Thread by @tribunaltweets

Apologies for the late start.

BC is questioning Masood Ahmed chair of CGD

BC: [questioning about the history of reasons developed in CGD for ending relationship with MF]

BC: You first endorsed the reason you gave in phone call with MF - that it was her position on sex and gender? THis is the true reason
MA: Read email quickly. Read "positioning" not "position. When Ellen Mackenzie pointed out "position" could be misinterpreted, I agreed.

BC: Where does EM say it could be misinterppretd
MA: the first sentence made me realise there could be different interpretations

BC: THis spin - that it was *how* MF was speaking not what she was saying - was not in your mind at the time was it
MA: I thought it should be clarified

BC: What EM is saying is "don't mention positions". It was not true that no way forward had been agreed. Mr Plant's email is clear that MF *had* been agreeing to suggestions

BC: What we see here is you MA taking up a explanation because you think it will help you not becasue it's true
MA: no

BC: 6 reasons here. "reputional risk". You didn't mention in phone call to MF
MA: no
BC: nor in MP's talking points list
MA: no

BC: This is only based on Comic Relief tweets
MA: Not the only thing in my mind
BC: But you had not even seen them then
MA: I think I knew about them, AG had mentioned them

BC: But AG had only seen the shorter QI report which doesn't mention them
MA: But AG had mentioned reputational risk and I think had mention comic relief, pretty sure

BC: But you said Friday that Comic Relief had leaped out from QI report. Not true is it.
MA: Can't be no but I think I transposed my knowledge ontto the report
BC: You are now transposing your "knowledge" onto AG.
MA: She was person most closely following re stakeholders

BC: I suggest not true. Your statement talks of things that were not in your mind at the time
MA: Not true

BC: This is the problem with proceeding on basis of inadequate investigation. If MF had been asked re Comic Relief she would have been able to tell you she had had later private correspondence with Comic Relief

MA: Did not know that

BC: We see [senior person] at CR thanking her for her thoughtful contributions
MA: yes

BC: We see a CR blog acknowledging the criticism and its importance - re nominating a TW as a famous woman. CR say they encourage all to have their own views. Important continuing conversation say CR

BC: If MF had been told CR was the problem she could have shown you all this
MA: Yes certainly

BC: Reality re reputational risk (which not mentioned to MF at time) is that there had been no adverse reaction at all
MA: I was concerned about the future

BC: No evidence of reputational harm at all, at this point.

[MA's connection has frozen it appears]

EJ: [suggests someone contact MA by phone or something]
OD: [suggests removing MA so he has to rejoin - points out MA probably doesn't have phone on him]

EJ: where is MA physically?
OD: not sure. Will try to message

EJ: MA does appear to have left -

[we all wait]

OD: notes msg in chat saying they are trying to reconnect MA

OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents Centre for Global Development CGD, CGD(Europe) & Masood Ahmed
EJ = Employment judge

[MA rejoins - laptop problem required move to a different room]

BC: There are no tweets on which respondents rely after the Comic Relief ones
MA: no

BC: Mr Plant had notice this and it was why he said MF had modified tweeting behaviour
MA: yes

Please pick up our tweeting here from now on. Apologies for any confusion this morning.

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1505855063922728966?s=20&t=A5bQk9WpCGqX1uXfCWCv5w

BC: [now talking about the suggestion of "proselytising"]
MA [describes how he had looked over MF tweets while in Australia]
BC: what device
MA: ipad

BC: And where did you see the pamphlet MF had brought it
MA: on iPad I think
BC: where from
MA: I think ... if I can remember ... I think I went to the fair play for women website to which claimant response had linked

BC: this is the claimant response: [everyone finds the page]
BC: This was on your iPad screen?
MA: I do
BC: At the time you had it on iPad screen?
MA: as far as I remember

BC: Do you see MF saying there had been wide attempts to shut down debate on this issue?
MA: Yes I noted that
BC: Did you click on the link she put there for evidence of that?
MA: don't recall

BC: Did you click on the links in footnotes, to national and international HR law definitions of "woman"? As a sex?
MA: I did not, I took her word for it

BC: You see she refered to importance of statistics and again gave a link, to UN website, did you click that?
MA: No, not what I was focussed on
BC: Did you click on links to CGD's own site re importance of statistics on sex?
MA: I did not no

BC: Did you click on link to EHRC website on sex/gender reassignment in UK law?
MA: don't recall doing that no
BC: How many did you click on from this document?
MA: two or three I think?

