Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good afternoon. We shall be tweeting the afternoon hearing in the first day of Maya Forstater's remedy hearing v CGD and others.

Our page on this round of the case: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/maya-forstat…

The session is due to begin at 2pm.

MF = Maya Forstater – Claimant
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for MF
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC

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
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents

EJ = Employment Judge Glennie, leading the three-person panel hearing the case.
Panel = any one of the three members

There will be two witnesses giving evidence: Maya Forstater (the claimant) and Patsy Mills, Director for HR & Operations at CGD (the respondents)

[We begin]

J: we have completed our reading. What has been decided on redactions etc?

BC: We have consensus - in oral sessions and our submissions we shall use ciphers, but we've agreed it is not practical to further redact the bundle. We think this is best balance.

BC: Court should have list of ciphers in a spreadsheet?

J: No ... was that today?

BC: Yesterday evening - also it's the appendix to Ms Mill's statement.

J: No we don't have, please re-send so we have it when we need it

BC: Of course.

J: We are OK to continue then?
BC: Yes
OD: yes

J: Ms Forstater, oath or affirm?
MF: Affirm please
[MF affirms evidence]

BC: [page ref in bundle] This is first page of your statement for this hearing? Correct address?

MF: Yes

BC: Full name?
MF Maya Forstater

BC: You signed 17/3?
MF: yes
BC: Have re-read?
MF: yes
BC: True?
MF: Yes

BC: Turn to PM witness statement, para 33. Refers to a funding amount, c £13500, says they did not take it up. Could you give us your recollections re this?

MF: Was final grant tranche for that piece of work; we had discussed budget with them, they were happy to go ahead with it. Working group project led by me and Charles; outreach would be re relationships built during that. We were ready to go ahead.

MF: Can only assume that after I left CGD were too embsarrassed to take it up, because of those relationships.

BC: Reference here to dissattisfaction with earlier stages of project?
MF: Yes before I joined it, project had stalled and CGD were not delivering, so Owen suggested that I be switched in, and that moved things forward and they were happier

BC: Was earlier unhappiness impacting on this last bit of funding?
MF: No I don't think so. There are notes about how pleased they were with the way I was moving project onwards.

BC: see email from Charles Kenny to Laura Bacon at Luminate
MF: Yes she was their project manager
BC: 5/2/2019 talks of budget and timing and some discussions. Fit with your recollection?

MF: Yes we had had a call about project content and Laura had asked for a detailed budget which were were progressing, finishing it off

BC: any suggestion of not funding?
MF: not at all

BC: You didn't see this at the time but have more recently?
MF: Yes
BC: Email to Ms Bacon and another Luminate recipient, about your departure. What do you take from that?
OD: Inviting speculation.
BC: OK

J: We will in any case read it. [they do so]

BC: Back to Ms Mills' statement.
BC: She says para 39-40 3 things: says you would at most ever have been senior policy analyst?

MF: First time I had ever seen that suggestion and I was very insulted. It is not in fact a senior role - it's for someone maybe only a few years out of uni. A junior/mid level researcher role.

BC: How does that compare to visiting fellow role?
MF: VFs not necessarily employed, but same status as fellows - originators of work, senior role.

BC: PM also says your work on commercial confidentiality had not been "substantial", do you agree.
MF: No. I co-led a working group - a core way of CGD working, considered serious and substantial. Resulted in published work.

MF: Recently CGD published an impact case study, it's in the bundle, about open government which is where the confidientiality work had sat, and they say it's a significant piece of work.

BC: And PM says your core knowledge was limited to international tax, is that right?
MF: No. I had been working in international development for over 20 years but only started looking at tax in 2015/2016. Was 3 or 4 years only, before Q of CGD fellowship came up.

MF: I had worked in international development especially in private / public finance policy, these are all areas CGD works in. Climate-related policy. I have a much broader CV than tax.

BC: And finally if we look at these pages - you've listed various areas of your work, could you from these pages pick out a few areas of work and seniority?

MF: So these are tax-related, but this next one is a financially sustainable investment strategy for developing countries, core CGD area. I led a small secretariat, a working group of high level people. I led the research and the writing. Commissioned pieces, edited them.

