is there?
MP: correct

BC: so its not a misuse of stats? its a basis for SS spaces. we have SS spaces because men present a risk to women, men as a group
MP: its a small %
BC: 'the old mans rights debate'..'not all men'

BC: do you not agree this is reason for SS spaces? Part 1 keep men out to stop violence, Part 2 keep men out for comfort and safety and dignity yes?
MP: yes

BC: Prof Stock encapsulates - that women only spaces eg hostels etc should be sex based. TW are male and most retain male genitals - that's true isn't it?
MP yes take your word

BC: a small number of bad men- not a misuse of stats is it?
MP: small number yes
BC these reasons dont cease when males identify as women. Agree there is scope for debate but its not fair to say that argument is a misuse of stats or fear mongering is it?

MP: Difficulty with implication then drawn that TW ... allowing self ID increases uh.. um predatoriness
BC: Where does Stock say that?
MP: she doesnt
BC: where does Maya say that?

MP: its implied in red and black video
BC: No its not. Its very clear standing up for existing rights of women
MP: But presents stats in red and black that say 99% of sex predators are male
BC: Which is true and the reason ...
OD: please take MP to the document...

BC: it accurately says any man can get a birth cert saying F yes?
MP: yes
BC: its explaining consequence will be same sex spaces will be much more diff to enforce
MP: yes

BC: places where that is already happeneing
MP: it does w/p saying impact
BC: yes but this is a campaign video you are not saying it has to cite academic sources?
MP: well shouldn't be used in environ like CGD

BC: she didn't she tweeted it. this is saying reforms to GRA will impact Dom violence, hospital words ...
OD: be careful it says women + girls will have no places
BC: [reads out] you may disagree but you weren't looking at nuance of debate of reform to GRA

MP: but bit that says 99% of sex offenders are male that's the problem... because of implications
BC: that's your inference its not untrue. its also true that TW have same patterns of male offending?

MP: 99% of sex offenders are male misleads reader to males are sex offenders its very small % of males that's the problem
BC: so your objection is the male rights objection we discussed earlier?

MP: its the balance...
BC: yes this is putting one side its campaigning its not purporting to present both sides is it?
MP: Agree
BC: CGD does not stop fellows in political campaigning does it?

MP: no but we have to make person aware if trouble in office, ppl offended
BC: We are here because you rely on this as being example of fear mongering. The stats are used to make same point as Prof Stock and same as points MF makes in nuanced way. This is why SS spaces yes?

MP: yes
BC: and also for dignity privacy and safety? and fairness?
MP: yes
BC: the language is different to Prof Stock article because campaigning. But not saying anything different?

MP: its propaganda and misleading stats
BC: no we've been over this its not misleading. Lets go to QI report. 4 bits from open letter relied on. Assertion that TW are not W is phobic. you disagreed?

[missed] MP: Stock is more careful yes
BC: None of you take the trouble to understand the points in support of SS spaces. You too readily assume attack on TW?
MP: I disagree

BC: Letter says we think substandard scholarship. You did not check standard of Prof Stock did you?
MP: No.
BC: Letter says trans people not up for debate. Stock does not deny T peoples humanity does she? Neither does MF ever does she?
MP: point Im trying to make is she knows

complexity and that people will be offended. that's the point of the QI report
BC: MF never has said she doesn't know about ppl being offended. She said that to LE yes?
MP: Take your word for it
OD: take him to document please

EJ: we dont need to go back do w...
MP: no I recall it
BC: offense is not a good reason to silence debate?
MP: A reason for parameters in workplace

BC: You said QI report was compelling. I.e. MF crossed the line. You endorsed that. Are you no longer endorsing? If we agree she was not disrespectful and QI report not compelling in that part then we might be able to move on...

MP: no some comms were [offensive]
BC: QI report goes further then there needs to be parameters. Main finding is she is aware her language and arguments are offensive. QI conclusion is, MF has retweeted open letter... so she understand the critiques in that letter

MP: Agree
BC: QI Stage 2 is we agree with that letter?
MP: yes.
BC: so Stock and MF are wrong. their views made are phobic, fear mongering....

MP: it says Maya aware of offense
BC: so we ignore rationale for why?
MP: Maya is aware of impact.
BC: lets ignore your spin. QI report is clear. Problem with MF tweeting things that cause offence is not that she knows they cause offense

BC: its that the views are wrong.
MP: that's not what I took from QI report
BC: QI report ... TW are not W is at baseline offensive... Maya knows ppl recognise that comments are offensive. So this shows core beliefs are the problem for QI?