BC: And you just happened to pick the 17th footnote on the 4th page to click on?

MA: It was because of the text in her response - describing what she had been doing, so yes I did click on that, and by then I was aware of FPFW as organisation bcs associated with the video that Cindy Huang had brought to SPG meeting

BC: You said Friday you read this respnose from MF after the QI report and were not trying to understand her points at that time. Not credible in that light that you just happened to click footnote 17

MA: It was already in my mind because of the vidoeo, which was disturbing

BC: Here is the pamphlet. You didn't take the trouble, nobody did, to find outwhether bringing material like this into the London office was common
MA: Not at the time and my understanding now that it wsa not

BC: Did you understand it was campaignign materail re a live debate in UK
MA: yes but did not change my view
BC: was your objection just that you don't think campaign materials should be brought in?

MA: I didn't think a leaflet of this nature should be brought in. In street I could say "go away leave me alone" but in the office would put me in a more difficult position

BC: Leaflet goes through a government consultation and (in campaigning fasgion) suggests answers.
MA: yes
BC: No suggestions are transphobic or stupid?
MA: Depends how you read them. Offensive. Not appropriate for workplace

BC: What's offensive?
MA: Page by page?
BC: Just tell me most offensive thing
MA: would have to re-read

BC: there are 2 questions. One is, whether offensive and the other is, whether normal to bring to office. You didn't investigate the latter?
MA: Can't say on that no but I think other people may have indicated otherwise

BC: I asked you what was most offensive and you chose this page? [re predatory men]
MA: That is not how I approached it at the time, it was the whole thing was offensive

BC: Leaflet suggests there could be harms from making single sex spaces open to TW
MA: yes
BC: you can see at top of page the point is made this is a Q the government consultation is asking?
MA: yes

BC: And it says govt is not proposing removing the single sex spaces and will keep possibility of excludeing TW?
MA: yes

BC: You didn't read the leaflet that carefully did you Mr Ahmed?
MA; I was reading from PoV suitablility for work etc

BC: Did you understand that point is being made that if self-ID introduced it makes managing of single sex spaces harder?
MA: I understood that yes

BC: And in the remainder of the pamphlet, what is offensice?

[pause while MA reads the pamphlet]

MA: These 2 pages I find offensive. Here is implication that single sex service providers would find hard to do job - fearmongering.

MA: And here - implication is that somehow will lead to more instances of women and girls born into their bodies exposed to trans people, it's offensive

BC: Why is it offensive for women campaigning on this matter to say that they feel their privacy and dignity is impacted if they have to share their spaces with male bodied people?

MA: Offensive is that arguing allowing people to self-identify would increase discomfort and threat for ciswomen. I find it offensive. Would have been OK outside but not OK in the office among colleagues, puts them in awkward situation

BC: You say it's not offensive for women and girls to be feeling under pressure about sharing spaces with male bodied people, but not OK to campaign about that.

EJ: I understood the response to be that it was the suggestion of increased risk/discomfort was offensive

BC: I'll rephrase. You acknowledged that women and girls might feel that discomfort, but seem to be saying it's not OK to campaign about that?

MA: It's offensive to suggest that self-id for TW would increase that.

BC: Do you understand that one risk being identified is not of TW attacking anyone? It's of undermining privacy and dignity of itslef?
MA: yes one risk mentioned was that

BC: You might find them offensive, but they are perfectly legitimate campaigning material? And legitimate in context of London office?

