Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon from the employment tribunal hearing the case of Maya Forstater v CGD & others. This is day 10 and the afternoon session is due to begin at 2pm.

The courtroom:

BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for MF
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

This session, giving evidence:

MP = Mark Plant, Development Finance, Senior Policy Fellow (CGD); COO of CGD Europe (originally from USA, based in London since September 2018)

Previous witnesses:

LE = Luke Easley, Director of Finance and Administration / HR Director (based DC)
AG = Amanda Glassman, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary [DC]; Trustee of CGDE (based DC)

EJ: Theres been an inquiry about making a tribunal record. Making notes are acceptable but no sound or video recording of any nature

BC: The only thing MF was intransigent on was her views? yes?
MP: agreed
BC: EM and MA correspondence. EM says I know you have delegated to MP but his statement is concerning. You need to have a private conversation with Mark. Did MA have this with you?
MP: no

BC: Email from MA asking if he should send email to staff with the EM line?
MP: yes
BC: you think email needs to go to staff because ppl with think we're afraid of honesty if its not mentioned. You disagreed with line
MP: yes

BC: CGD made no attempt to set guidelines?
MP: correct
BC: "she moderated her posts on twitter without our asking" there are no posts that get relied on as disrespectful after 24 Nov yes?
MP: said what I said

BC: she saw what was problematic and agreed to desist?
MP: yes
BC: therein was the basis for some agreement. The intransigence was management and CGD
MP: management had strong views

BC: the only thing not agreed was to denounce her beliefs?
MP: yes
BC: her strong personality was one of the things that got her the job?
MP: ppl have strong personalities at CGD

BC: its the substance of the issue that crossed some ill-defined line? MP: that's what im putting forward there. BC: You are saying there it was MAs call in the end. I think mysterious 'we' in doc reflects that it was a collective decision with EM. MP: I cant agree or disagree

BC: The views and the manner articulated was added to the draft in particular you added 'manner'
MP: yes
BC: but mainly her views as the reason?
MP: yes

BC: HR person in London agrees with you?
MP: yes
BC: thanks end of my questions

No questions from the Panel. OD to re-examine MP.
OD: MF said in live evidence that V was main point of contact. And she spoke to V on 4 March. When Gates proposal developed did you speak to V about importance of MF work to the grant?

MP: She didn't indicate to me that Gates saw it is the central part of the grant. He thought it was our proposition.
OD: what information made you think it was important then?

MP: I thought package as a whole had to stand, it was part of it.
OD: Someone at Gates took the view that it wasn't
MP: There was a conversation that V and MF had and MF told me Gates really liked it

OD: that was before Gates then narrowed it?
MP: yes
OD: London Office. If you have a contractor who has a twitter who makes comments like ' homosexuality is a sin' how would that have been treated by you?
MP: er.. I would have told contractor to make clear his views

Um tell him .. discourage him from this but I couldn't forbid
OD: and if that person posted campaigning materials against same sex marriage and a similar video what then?

MP: again tell them to make clear not CGD view. We could disassociate ourselves perhaps. Make it clear on post these it not the view of CGD
OD: Did the funding for diffid? contract get secured?
MP: No
OD: Did the Omidiya? contract get extended?

MP: no he didn't want to extend it
OD: [Takes MP to pamphlet.] You said you didn't get objection from DC. Do you think this pamphlet is something that could offend?

BC: Witness told us he didn't read it at the time
OD: Im asking him now
MP: I think if someone objected to it that would be reasonable. Like the video its a campaign document that has particular lines of reasoning.

OD: so you regard the video as problematic as well?
MP: yes
OD: MF describing someone as a part-time cross dresser. Offensive?
MP: I find it so. Its a complicated identity that Philip Bunce has. Its one line from his biography. He explains the struggle.

MP: that phrase doesn't describe the victory PB has come to in coming out
BC: I dont recall asking MP about this - please understand we are getting evidence-in-chief now

OD: Im asking about specific comms in response to line of questioning about fuss in Washington
EJ: You can follow up. But MP not saying fuss about nothing he just didn't understand. You can ask about what he had in mind which is relevant rather than his opinions

OD: Ok you understood PB has used that phrase himself but in fact that wasn't the case. MF couldn't take us to a document where he used 'part-time cross dresser'

MP: that's even worse
OD: had you seen these at the time?
MP: Not the pamphlet
OD: No more questions.