MP: yes
BC: so do you agree report is not compelling?
MP: parameters of debate and MF role were
BC: QI report says TW are not W is offensive but you agree its not?
MP: yes but its the passions it excites... [missed] I dont need to reopen debate is point.

BC: Parameters would be MF cannot say TW are not W.
MP: I never said that
BC: Then we agree no parameters from the report for the debate?
MP: but for my chat with MF
BC: how do I know from QI reports what MF could and could not say?

MP: [long pause] would be difficult to know that
BC: Uniquely on these beliefs, MF should not be able to say them internally?
MP: she should limit it to statement of her belief

BC: Even though QI says she's understands TW are not W is offensive, you think she still was going to be allowed to say TW are not W?

MP: it gave me parameters...
BC: You and LE even removed the only recommendation in the vague GI report?

MP: I need to look to be sure...
BC: you can see you reply wondering if recommendation hived off eg rec 3
MP : yes

BC taking MP through amended recommendation
BC: exchange between you and LE. Your initial view is the one you have reverted to in your statement (ie compelling report). when you sub'd trans for gay you felt compelling.

BC: But we know not the same. MP: I didn't understood why Washington office so excited about this til I did that. Material reality phrase I had heard in gay rights but agree not a perfect analogy

BC: incorrect understanding that this is an attack on trans people as opposed to women's rights?
MP: No that that's what people thought but I knew it was a defence on women's rights

BC: QI reveals misunderstanding of MF view ?
MP: yes
BC Fuss in Washington was based on same misunderstanding?
MP: yes

BC: In practice MF is subject to scrutiny because of a misunderstanding of her beliefs by some in Washington
MP: yes

Stopping for 10 minute break. BC confirms he will need Monday morning for evidence. EJ: are we moving on from QI report? BC: yes. Back in 10.

We're back
BC: You send MF the vague QI report. She never saw secret one?
MP: No
BC: You also forward it to Ahmed et al
MP: yes

BC: the email from Ms M at QI sends you final version of vague report. there's no email or other doc that they got longer report?
MP: longer report just for me and LE
BC: MF responded to vague report. Her central point

was that it said she was guilty of offensive language but dont quote what?
MP: yes
BC: so then how can she move forward. Her 2nd central concern is she suspects its not language but pressure to shut down debate. she was correct there?

MP: there was diff of opinion not pressure to shut down debate
BC: We show QI report has views on that... MF 1st point in cover email is she agrees with next steps to discuss and seek constructive way forward. She's not being difficult agree?
MP: yes

BC: given her central points were well-founded its no ok to criticise her is it?
MP: No
BC: Her central point is that the arguments and beliefs she makes are ones that she ought to be allowed to make?
MP: yes

BC: she's not trying to persuade you to agree?
MP: no
BC: She says language issue could rectified by editing, deleting and apologising for any poor language

BC: So clear opening for you to tell her what crossed line? She was open to that ?
MP: yes
BC: but you didn't give her any particular things to change?
MP: LE did before

BC: LE did not say [specifically] here is a thing I want you to edit delete or apologise for?
MP: he did not

BC: [EM and Ms Glassman want to put end to this] Do you agree if there was any intransigence at this point it was not from MF. It was Ms McKenzie?
MP: EM wanted to end our affiliation with her

BC: You met with MF to discuss on 13 Feb
MP: yes
BC: You say you acknowledged the QI report had some issues
MP: yes
BC: MF said you both agreed to set report aside

BC: She told you she had a way forward.
MP: yes
BC: she thought of more of a separation from her job and her writing on sex and gender. she would tweet less on her main account re this
MP: yes

BC: no hard and fast parameters on how much less to be discussed?
MP: yes
BC: she agreed she should not have left campaign leaflet on desk as clear desk policy?
MP yes

BC: But at end of meeting you said no renewal of fellowship will be taken to SPG. she would stay as consultant?
MP: yes
BC: she then became very upset
MP: yes

BC: because regardless how constructive MF was, Ms McKenzie would not agree to it?
MP: [it was more just how diff topic]
BC: You have given just 2 examples of offence. the red / black video and her reference to sex as a material reality.
MP: yes

BC: you recount conversation that she seems to understand needs to be kept out of workplace. So its fair to say MF was prepared to limit what she said?
MP:[ agrees]

BC: Ms McKenzie's response is to disbelieve she would be constructive?
MP: yes:
BC: but QI report didn't give her enough understanding of this?
MP ; true

BC : same standard apply to contractors and visitors?
MP: not sure what standards she means?
BC: not being transphobic?
MP : behaviour in office?
BC: and tweeting
MP yes:
BC she would not support claimant as visiting fellow.
MP agree

MP: you meet with MF again later in Feb. you wrote to core group about those discussions and setting out your views and future start of MF. You told her that if she wished to still seek renewal of fellowship (hopeless) but she should put in doc why?