MA: I had not seen anything in terms of campaigning as polarising as this. I can't speak for London office very much as had not spent much time there

BC: The polarising is the real reason wasn't it
MA: I had to get senior staff attention back to their work and repair relationships.

BC: You refer (re VF renewal possibility) in your statement that it would have been an act of commission. (You don't quite say 'sin').
BC: You mean that would be the act and default should be not to renew,
MA: Yes, as it had already lapsed

BC: So you are saying the active decision - renewal - needs consensus. You are making it a collective decision not your?
MA: Don't agree but carry on

BC: and you are handing a veto to those opposing the renewal, because relying on consensus
MA: No, I have made many decisions without consensus.
BC: not interested in other decisions, only this one

BC: In this instance your approach was that there *must* be consensus and therefore you are offering veto to her opponents
MA: No that is not what it means. Often aim for consensus but can override

BC: Friday you said decision would have been the same regardless of consensus because of risk of repeat.
MA: Think I said, even if there was reluctant consensus, at that point I would still have paused and probably come to same decision.

BC: It's about your view of risk of the issue cropping up again.
BC: For which you had no evidence. No factual basis.
MA: Had to make judgment on balance of risks. Right that no factual evidence of it happening. My role to look ahead. Risks to organisation.

BC: You can't point to evidence because it wasn't really a factor in your mind.
MA: I didn't mention to claimant at the time because I wanted to stick to just a couple of points and discuss way forward

BC: EM and others at this point had told you they would not change their minds, and this was a group decision driven by the opposition of those people
MA: Certainly the lack of consensus and degree of fractured relationships was in my mind. But wd not have been enough on own.

BC: MF emailed you asking to confirm her understanding of conversation. She is alleging she had been turned down for VF because she thinks sex and gender identify different. You understood this?
MA: yes

BC: You suspect she is feeling litigious? and EM suggests lawyers take over?
MA: yes
BC: upshot is you sent this email?

MA: yes
BC: Attitude behind sending this was "send it, see what happens", Mr Plant mentions this?
MA: That's what Mr Plant says yes

BC: Clear understanding among you and colleagues that this email makes any future relationship impossible?
MA: disagree. Was considering consultancy. No way was this telling MP not to continue conversations on that and he had said earlier he was.

BC: You would not have thanked MF for contributions to CGD and CGDE. You would have said "thank you for yourpast contributions and looking forward to future consultancy".
MA: COuld have said that but, legal advice, felt it best to send as did.

BC: report to CGDEurope directors, this is about 2016
MA: yes
BC: says board of trustees delegates management to SPG. Always the case that managment structures integrated in your time with organisation

MA: Less structured than that, hence ongoing process, AG not appointed to joint role until 2019. Wasn't until lat 2017 I understood set-up, 2018 we were working on it, didn't get to current integrated state until well into 2019

BC: November 2017, CCDEurope board, presumably true?
MA: am sure
BC: says CGDE operates "one CGD" - that was the actual position?
MA: Was basic principle but not applied completely consistently yet

BC: Principle was, one single international think tank
MA: Yes
BC: Full integration of management structures already in place
MA: Not completely. eg 2017 a funder told me they had clashing proposals from CGD and CGDE. I took seriously

BC: So mistakes happen sure. But, by Nov 2017 you had been pushing for unifieid managment structure
MA: was aware
BC: CGDE reported to SPG
MA: to president
BC: SPG included London and DC members
MA: yes

BC: strategic decisions taken globally as far as possilble
MA: yes
BC: by Nov 2017 unified operations very much advanced
MA: disagree. It was less integrated than I wanted and than it is now

EJ: intervenes to ask about timing
BC: 3 topics left, none long
EJ: in minutes?
BC: around 20
EJ: THen we will take 10 minute break. Remind MA not to communicate about case during the break

[There is suddenly a lot of communication problems}
EJ: reiterates - 20 minute break
[BREAK]

[Sorry - typo, it's a 10 minute break not 20, and the court will be resuming shortly]