MF: Was a major project - IMF launch.

MF: And this is a South Africa renewables project here. Collaboration UK/Denmark/Norway/SA government. Pay-by-performance clean energy project. High level contacts on all sides.

MF: Had to commission economic modelling, and communicate it to politicians

BC: Thank you;. Over to Ms Dobbie

OD: Here we have a convo between you and a friend, you say you're very fed up, may give up on CGD. You say, in a slump.

OD: This is all before you were told not being taken on as CGD employee.

MF: Yes

OD: And Mr Plant told you it was partly because of tweets, and hostility from Washington.
MF: Yes
OD: And he said focus on London projects eg Gates
MF: Yes re London, but Gates was not London-only

OD: Here we see again, concentrate on London and Gates half time, that's what was said?
MF: Yes
OD: And by Christmas get Gates tied up, to stay as visiting fellow?
MF: Yes

OD: Para 15 of your statement you say you felt you had no choice but to stay.
OD: Your only current work then was the confidentiality one, due to end December, 10 days a month?

MF: Yes

OD: You still had other clients at this time
MF: Yes
OD: Mr Plant encouraged you to look for other work, you didn't do that?

MF: I had been told by Mr Plant that when Gates grant came in I would be employed, so when it did come in but without mention of me I was shocked and surprised -
OD: Not answering the Q?
MF: Trying to explain why not - stuff about my tweets was also coming up, that was my focus.

OD: But you didn't look for work outside CGD?
MF: Other than March -
OD: I mean November/December
MF: Then no.

OD: Para 131 -
MF: Page?
OD: Ah - I have paper version - can BC give page number?
[it is worked out]

OD: You say on 5/2 you were contacted on LinkedIn by IMC
MF: Yes
OD: If you were so very crushed about not being taken on and being told to look elsewhere, why were you not more proactive in looking?
When did you start looking?

MF: Well, towards the time relationship was completely breaking down, in March

OD: Back to convo with friend.
OD: She asks what happened, and you say, got Gates grant, and that you will be continuing as VF part time. That was how you felt?

MF: No, I was putting on good face. Was feeling I should have got contract sorted. Very much putting on face, to get Gates done.
MF: At this point I didn't even know what wsa going on in Washington.

OD: This is a close friend, you have been open to her before, but this message here is much more moderate? In terms of emotion
MF: As I say, was trying to pick up and carry on, from feeling depressed and picked on.

MF: Prospect of job had been pulled away November, but, I had to just carry on, brave face.
OD: Xmas party 29/11?
MF: Yes
OD: Good relations with london colleagues still?
MF: Yes

OD: And when conversation with Mr Plant that you should stop VF role, you still wanted to carry on? In February?
MF: Yes, we had discussion and at the end he said he was not going to put forward VF renewal?

OD: But you carried on trying to renew?
MF: Yes. My understanding was that was how it worked - that I should put my case to the SPG. Owen had said to do this. So I said to Mark to put to SPG.

OD: Here we see email to Mr Plant after that, you apologise for being upset and leaving meeting, you say VF important to you. You say "internal belonging" - you still had sense of that?

MF: Yes. I had not seen any of the emails about me, all I had was Mark mentioning "it's about the tweets" but I didn't know what was being said. Nobody was saying "she's a bigot" actually to me.

OD: You knew this would be last year, that they do 3 year terms?
MF: Yes Mark said to do 1 year VF and then be a non-resident fellow. It was not a good deal but I didn't think at that point I had any rights at all.

OD: What is non resident fellow.
MF: Don't know if they still do it. I think NRF is more sort of arms length.
OD: You have not mentioned before.
MF: I did in a witness statement but nobody asked about it.

OD: Back to. You were told Gates half time. You have not said re NRF.
MF: It was said
OD: BC can take you to it am sure later.

OD: So here we see talk of discussions which did lead to a contact talk, this is you starting to build up other work?

