Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 2

Oh god, I have things I need to do today - impossible to tear myself away from this!

But I also think that MP is very pissed off to have been caught up in an unpleasant campaign by others in the workplace and now to be having two thoroughly unpleasant days.

victimisation of MP victimisation of MF

Although what I originally wrote also works.

BC: You then had a meeting with MF (21 Nov).

MP: Yes.

BC: Headlines. Do we agree that you told her she was not going to be taken on as staff?

MP: Yes.

BC: Reason you needed to tell her, is because that had been her expectation?

MP: Y one of the options.

BC: That was a decision that had been taken prompted by your email earlier - 'we need to review VF and whether to take her on in light of the tweets.'

MP: Both decisions were pending.

BC: You did not tell her that decision was taken because she had failed to meet two conditions, did you?

MP: Recollection is that I said it was because of reordering of work, which...

BC: You did not say to her that she had failed to meet two conditions from MA?

MP: I don't think I did, no.

BC: You didn't?

MP: I believe I referred only to reordering of work.

BC: You didn't tell her that it was about reordering of work, did you?

MP: I did.

BC: What you said was, 'she had antagonised key people in Wash. by tweeting about sex and gender and relationships had broken down.'

MP: I don't recall doing that.

BC: Back to bundle. Direct message MF and Alice Evans 5 days after meeting.

MP: Appears to be.

BC: MF says 'Got Gates grant but they don't want me on staff but I can continue as VF'. - I think you agree that you said she could continue as VF and do Gates grant.

MP: Yes.

BC: Back to bundle. Says, 'Tweeting about this, I'm also told is part of why I didn't get hired by CGD.' You did tell her that, didn't you?

MP: I don't recall that.

BC: MP said so when he was telling me they'd changed their mind. 'And then there's the Twitter stuff' (MF says MP said)

MP: I don't recall saying that.

EJ intervenes. Asks MP about 'I don't recall.' Asks him if he is denying it, or genuinely can't remember.

MP: I can't remember.

BC: Back to bundle. Email MF sent to Kathleen Stock on 14 Dec 2018. Context is about her blog and consequences of issue being raised. It says 'They have downgraded the offer, partly because of the Twitter thing.' Again, can you not remember?

MP: Correct.

BC: Email MF to KS. MF again reiterates what happened with staff in US and her VFship. 'This week they have come back and said there is a pushback about renewing VF because of tweets.' Do you not remember whether you referred to this?

MP: I don't recall one way or the other.

BC: We saw that in LE's timeline of events, EM insisted on adding your meeting on 21 Nov. I suggest that reflects that the decision was partly a reaction to the tweets.

MP: I don't quite remember the context.

BC: LE email compiling info to help with the SPG meeting. EM prompts him to add your discussion with MF on 21 November.

MP: Yes, request was to do a timeline of interactions with MF. That was a piece of it.

BC: But it was a piece relevant to the reactions to her tweets.

MP: (Reiterates) It was a whole chronology (essentially).

BC: Back to bundle. Just before the meeting with MF, you emailed MA and AG saying 'Maya asked to talk this Wed. I need to get my messages straight.' If this were open and transparent, you wouldn't need to do that, would you?

MP: I needed to make sure MA AG and I were on the same page. There was substantial pressure from EM and others and I wanted to make sure we were in fact going to allow her to work on the Gates grant and that we were not going to fundraise.

BC: Where did you get the substantial pressure from EM at this point?

MP: I mean, there was discussion earlier on about whether... EM didn't want to renew the VF. She said let's let it drop, let it end.

BC: I asked whether that was EM's position earlier and you equivocated, but thank you. Substantial pressure from EM: not just expressing a view. EM is agitating, isn't she?

MP: EM was part of the management team and I wanted to make sure we were in the same place on this.

Right, break for me!

PoshPyjamas, I also get the impression that MP is torn between defending CGD and not wanting to continue in the victimisation of MP.

I think MP likes Maya and agrees with her, and feels v uncomfortable to be on the other side.

And now MP says "I don't remember one way of the other" because he feels told off by the judge for saying the ambiguous "I don't recall"!

Especially coming from someone who has come across as having pretty good recollection up until now.

‘I don’t recall’ is coming across as dishonest though, isn’t it?

The form of words "I don't recall" is the training you often get from US lawyers when they're training you to give witness testimony. Not to be dishonest, but a form of words for you to hold on to to resist going beyond your knowledge.

We're seeing the value of contemporaneous evidence, where at the time MF was telling people the nature of her discussions with MP.

I just missed a really important bit.

BC: You are on a number of communications, advocating a transparency your colleagues are not keen on. In this instance, MA's final comment about (getting a message from Gates for our internal purposes) suggests he wanted Gates to provide cover, pretext and support for his decision to stop fundraising.

MP: I don't know what he meant by that. It would be a reasonable conclusino.

BC: You said, passing burden to Gates seems a bad idea.

MP: Yes.

BC: This exchange indicates that it is true that normally you would not do all of this secretly behind individual's back.

MP: We need to tell them at the appropriate moment. I think there's still ongoing discussion.

BC: Reference to 'need to check legal vulnerabilities vis a vis MF' suggests you needed to check whether CGD might be legally bound to employ MF.

MP: She's making plans, and so we would need to tell her soon, yes.

BC: What is being explored here is not just not renewing claimant's VF and not giving her a staff job, but also trying to engineer a situation in which she is removed from the grant and not given work?

MP: It's trying to engineer a situation where we don't pursue that line of work.

BC: Lastly, reprioritisation is what you were fed, but you weren't being told the truth, were you? MA says: it was to do with the ongoing review of the claimant's position because of her tweets.

MP: He said he wanted a holding pattern. It would be prudent to hold off (MA said). This was different because it was to reorder to work away from MF's work.