[We resume]
EJ [checks presence of the other 2 panel members]
EJ: please mute and turn off cameras, if you have to rejoin plese remember again
EJ: reporting restrictions re comlainants 1-4

BC: Board meeting minutes - true and accuracte?
MA: yes
BC: We see "one CGD" described as in operation and later we see bullets: says one CGD has worked well - some glitches but that CGDE overall has seamlessly remained part of the global operation

BC: You are putting a different spin on things now bcs youi think it will help your case now
MA: disagree

BC: look at CGD grounds of resistance, you read and approved, says CGD and CGDE operate as separate organisations. THis is incomplete and misleading on any view, because of one CGD principle?

MA: separate boards of trustees, separate legal structures
BC: I am talking about operations. So is the grounds of resistance. Not accurate, not complete
MA: Accurate. We could have gone on to talk about one CGD

BC: Would have been accurate if it had said "one CGD" with a few variations.
MA: Disagree, different structures
BC: you are spinning
MA: disagree

BC: not aware of the fundraising around MF's tax and flows work until late in process?
MA: Correct re Gates grant but had been aware of some earlier

BC: Feb 2018 discussion re MF being staff member. You see it talks about fundraising for the tax & illicit flows work and you approve of this in that context?
MA: Yes I agreed she should stay as VF and we should look for funding

BC: You knew tax & illicit flows had been strategic for CGD for some years?
MA: yes
BC: this was a positive conversation from you re revising staff position in the future

MA: yes I was positive about MF's work on it, but saying that after looking at her resume she needs to broaden work but yes positive re her existing work

BC: and she broadened her work, did stuff on commecial confidnetiality
MA: yes a few more years she would have been credible candidate

BC: 3 March email from Mr Barder. He says he wd like to bring claimant on to CGD staff
MA: yes
BC: a couple of weeks after the discussion we looked at before. Based on positives from you?
MA: No. Not on this email. Not aware. Didn't discuss with Mr Barder

BC: THis is your email to Mr Barder. Yes you talk of limits to engagment timewise, but that is in context of funding coming.
MA: yes
BC: Then you & OB talk of releasing funds for work for MF meanwhile

MA: [details of projects]

BC: engagement of claimant was depending on funding and work available
MA: this was just a conversation about London budgetting and it came up

BC: October 2018. EM emails you after discussion of claimant tweets saying you might want to heads-up Mark Plant, there has been discussion of DFiD funding. THere had been convo with EM re claimaint's future

MA: I had talked to Mr Plant but don't recall with EM, perhaps they spoke to each other

BC: EM is talking about removing MF from Gates grants
MA: no only about DFiD
BC: Email here (not to you) EM urging removal from Gates grant. Reflects what you had discussed with EM
MA: no. We had discussion about a different person and different funding

MA: Thing about MF coming off grant is related to the other thing EM and I had been talking about

BC: email from Mr Easley in October saying you are leaning towards not renewing. You had been discussing with him too.
MA: No. I am saying that I'm not ready to renew because of lots of discussions going on. Was not going to be rushed just because VF expiring that day

BC: Mr Plant emails after convo with you, you had said you didn't want to push for DFiD funding etc because you didn't think claimant should be working on that.
MA: No. In convo I said he needed to pause so that we wouldn't aggravate things if we didn't renew, and he said OK

MA: And we had also discussed there not being a long term future in that area of topic. But I can see how he is presenting it.
BC: He was being truthful, and at the time you fed him a line not the real reason. MF beliefs were your real reason.
MA: I disagree

MA: Subsequently talked to Mr Plant along the same lines, in my statement, I say I thought he and I were on same page

BC: You and Mr Plant email. You are trying to get Gates to give you pretext for your message, your internal purposes. You are not saying you want to reposition, and will discuss with Gates. Other way round: want to get rid of MF and will seek to get Gates to back up

MA: not at all. When EM objected re consultant I said I was happy with MF as consultant. That's why we went to SPG