MP: yes
BC: CGD had promoted a culture that no corporate line on policy issues
MP: so MF had not done anything out of line
BC: yes

BC: Discussion her position was so extreme as to merit dissociation
PM: I thought no as noted UK debate
BC: QI hadn't got to grips with that?
MP: no.
BC: Contrary to Ms Sabo recommendations...

BC: Quotes MP " I dont know where to draw the line as to what merits disassociation , we need to have a corporate position... but I cant identify where she stepped over"

MP: that's fair
BC: you said on weak grounds if its on her behaviour and she has taken all remedial measures asked of her. So MF had inadvertently offended some with an issue that she didn't know in advance would cause offence?

MP; it did cause offence
BC: you mean offended as misunderstood beliefs yes?
MP: yes
BC: you were clear that she had been constructive in response to concerns?
MP: yes

BC: we saw you mention double edged PR risk?
MP: yes
BC: but others disagreed with you eg Ms McKenzie
MP: Yes EM did.

BC: MF began by outlining her work now and in future. why remaining a member was important to her. she noted she had been recruited for saying unpopular things on twitter and on blogs
MP: yes

BC: and feared this was same thing going to cause the end of her career at CGD
MP: yes
BC: if in her note to SPG she had ignored sex and gender that would have been avoiding the elephant in the room?
MP agree

BC: she referred to concerns of QI report and her central concern. I.e. its the view rather than language or tone. She is right isn't she? It was the objections in QI and from Washington?
MP: central issue is how belief is expressed and terms of debate yes

BC: No its that they think its offensive to say women are bio f ... She makes clear she will use preferred pronouns in most social situations. You colleagues have unfairly said this means she would misgender?
MP: I dont know what most means in that context

BC: if concern was she was reserving the right to confront TW in toilet you could set that out as forbidden?
MP: dont think that was the concern
BC: eg changing room, swimming pool and person with penis exposes then she might [say its a male] that was what she explained

BC: you could have clarified what most meant?
MP: we could have yes
BC: She says language prohibitions prevent the debate happens and its important to be allowed to make arguments in clear language, she wasn't trying to convert you to agreeing wit her?
MP: she was not

BC: She cites a number of people to show her arguments are respectable?
MP: yes
BC: respectable body of academic thought not crazy mad arguments and includes citing a TW who approves of her posts?
MP: yes

BC: [she's not seen all the analysis about her at this point] she's says any other issue would be discussed by CGD and she's right?
MP: would need to be relevant to CGD work
BC: In addressing SPG, MF thought necessary to explain the judgement in report not correct
MP yes

BC: not fair to criticise her for that?
MP: {agrees not fair]
BC: she recognises this issue doesn't relate directly to tax, and she goes on to reiterate the measures she is taking eg less tweeting on main account, disclaimer in bio, no debate in office

But she will continue to debate outside etc
MP: yes
BC: She's anything but intransigent? She's effectively agreed to be silenced at work and you thought she was genuine about that?
MP: yes I did

BC: MF thought this note would go to SPG [to decide her future] but a different approach was agreed. If you and Mr Ahmed thought she should be renewed it would go to SPG but if you both didn't it wouldn't?
MP : I cant quite remember , email to that effect but dont recall exactly

BC: [discusses reference for this with MP]
MP: ultimately MA decision
BC: yes but in practice it was you EM, LE, AG & MA { I think!] discussing this
MP: there was no meeting where we did this

BC: We can see in docs ,MA email for you and MF to set up call. Please give MA talking points. That is how MF learns it hasn't gone to SPG?
MP: yes unfortunatey. BC: you come clean at page 1846, MF writes again at least this mistake has given me an honest view of decision process

BC: this was clearly a collective decision driven by EM opposition?
MP you need to ask MA
BC: if it was MA decision he wouldn't need you to give him talking points?
MP : TP is standard practice for meetings

BC: if you didn't know reasons for decision how can you write talking points?
MP: it was what I would say if in his shoes... what I thought from discussions
BC: you said you weren't party to any discussion