EJ: Next witness
This is Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD
Chair of the Board of CGDE and one of the respondents. cgdev.org/expert/masood-…

MA affirms the oath

OD: Do you have your witness statement?
MA: yes
OD discusses corrections to statement with MA. MA adds starred bit : 'normal practice to cancel email and *as I erroneously believed at the time* any website affiliation with a VF

OD: initial question about recruitment
MA: answers about job talks[?]
OD: how many people have been recruited to a research position where the highest qual is undergrad degree ie no post grad?

MA answers to effect very unusual mentions [David Ruben?]
OD: Did AG say that its bigoted to say that a man can be a woman and vice versa
MA: never said that to me

[Missed] MA: Confident he would have got to same position due to risks
OD: At time of forming you decision, can you say what you based your understanding of MF belief on?

MA: Various writings, tweets, seen the video that she had retweeted. Also seen the pamphlet that she forwarded with her response to QI report.

OD: Thanks no further questions
BC: Did I understand from your answer to OD that you took your understanding from, in particular, the video and pamphlet she didn't write?

MA: and tweets etc
BC: Ok but you put focus on those. Documents MF didn't author
MA: But I assumed as she shared them

BC: You are a respondent here and also would review involvement of CGD , CGD Europe in your role as president
MA: yes

BC discusses a document MA has reviewed.
BC: you say you approved position of respondents. that not WORIADS didn't you?
MA: I did

BC: Here it says MF alleged belief is not compatible with human dignity and conflicts with rights of others and not WORIADS. Thats what you agreed yes?
MA: we understood that her set of beliefs was broader than those set out in that paragraph

BC: [not what it says though, you would have expanded]
Please focus on my questions to get through this, don't spin
BC: Is it right that you understood and approved of the pleading that her belief was not WORIADS?

MA: We accepted outcome of the Appeals Tribunal
BC: Not an answer to my question. One more time. Did you understand and approve the pleading?
MA: The set of the beliefs that we believed at the time were the totality of her beliefs, included beliefs that were not WORIADS

BC: Was it respondents view that the belief that sex should not be conflated is not WORIADS?
MA: Accept that view is WORIADS
BC: You have been taken to pleaded beliefs. Do you recall the respondents adopting the position that the belief that being female is immutable fact is not

WORIADS.
MA: It is my position that this set of beliefs, if this is all they are, then they are WORIADS. At first stage pleading we weren't convinced these were the only beliefs

BC: You understand that Employment Judge Taylor found those beliefs not WORIADS?
MA: My understanding is he ruled by taking other bits into the definition of the core beliefs. That was the error

BC: So you personally always meant to say that saying bio sex is immutable is a view that is WORIADS
MA: I accept the beliefs in the paragraph but without implying I need to share those beliefs
BC: You personally have always meant to accept

that saying a TW is male is WORIADS?
MA: I accepts its WORIADS. I dont share it. Secondly it quickly gets into how those beliefs manifest
BC: OK this is not a general discussion between us. Stick to my questions.

BC: My question is did you and the respondents always mean to accept that that belief is WORIADS?
MA: that has been my understanding yes
BC: Thats not credible. It was clear all the way through prelim hearing and the appeal that this view was not WORIADS

MA: that's my understanding
BC: Im giving you an opportunity to come clean. This is revealing of tendency to spin and obfuscate.

BC: Did you really mean to accept these beliefs?
MA: that's my understanding and no reason to change it
EJ: You seem to be saying that you personally have always thought these beliefs are WORIADS. So it follows that when the argument was put forward on respondents behalf that not

WORIADS you personally disagreed?
MA: It was MF expression etc that we thought there was more going on that wasn't WORIADS.

BC: [Goes on to recorded nature of discussions in SPG.] Says SPG never discussed beliefs. Thats not true is it?
MA: Different views on managing the risk. No discussion on whether TW are or are not W etc.
BC: But people did express views about MF stated belief?

MA: I try to recollect whether there was discussion about the acceptability of the belief. There was explanation as to what the tweets say but not a discussion on beliefs being acceptable.

BC: Thats not true, discussed with MP
MA: I was at the same meeting as MP and dont remember discussion that cant say TW are not W
BC: 'visceral' reaction to beliefs?

MA: I remember talking about it being risky etc
BC: it is a rewriting of history to seek to draw this fine distinction that you now do. Does not reflect discussion
MA: its best of my recollection.

BC: Lets go back. You were not closely involved in getting the QI or Szabo reports
MA: No
BC: Did you read Szabo report?
MA: Skimmed when it came. Read QI and MF response altogether in Feb.

BC: You did carefully read Ms S report?
MA: yes I did, read in Feb
BC: Shorter QI report came, but you did not receive the longer QI report did you?
MA: not that I recall

BC: Did you understand that MF was saying explicitly that she would seek a constructive way forward?
MA: Yes I did understand that's what she was saying
BC: Did you understand that one of her central concerns was QI report found her guilty with no examples?