BC: Mr Plant says the possibility of redirecting the grant had not happened, so plan was abandoned. But up to that point it is what you were trying to do.
MA: No I was quite happy for her to continue to work

BC: Reality is that because of MFs expression of her belief and the reaction of EM and others, you had sought with them to redirect funding and take MF off grant
MA: not the case

BC: You knew MF had been giving impression would be taken on as employee and had been fundraising for that, and you had previously supported
MA: No was supportive of project

BC: Email from EM (not to you) she says as of 17/12 terminating MF's email and VF until resolved
MA: yes
BC: You then CCd in and you say while it's being addressed should not be action prejudicing issue
MA: yes

BC: You well understood there had been a decision *not* to terminate the VF
MA: yes until we decided 1 way or the other

BC: Grounds of resistance, you approved, says MF did not have any affiliation or relationship then - misleading spin, even flatly untrue
MA: No, accurate, in formal sense contract had expired, I just did not want to act either way or make it harder to either continue or terminate

BC: My final Q and last chance to come clean. You said from 1/1/2019 MF had no affiliation or relationship with CGD or CGDE. [Lists email, website etc]
BC: not true is it
MA: Accurate to say no formal, also to say we allowed her some privileges
BC: Those are all my questions.

EJ: Does panel member 1 have any Qs
P1: no
EJ: P2?
P2: no
EJ: nor me

[OD begins closing que3stions]
OD: did you watch Luke Easley's evidence. He said many operations separate. You agree?
MA: yes that's my understanding

OD: You talk of risks outweighing benefits. You say if there had been consensus 2 months earlier might have been different. Did you mean the SPG december meeting?
MA: yes

OD: What changed beetween Dec and Feb re moving forward?
MA: I was more aware of the risks than in Dec. Understood more about the risks of claimant's strong engagement. And that we had already invested too much time and trouble

MA: Had to repair relationships in leadership team. Even with "reluctant consensus" I could foresee all kinds of future problems. Had to make management decision.

OD: the video is mentioned by Cindy Huang on 7 December. Did you learn of the vidoe then?
MA: [I have missed answer]

OD: There were convos on Slack. We see discussion re pamphlet, claimant and others discussion. Is this when you became aware of it or was it earlier?
MA: Can't say with certainty but I had not actively noticed re pamphlet before

OD: Between Dec and Feb. You said more aware of risk etc. What led you to being more aware?
MA: I read the QI reports and MF response. I think the response, along with, later, final email she sent, showed me she felt v strongly & felt we should discuss. All led me to decision

OD: will check with solicitors - 1 minute please
OD: No more questions

EJ: releases MA.

EJ: all evidence complete.
EJ: barrister submissions. We have not discussed timings and time limits. You have the rest of today to prepare. We suggested 3 hours each?

BC: OD & I have conferred, our preference would be to have clear working day for written subs, so would like to start after lunch tomorrow, and yes we would like 3 hours each though will do our best to economise, takes us to Wed lunch, that eats into your deliberation time

EJ: Panel has also discussed, that very nearly works, we had worked back and said submissions must be complete by Weds lunch. Not quite 6 hours as the court time is 5.5 hours less breaks. But yes it more or less works.
EJ: So we will resume oral hearing tomorrow afternoon.

EJ Can I check this is OK with P1 and P2?
P1 & P2: both happy. We will get written submissions in the morning?
OD: We hope to exchange 12/12.30 tomorrow. So *some* reaading time

EJ: And we will have them to refer back to, so that is probably OK to have them a little while before oral submissions.

EJ: [has lost Anya Palmer]

BC: We think this is about email -
AP: yes
BC: We have disclosed one more doc for the bundle, as last page, re the video

EJ: Only I have that. Any objection Ms Dobbie?
OD: Can't see relevance but no objection. Also there is a doc for us to add as it was referred to re Ms Glassman

EJ: Will make written submissions available in the bundle we make public online. Resume 2pm tomorrow.

[ENDS]

@threadreaderapp please unroll