MF: I had been aiming for an employment contract at 90% which would be full time with my 1 other project. Mark then said 50% Gates. So I thought I should talk to IMC

OD: Because you would have walked away from Gates if no VF?

MF: It was because I needed to pay the rent. I was pursuing the VF, half time, because that is what had been promised.

OD: And with other work elsewhere?
MF: Yes

OD: Would you have continued as consultant at CGD, without VG?
MF: No, I said at the time, to MP and MA. The Gates work was not such that could be delivered by email. Core institutional piece of work, could not be done as consultant, and not worth it.

OD: Then you talked to Masood Ahmed in Feb. You did not decide on the spot to leave. MA encouraged you to remain on Gates.
MF: Yes. He asked me to think about that and I said I would.

OD: In your original witness statement. [BC looks up page number]
OD: Para 424. You talk of then getting MA email, which you quote at 422. You say, your mind not made up, but then decision taken out of your hand.

OD: Your evidence was you had not then decided to leave?
MF: Yes I said to MA I would consider offer, and I was considering it. And implications for me.

OD: And in latest statement. Para 130. You say you decided, at the time, you realised CGD attitudes would have made consultant role impossible. Inconstent surely?

MF: Yes, as consultant. I had discussed that with MA and he did not have any answer to my points, he said he'd think about what I had said. So I then drafted long email - I set out how I was feeling.

MF: Ended up not sending the whole thing but set out my concerns, that I could not work at CGD as a consultant in that way.

OD: Going a bit off piste.
MF: Trying to tell you what I was thinking.

OD: You said at first hearing you had *not* decided to leave. But now you are saying you had.
MF: Am saying that *if only consultancy offered* instead of VF, I would have to leave, and I asked MA to clarify, and he didn't.
MF: Was waiting for his answer so that I could decide.

MF: And I got no answers - just that short email.
MF: Was trying to get all the information I would need, to decide, and that email meant clear no VF, and that my beliefs abhorrent and not WORIADS.

OD: So if MA had said, you can still blog, organise events, have colleagues, would that have worked for you?
MF: I don't know. I thought I had raised during the call that, perhaps not discrimination, but that I needed MA to think about what I was saying and wehther CGD offer fair

OD: I ask again, if MA had offered privileges, would you have stayed?
MF: I don't think so. Being told I am not welcome, and that my views not acceptable, that people calling me bigot - made it impossible.

MF: VF is Q of whether CGD felt I was worthy to associate with, or not.
OD: To clarify, MA was going to come back to you on points re eg blogging, but now you are saying decision made so why did you need those answeres

MF: This was the first time I had talked to MA. I had summarised my views re sex binary etc. First time he had heard it. I thought he would consider what CGD were doing, in the light of what I actually think. I thought they might think again.

MF: You can see my thoughts in the draft to Gita, which is from that time.

OD: if they had offered VF would you have stayed?
MF: I don't know.

OD: Now in new statement. Para 25 you say all the decisions re VF etc, you lost sleep, could not exercise, could not pick self up.

OD: So it's in March you are in touch with ICTD re Gates, and on 5/3 you contact re a DfEd project.
MF: that was in response to IMC.
OD: And you talk to Gates re possible funding re-routing.

OD: And you are still trying to publish sex and gender article?
MF: Yes. Self published as a blog in the end.

OD: And you blogged about troubles with CGD, and you tweeted you had lost your job.
MF: That is the same article. That is the blog I had discussed with CGD earlier. It's the same one.

OD: 10/3 you went to Million Women Rise?
MF: Hang on - you raised this page - this is crowdfunder launch, in May.
OD: Million Women Rise then you went to Slater Gordon -
MF: No, no solicitor at that point. I had informal advice but no solicitor when I raised claim

OD: And later in March, and April, we see lots of activity - articles, interviews, crowdfunder. Put it to you that you were not withdrawn, you were actively planning future.

MF: Had to bring claim quickly to avoid being out of time.

OD: Point is, all this is planning for the future.
MF: Yes. Had to plan litigation, had to plan to work, needed income. But.

MF: But I had lost opportunity with CGD, had been working towards, was feeling very crushed. Million Women Rise was about getting support from other women.