MA: I did
BC: Did you read the report and see she was right?
MA: Trying to remember which order I read
BC: But when you read her response you thought about it and whether it was well-judged?

MA: At the time I read it all and didn't go back and compare. I stepped back from a management pov. Its been going on for 3 months. How do we bring closure.

BC: so the answer to my question is no. You did not examine whether MF response was right or wrong?
MA: I did not. I figured MP and others were going to do the detailed assessment as to how reasonable.
BC: Does it follow its pointless to ask you whether MF response is justified?

Because you never formed a view.
MA: I took away certain conclusions. Im happy to share those.
BC: You say that from the QI report you single out MF tweets in relation to Comic Relief. But there's no reference to CR tweets in the QI report you saw at the time?

Im going to suggest you are not aware of these because there is no doc that refers to them [but you say you knew about them in your witness statement]
MA: talks about correspondence with AG
BC: There is no correspondence with AG that talks about CR tweets. That is only in the

long QI report. MP told us only he and LE saw that long report.
MA: its an error there [in the statement]
BC: You are not a details man are you. I suggest this slip is not you making a mistake - its you rewriting history.
MA: No I disagree.

BC: MP reported back after his meeting with MF on 13 Feb to core group didn't he?
MA: yes
BC: It was clear from his report that MF was being constructive and suggesting a sensible solution yes?
MA: yes

BC: The intransigence came from Ms McKenzie didn't it?
MA: She was certainly transigent, yes.

BC: It didn't matter what she might say, she plainly sets out the constructive steps she will take. But it didn't matter, it was clear that EM had an implacable view opposed to V. Fellowship or retention in any capacity?

MA: Thats not true. I decided I needed to make a decision as it had been going on. I looked at balance of risks and benefits of retaining her as a VF. I came to the view that the risks were too great. More instances would happen where we would need to deal with internal fall-out

I had a growing, fractious management team. If anything reoccured it would put MP (who had been sent to London to lead) in a position that would weaken his credibility ...
EJ: Thats more than we need to explain this. BC back to you.

BC: Your assistant asked MP to supply talking points to explain the decision for your call with MF yes?
MA: yes
BA: MP told us that this reflected him talking to you and then writing it up. Is that right?

MA: I said to him we need to bring an end to this and not move forward with the renewal, he said,...
BC: let me rephrase. Do these reflect MP repeating back to you things you have said to him? Or are these MP's ideas?

MA: we had a general chat..
EJ: Can we pause please. 10 minute break.

BC: You then had a call with MF on 28 Feb 2019. In the transcript the explanation you gave her was truthful?
MA: Yes
BC: We have no other contemporaneous record of the rationale do we?

MA: Not that I am aware of
BC: See respondents grounds of resistance. The decision not to renew VF is addressed here? No explanation for it for you agree?
MA: Not there no.

BC: The only other written explanation we have is in your witness statement.
MA: Thats not what I said to her on the call though
BC: I understand that. We have 2 documents from the time and your witness statement nearly 3 years later. I think your statement is an ex post facto

justification do you agree?
MA: no
BC: Your attempts to spin
MA: no I dont agree.

BC: you stuck to the talking points in your call with MF?
MA: I dont recall talking about policy positions but think I stuck to main points.
BC: You didn't give any additional reasons that aren't in the TPs?
MA: No.

BC: MF was right when she saw the request for TPs that it meant it couldn't really be your decision?
MA: No. That was her feeling but it was because I had discussed with MP and as a general matter my assistant would get TPs.

BC: You had talked about it with the 5 people? Eg EM had had conversations with you hadn't she?
MA: EM did not know what decision I had made until I came into office on Monday, so she came over to ask me what I would do. I hadn't seen or spoken to her for 2 weeks as Id been away

BC: You had spoken to her in the run up
MA: [ not really I was away for 2 weeks] but her position on this was well established. Asking MP for notes was standard
BC: Ms McKenzie prompted your assistant to ask for these talking points didn't she?

MA: Yes she must have asked my assistant after talking to me on her way out on Monday
BC: It was because you made the decision after talking to her on Monday
MA: No I already had made the decision. It was my decision in the end.

BC: Goes to call transcript. You cite to MF the first and last 2 bullet points. There is a 'We' which suggests it is a collective decision.
MA: I used 'we' in a general sense. Not specific
BC: MF talks about how she wouldn't be able to publish blogs on website as a consultant.