BC: As I understand, your evidence is that MA didn't tell you he wanted to change the claimant's position on the grant.

EJ: People talking both at once.

BC: You weren't told this was in any way influenced by MF's tweets and ongoing review?

MP: No.

BC:

It suggests that MA is going to be an extremely slipper witness.

MP says CGD were "trying to engineer a situation where we do not pursue that line of work [ie the work MF was doing]".

Thin ice there.

I am staggered that they were willing to mess a major funder like Gates around on this matter to resolve a local matter.

You are obsessed with MM

It's really creepy though. I find it extremely uncomfortable witnessing this person repeatedly demonstrate his hostile fixation on an individual woman.

Blimey this is deep politics. CGD wanting to get the Gates Foundation to provide cover to be able to marginalise MF.

BC: Back to MA statement. In that, MA says, I felt given we were still working out the implications of MF's social media activities, it would be prudent to hold off fundraising...' [Words very much to this effect]. So on your account MA was not entirely honest with you?

MP: My recollection is that it had to do with the work.

BC: Back to bundle. Exchange between MP and MA. Conversation MA had with someone at Gates. He says, spoke to X about plans and she said they had only included tax stuff in the grant because they thought CGD were keen on it. Correct?

MP: It was a part of the grant. So the way the grant developed... (some discussion of grant technicalities I don't understand.)

Discussion here suggests BC saying the keenness on MF's work was at CGD, not Gates.

Thanks @Ereshkigalangcleg

Listening along, I can’t believe how well @tabbycatstripy is doing with the transcribing! Every time there is a pause I am imagining her shaking out her fingers

From the submission I read (from Maya) she brought back one leaflet from a demonstration or meeting or protest (sorry can't remember which)

I think, according to her submission, it was given to her at the gathering of support outside Westminster Magistrates court for Linda Bellos and Venice Allan when they were unsuccessfully taken to court by a TRA. She went on her way to the office as it was in the morning and was over by mid morning (I nearly did the same but then had something on). So naturally had the leaflet with her.

BC: COnsistently, all the way through, until MF tweets on gender and sex, her area of expertise was a core area, wasn't it?

MP: In London because she was working in that area but we were developing a broader programme and it was part of that work.

BC: Consistently, all the way through until MA and EM intervene in October, there was to be an active push for funding, yes?

MP: For taxation, yes. But that is my work as well. It's MA I don't think EM.

BC: Sequence of events is: you say, we need to decide whether to make her an employee...

MP: I say we need to understand options.

BC: Then you are told a decision had been taken not to push for funding for this work that you had been pushing for months?

MP: Message I got was that MA didn't realise the extent to whch we were pushing for funding in that area and he saw the amount in the Gates grant was sufficient. Other priorities.

BC: That's not the explanation you now seek to give - the latest - that the claimant hadn't met the two conditions MA had sought to impose, is it?

MP: The two parts are separate. One was funding, the other was the set of work she could do and she had a more diversified portfolio.

BC: Deliberate decision to stop fundraising for her work (so she can't meet the first condition, is implied).

MP: I don't think the tweets resulted in that decision.

BC: She had diversified her work - commercial confidentiality.

MP: It was one large grant that was coming to a close.

BC: There was to be a follow on project.

MP: That was a year behind schedule and there was a discussion about it.

BC: But there was to be follow on work?

MP: That was the extension [in other words, no work for MF here].

BC: But Mr Kenny was keen to have MF do that work. So she had diversified her work?

MP: Whether it was sustainable is in question.

BC: Commercial confidentiality also a strategic area all the way through.

MP: That's because we had that grant.

BC: And at the least, there was to be a follow on piece of work and Mr Kenny was keen for MF to do that.

MP: There was the option but it was a year late and it wasn't clear the work would happen.

BC: Back to bundle. Mr Conry (?) replies MP I understand will be meeting complainants 3 and 2. You could reinforce with complainant 3. If this was a genuine refocusing of CGD's work, it would not be being done in this way, would it? There would be a proper record of the review of priorities, wouldn't there?

MP: Not necessarily.

BC: Do you generally treat your consultants and VF like this? Secretly and without discussion?

MP: I do tell the claimant about this decision so...

BC: Normally, you'd have an open discussion?

MP: That is a discussion I do ultimately have with MF.

BC: Puts question again.

MP: No, not necessarily straight away. In due course.

BC: You wouldn't go to the fundraisers and secretly brief them, would you?

MP: It's the fundraisers doing it, so they need to know.

BC: But they are working with MF, aren't they? Close contact.

MP: Yes.

BC: So again, what you are doing is stopping the fundraising in a way that is not going to be explained to her?

MP: In immediate moment, yes, but ongoing discussions.

BC: I will put it one last time: you wouldn't usually secret brief people without telling the other individual on their team, would you?

MP: I might tell them not to pursue it pending that conversation.

BC: An example of you doing this at any other time?

MP: This was my first grant.

BC: Back to bundle. Mr Conry to MP: spoke with claimants, they understand decision and 'appreciate the sensitivity of the issue.' Now, complainants 3 and 2 are aware - can I check that nobody is communicating with you about this case? I heard an alert noise...

MP: There's nobody here.

EJ: Alert noise came from inside my pocket...

BC: My misunderstanding. MP, complainants 3 and 2 know about the issue concerning the tweets.

MP: Yes.

BC: And where Mr Conry refers to 'sensitivity', that indicates, yes, that this decision to stop the fundraising is because of the tweets?

MP: I don't believe so. I think it indicates that it has to be clear to MF that it is because of the work, not the tweets.

BC: You are telling us that the decision was to do with reprioritisation of work and not at all to do with tweets?

MP: Correct.

BC: Long long pause.