OD: and re victimisation, removal from website. You say, very upsetting. In your original statement [BC gives page no] though, you say it was CGD dissociating, detrimental to repuation. You don't say you felt hurt, because it's not significant is it.

MF: Yes it was significant. My work was still up on website and I was starting to try to think about rebuilding my work. And then suddenly all my years of work get removed. Removed me from networks.

OD: Not deleted though. Just removed the page bringing it all together.
MF: Yes - the overview removed. And happening at the same time as CGD removing personal links to me. I was being cut off.

J: [intervenes] we will take a 10 minute break. MF you remain under oath'

MF: Yes.

[BREAK]

[COURT RESUMES]

J: Let's continue
OD: we left off with u saying ppl were talking negatively about you. Please turn to your remedy statement. U say here 'ppl told colleague in sector'. U give 2 examples

OD: Para 39 u conclude 'you don't know how many received messages'. These are only negative statements made?
MF: those private messages sent to me
OD: para 34. Msg from Amanda Glassman to Jonathan Glennie . 'Offered follow contract she declined...'

Ref to deleted tweet with details about genitals u find offensive
MF: it's a lie
OD: but u tweeted about people genitals
MF: it's untrue. I did not take down Tweets that were disrespectful about people genitals. That was a lie spread by CGD
OD: you don't have any others

MF: a private message which is why I don't know how many others there were
OD: we can see msg from JG, u quote reply from MC and its private and he didn't intend to be public?
MF: no u can see what it was. A private comment to a professional contact

MF: its a message about people should be able to talk about this issue when if launched my case.
J: while we're getting there forgive me while I shut the door to my room
[He does so] 2013.
OD: this is a public tweet by JG tagging in CGD promoting your story
MF:that I lost my job

OD: we can read the title
MF: i didnt write the title
OD: he was tweeting ur story and same situ with Paddy Carter and as a result that's why CGD contacted him to tell him facts were wrong.
MF: not sure what's in bundle
OD: he'd also tweeted your narrative

MF: not sure what he said
ID: he said you were fired [reads tweet] that was the only thing they corrected. Something further?
MF: he said he felt cowed and unable to tweet about it anymore. I hadn't said I'd been fired I said I'd lost my job

OD: u said other orgs had been cold with you
MF: yes
OD: are u saying that's result of private messages and unknown statements?
MF: ppl stopped reply to my emails. People I had working relationships with just stopped replying
OD: no evidence?
MF: no

OD: and you kept receiving contracts of work?
MF: IMC case before this and not in area of tax, other than that no offers
OD: perfectly possible if anyone did go cold on you and no evidence it could have been their own response to ur media activities
MF: I'd launched my case

OD: could be your Tweets?
MF: could be.

OD: Now u referenced avenues of funding in ur statement. Para 86. U quote a para from the Hewlet proposal. Fair to say the ref to tax is small para
MF: it's a 3 million dollar grant
OD: your work on tax was one bullet point

MF: many topics and mine was one of those
OD: the proposals were just indications of money
MF: yes
OD: wasn't binding
MF: not between CGD and Hewlett but indicated what they were intending to do. Overall description were things CGD intending to do including my work

OD: take you to a proposal about scope of Hewlet funding. Final para 'I hope I've got that right...need additional funds...'
MF: or alternatively give CGD lump some
OD: so not intending the lump sum. It hadn't been agreed?
MF: proposal not written at this point.

MF: Hewlet recognised my work was important and they wanted to support it.
OD: Cont with email we can see convo here. 'Arnt keen for separate proposal..speak to Amanda about fund allocation'. We can see 'this isn't great news for us'

OD: [reads] convo proceeding that funds aren't covering ur work
MF: in January yes but then 'work will be lead by MF' it's very explicit. The convo moves around until finalised.
OD: 698 is very generic. No commitment to fund partic projects

MF: no more generic than other bits of proposal then named people. Outline of work I was planning 'work will be lead by MF'
OD: noone had said this will amount for how many days of your time?

MF: that's now how...once employed as staff member the fact that different grants for ur salary. Once employed on salary its not like doing pieces of consultancy
OD: no funds to cover?