MA: She could if working with a VF...
BC: But EM says she wouldn't be able to blog as a consultant. She was wrong about that?
MA: A consultant could do a blog if approved by a senior fellow involved in relevant project.

BC: Policy is clear that its only staff that can write for the blog. Rare for less experienced staff to post under own name, generally a fellow or a senior would publish it under their name

[missed]
BC: refers to another 'we'
MA: I just used 'we' often to refer to CGD in general. I was not aware the call was being recorded o'wise I would have been more precise

BC: Thats revealing. You would have taken care to spin and finesse things rather than speak candidly.
MA: No to avoid ums and ahs and get my pronouns correct.

BC: "Its become an issue when your position has caused distress" Shows that you were looking at first 2 bullets of the TPs?
MA: I agree with that. Except second one where I mentioned [issue with?] first sentence.

BC: So its MF position on sex and gender.
MA: And the expression of it and the stress and harm caused by
BC: the stress and harm the *position* has caused not the expression?

What MP means by position is substantive position.
MA: Thats what he meant but not what I meant.
BC: You say you wanted to achieve a consensus on decision re MF. Not good to move forward w/o consensus among senior fellows. Now you are looking at 3rd bullet point aren't you?

MA: [finds reference] same message
BC: Then you say that it wasn't a decision taken lightly and that *we* ended up where *we* did.

MA: I wanted to take responsibility. I had no idea exact words would be a problem, I said we often.
BC: But clear no evidence of independent thought from you? You stuck with what MP said?
MA: Reflects the discussion we had on Fri when we were both in London.

BC: MF says PC of sex is set out in UK law... seems perverse to decide its unacceptable to talk about
MA: yes
BC: how could CGD justify going against UK law?
MA: I read it more as not being something that fell foul UK law.

BC: She says she cant see a reason for the decision other than expediency. You say we are trying to make a hiring decision?
MA: Yes
BC: Core point you go back to is absence of consensus among SFs?

MA: yes
BC: Then you say you to need to check the legal framework?
MA: Yes I wanted to double check
BC: MF makes more points about what she has been told about lack of consensus. You say it was the views you expressed and the impact and lack of consensus.

The points you are making dont go beyond the TPs from MP. Secondly you were making a decision based on particulars of this case and not extrapolating to general principles?
MA: Yes

BC: So it was the particular views she expressed?
MA: Yes
BC: That tells us what you mean by the term positions. You understood positions and views to be the same thing. And it was the substantive views MF had that was the problem?

MA: My focus was on the reactions and stress this caused
BC: You weren't setting out the views and the expressions of them at all were you? No distinction here.
MA: At that stage I didn't really have a clear understanding of core beliefs vs social media expressions.

BC: You now seek to draw the distinction to wriggle out of liability to MF.
MA: No Im explaining.
BC: At the time you told us you were not distinguishing between views and expression.

MA: I was talking based on what I had and could determine from the views.
BC: Included the statement that at TW is not a W, belief that bio sex is immutable and not changed by GI et al
MA: Correct

BC: You were not drawing a distinction between the core beliefs which QI said were phobic and anything else were you?
MA: They also included 'part-time cross dresser', people who thought TW are W were delusional. The extent of her beliefs wasn't clear to me

BC: But in your evidence now you seek to draw that distinction. So you are not giving a truthful account?
MA: I wasn't getting into at that stage.

BC: Are you now drawing an extinction you didn't have at that time?
MA: I wasn't sure which bits at the time were her core belief

BC: Any expression on this subject was offensive, that was your view then?
MA: No
BC: You told her that her views caused offence and that was why you were not renewing the VF.

You reiterate, that you still have the same lack of consensus. So its the lack of consensus that is the essential factor?
MA: yes
BC: There were clearly sufficient conversations going on for you to form the view that lack of consensus?

MA: Lack of consensus wouldn't be an issue alone.
BC: Where do we find anything by you that the lack of consensus wasn't an issue?
MA: No I said wasn't the only reason.

BC: But with MF you focus on the lack of consensus.
MA: By this point I had the view that the risks were greater that the benefits. If Id had a consensus 2 months earlier, might have been different.

BC: You've never said that before?
MA:[missed]
BC: you then spoke with MF about consultancy on Gates
MA: yes

BC: MF expressed doubt about that being viable. You could see she was upset and said she should think about it. She agreed.
MA: Yes.

EJ suggests ending for today. BC estimates a further 1.5 hrs to examine MA is needed. Thats it until Monday! We appreciate your support in our efforts to bring #openjustice. Have a great weekend everyone - @katie_sok.

@threadreaderapp please unroll