MP: uh.. chain of events...
BC: have you looked at the transcripts?
MP: er
BC: [comparing how talking points compare]

MP: I said no single discussion among the 5 of us... He was is in London the Friday before all of this I think .. and erm we did discuss but he hadn't seen MF response at that point I dont think. I think he told me general reasoning

MP: I checked in and then reconstructed.
BC: You didn't check in with him (MA) and ask him to explain so you can write it down for him? Absurd
MP: We had talked about it before so I knew roughly but he hadn't made a final decision

BC: So you say its the issue that is against CGD and its not language. You are saying we dont to be associated with MF in this debate. And real issue is upset amongst staff cause of their interpretation
MP: yes

BC: the position you are taking is not the sex/gender issue is borderline but that is is just not tolerable
MP: its not central to our work.... given that its borderline...
BC: so you are saying therefore we won't associate with anyone who holds these views

MP: that we will not give a visiting fellowship yes
BC: the absence of a consensus was because MF was known to hold these contentious views
MP: and/or express them offensively
BC: that's not what you are saying to MA

BC: End of that call (MA/MF) you understood that MF had agreed to go and think about consultancy contract?
MP: yes
BC: MA had given a verbal indication?
MP yes:

BC: Email from EM is that there needs to be a formal offer made
MP: yes
BC: you agree to write contract yes?
MP: yes

BC: But MA recognised that any relationship for consultancy would be untenable having told MF you dont want her as VF?
MP: I think he was content with Gates work but no more

BC: EM recognised that reduction in status as a consultant means would be better to cut ties... And what Washington thinks
MP: I disagree, I was willing to take her on as a consultant

But clearly EM didn't think that way
BC: MF writes to MA with a summary of the convo to be confirmed. She asked for confirmation of consultancy over 2 years?
MP: yes
BC : contrary to emails around writing contract you never did, did you?

MP: I never did, she was thinking over weekend. Then we got this response on 1 March
BC: and what this response prompted .. you say we wanted get legal advice.. the sequence is this .. after MF call you accept you need to formalise offer?
MP: yes

BC: you then get her email which you think sounds litigious yes?
MP: yes
BC: Because she's says she wants confirmation that her decision was viewed as a hiring decision and the reason is some object to her views on sex and GI. Thats why you dont write contract

Because you respond in a different way
MP: we respond with legal advice yes.
BC: upshot of legal advice was a draft email and decision is send it and see what happens

MP: it was send that short email, period.
BC: that email very clearly brings an end to overall relationship doesn't it? thanks etc - you dont say that if she is going to carry on as consultant
MP : its silent on the contract

BC: its silent on the contract but it clearly ends the whole relationship?
MP: not the intention
BC: then you would have emailed her afterwards to say please be reassured we still want you on Gates as a consultant?

MP: I think she then closes off possibility
BC: not an answer to my question , there was time for you to follow up to make clear at the same time or minutes/hours after to reassure the contract is still on the table.

MP: Disagree
BC: Reality is send this and see what happens. Everyone knew this would make future work impossible
MP: I was open, she precluded with her response next day
BC: I agree by then but [it was actually when MA emailed that ended things]

OD : how many times are you going to put this question
BC: [moves on] ... colleagues in London on MF side?
MP: yes they wanted to know why she wasn't coming back
BC: they were upset and thought it unfair?
MP: they were asking if it was cos of her views and what did it mean 4 them

BC: Im right - it was problematic for them to engage in democratic discourse in UK?
MP: [they wanted to understand why..]
BC: they were worried because it was now dangerous for them to discuss democratic questions in UK

MP: Some wanted to know what lines were there that were crossed and what it meant for their comms
BC: Debate with EM around whether it was because she wouldn't find a constructive way forward. But you made clear it was the issue
MP: can we look at reference

BC: [ takes through references] AG amends it to clarify what has and hasn't been offered to MF. EM favours saying nothing save that her contract and VF ended at same time. I say not accurate. You agreed not accurate and you say to EM it was a dodge- there were complaints ppl know

MP: agrees EM was trying to dodge the question
BC: AG amends, EM then says don't say anything on her views on sex/gender as this is what she wants us to do?
MP: yes
BC: [reads out further drafting] You reply and say she did what she was asked and there was no negotiation

MP: yes
BC: Management should say why - the bit EM deleted - MF's positions
EJ: judge asks for pause for lunch
We will resume at 2pm.

@threadreaderapp please unroll