MF: CGD employ ppl with fully or not restricted funds. Mark said once commitment of 50% funding we can discuss 90% employment role. That's what I was expecting. I was discussing with Mark and Amanda and fundraising staff.
OD: only funding u refer to is Gates foundation & Omigron

OD: u don't mention hewlet.
MF: no that's because it was after Mark said weren't funding me. I understood they'd already changed their minds. Wasn't November it was October. Removed funding from me

By the time I was writing to them from Mark that gates foundation only thing on table
OD: let's focus on Diffids. Email 30th Oct.
MF: running out of battery. One second.

OD: all set
MF: yes
OD: page 1236. Diffid email with [says name]
. '[Reads] Open to discussing to pitch.'
MF: that's a name that's redacted. For ppl listening. Shouldn't be on tribunal tweets
OD: I've not been given redacted bundle.

[Missed]

OD: [reads] u refer to work beyond gates grant following your departure.
MF: yes
OD: that's from MP30 from plant?
MF: yes
OD: tax on different countries?
MF: [reads]
OD: that's what Mark plant suggested? One paper
MF: yes

MF: I don't know the named people on the grant
OD: that's the only bit of tax work by CGD since you've left
MF: no theres been several, they've done dozens of events
OD: Miss Mills evidence this was only paper. Ur saying not true?
MF: several tax papers on website

OD: [missed] that work wasn't followed through. You don't know reasons why?
MF: no just that piece of work was led by Charles and myself and in late stages with Laura bacon about outreach at the point I left and was removed and project didn't go further.

OD: referring to your convo with Mark plant, 50% secured. Correct at 50% DISCUSSED?
MF: that's what email says but all convis on the basis I'd be employed as staff. The idea that would have meant one year as visiting fellow and 1 year as resident fellow.

Wasn't attractive proposal and wouldn't have accepted putting this together. That wasn't on the table. It was that I'd be a member of staff.
OD: we can see what time commitment over next 2 years [reads] and reply [reads] and Mark plant replies [reads]

OD: Fair to say in this convo this was first time u discussed fractions of ur contract?
MF: yes
OD: u say ur confident CGD will want u full time. U have nothing to base that on?
MF: contact note that'd been commented on by Mark and Amanda is full time and that was overall convo

MF: that was not a part time concept note.
OD: noone had ever said they'd want u on a full time contract
MF: most ppl at CGD are on full time contracts. The concept note was for a fellows piece of work and being employed as staff member
OD: noone said they wanted u full time?

MF: they asked me to write a concept note
OD: noone said we'd like you full time
MF: no i said I want to complete this piece of work
OD: it gates proposal it talks about 25% benefits bit didn't get that
MF: what I understand and I was listed as personel. I don't know.

[Missed]
OD: agreements with Gates don't bind CGD to pay specific ppl. It's an agreement for work?
Mf: yes but sold on basis of ppl and their skills and CVs. Risk section and nowhere does it say we might not employ these people. People expected to be employed if name in proposal

That they'd be person delivering it.
OD: wasn't recinded was it
MF: once signed over CGD manage money as they see fit.
OD: when u first discussed employment it was research associate
MF: very early on yes

ID: discussed qualification with Vajaya. U didn't know u needed masters or PHD
MF: no...when Vajaya said research associate I wasn't aware of CGD employment structure at that point.

OD: we see on 15th Feb, page 631, she said [reads 'research fellow if possible' reads] it's clear she's upwelling you. Saying u could if possible get role as research fellow
MF: don't think it's upselling me

OD: u hadn't sent ur cv yet had you?
MF: I sent it to her previously I think relation to visiting fellow

(Missed)

OD: [reads] 'had convo with masood', he'd seen ur CV and wanted to see more breadth in that cv before appointing u to staff. He didn't suggest appointing u at that point?
MF: no

OD: [reads Mason's emails] a comment on your lack of breadth of work?
MF: no that's about breadth outside of tax and problems in international org about tax and finding positive ways forward. That wasn't about breadth it was about direction

OD: can see in the context of working in confidentiality working group [reads]. I'm taking u through this bc in your new statement you say who has seen ur cv. I suggest masood didn't see you in the running?
MF: he's talking about finances being liberated

MF: we were fundraising for staff and longer term role. The Diffid one wasn't as far down the line. Then it was mastodon who said stop fundraising for maya.
ID: [reads email from MA] your relying on this?
NF: and the fact I was in Gates project under personnel

OD: we've heard what they understood at the time. If u basis Masood
MF: I don't think CGD would list someone under personnel if they didn't intend to employ me as personnel.

OD: but your relying on this email and triangulation it with Gates grant?
MF: we were continuing to raise funds with intention of employement

OD: I'll ask one last time. Just want to be clear what you base ur statement on. This is what masood had indicated to you the role?
(Missed)
OD: not going to ask you again. You had not discussed the title?
MF:the last convo with Vajaya was fellow and not discussed title with mark

(Missed)
OD: every single one of the people u referenced have masters degrees?
MF: yes
OD: u say real life experience is more than masters
Mf: no I say 20 years
OD: sorry didn't mean to undermine

OD: u say equivalent to masters
NF: masters isn't a professional qualification and u can see in CGD documents that u need masters and 3 or 5 years experience so it's worth about 2 years experience
OD: employers are allowed to ask for qualifications I'm going to move on

OD: they had experience as well as a masters
MF: yes
OD: you say 20+ years
MF: 23 when counted
OD: at the time u say 15 years in your CV
MF: yes
OD: so maybe 16 years experience

OD: returning to.work opps post CGD and u think not many because of Respondents. That's ur case?
MF: yes
OD: when u tried to take grant to another organisation, vishal said you couldn't.

He said he wanted to help fund you.
MF: yes
OD: invited u to apply for new ventures grant?
MF: yes he said I could if a different institutional home.
OD: and u did apply for that
MF: No
OD: Why?
MF: couldn't secure another institutional home

OD: 284 please.
MF: this is something quite different. Nothing to do with Gates.
OD: so u didn't bother to apply for that?
MF: it wasn't that I didn't bother, it was that the institution said no.
ID: and this is a grant u did apply for

OD: [reads] you say 'currently claimant in a case and lost job for sating sex is binary and important'. Scroll to 2786.
MF: no
BC: where was this?
MF: no that's American time
OD: 5th Oct you're saying the projects u wanted funded

MF: this when I was starting to think about sex matters. Nothing to do with tax and in 2019 after the thing with ICTD and ODI. After I realised I'd not work in tax field. This is unrelated.
OD: not sure how long u need to go
J: how long left

OD: 10 of 13 pages
J: must finish early in morning
OD: says ur writing a book about clarifying law on sex and gender
MF: yes
OD: interested since summer 2017
MF: yes
OD: tweeted about it in 2018
MF: yes
OD: attended marches and event about topic?
MF: yes
OD: and canvassed CGD

OD: u published on it?
MF: after I lost my job
OD: u tweeted about kathleen stock?
MF: yes
OD: u set up private twitter account
MF: yes tried to make separate persona than that of of CGD

OD: in 2019 before MA decision on fellowship you made it clear you'd continue on this topic
MF: outside CGD
OD: wasn't suggesting in CGD. Page 209, this is email 2019 and u submitted a piece to newspaper on sex and gender?
MF: yes

OD: we know may 2029 u did interviews for The Times, Spectator and bbc
MF: all relation to crowdfunder for this case
OD: then u decided ur future relied on launching career on that area?
MF: no just to see if there was interest
OD: good time to stop.

J: 15 mins will have to be it tomorrow
BC: I wonder if we can start at 9.30 to try make up time?
J: tempted to say what time? [They laugh] it's somewhat difficult as I have other duties. They do tend to become critical at 9.30.

J: I'm afraid if we do say 9.30 I'll come on and say sorry I can't. Can we say 9.45?
[BC and OD agree]
J: Do not discuss case MF. Please leave and we resume at 9.45

[Court adjourned]

@threadreaderapp please unroll