Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Maya's tribunal next Tuesday (21 and 22 March)

243 replies

chilling19 · 17/03/2023 21:23

Just got this email - on how to request access

Update on Stand With Maya!

This week I finished writing my seventh witness statement in this case, and we assembled the fifth bundle of evidence. My lawyers wrote their fourth opening statement, and I am preparing to be cross-examined for the third time.
I am claiming for compensation for injury to feelings, aggravated damages, lost earnings and future earnings.
The tribunal will be the same panel as before, and the hearing will be online.
If you would like to watch you should email in advance to [email protected]k_ — the email subject should be PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST - Forstater v CGDE & Ors 2200909/2019 - 21 and 22 March.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:29

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:27

That would be good to know chilling19. I wonder if those in the hearing know or whether it's a lost, potentially helpful, detail.

Yes exactly. Looking at an old CV is pointless. Certainly when I am mid project my CV languishes until I need to apply for the next one.

OP posts:
CriticalCondition · 22/03/2023 12:29

Yikes, P Mills has just suggested Maya's CV should have been clearer if she wanted to be assessed as suitable for a senior role.
It's all getting a bit fractious now.

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:28

Ben - know your place!

OP posts:
LipbalmOrKnickers · 22/03/2023 12:28

'moderate your tone'. Bloody hell!

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:27

That would be good to know chilling19. I wonder if those in the hearing know or whether it's a lost, potentially helpful, detail.

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:27

'Clearer CV'. But Maya was not required to apply for anything at this point - if she was she would have tailored her CV accordingly. Which PM acknowledged when she said 'fleshing out'.

OP posts:
EmpressaurusOfCats · 22/03/2023 12:27

Poor woman, sounds like CGD have dropped her right in it.

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:26

This seems to be that CGD have got P Mills to identify the target seniority for MF based on little more than MF's CV and would have come to a different view if she'd had an in-depth discussion with MF.

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:25

Hmm, was she looking at an updated CV which included Maya's experience at CDG? Or the CV that existed before Maya started at CDG?

OP posts:
nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:21

BC: Was this your judgement? [ie the position MF would have been given]

PM: err .. umm ... err ... err ...

CriticalCondition · 22/03/2023 12:08

I love it when BC looks up while carefully forming his question and then slowly brings his laser gaze down to witness.

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:02

BC is presenting a case to the tribunal that P Mills witness statement can't be relied on because much of it relates to recent events that she can't say would apply to in the case of MF's employment and that it contains incorrect information that has been fed to her.

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 12:02

I'm distracted by the sheet behind Mr Miller - what is behind there?

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 12:00

I'm enjoying seeing a little bit of BC again. But I would definitely not want to be being questioned by him, and maybe that's a lesson CDG have learnt

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:00

BC just showed that P Mills' witness statement about whether initial funding needed to be in place for someone to be appointed relates to recent policy and now she's saying she has no idea whether it would have applied to MF.

Ameanstreakamilewide · 22/03/2023 11:58

I do keep shaking my head, @Chrysanthemum5 🤦🏻‍♀️

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 11:55

Based on how shit most of CDG (and Garden Chambers) were at logical and critical thinking I'm clearly in the wrong job if some of them are getting $150000!

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 11:53

Ah maybe it is CDG who don't want Mark Plant to be there, rather than he's hiding

TheBiologyStupid · 22/03/2023 11:52

That's my recollection of MP, too nauticant.

nauticant · 22/03/2023 11:51

If I recall correctly, Mark Plant distinguished himself in the ET appeal as being the person from the CGD side who tried hardest to give fair evidence.

So others gave more honest evidence but they were the ideological zealots.

Ameanstreakamilewide · 22/03/2023 11:49

You're welcome, @Chrysanthemum5 and she's very much the sacrificial lamb here.
MP is a weasel.

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 11:48

I am surprised that CDG would want to open up its inner workings like this. Did no-one think about this from the start? Was no risk assessment carried out in relation to taking Maya on? Or was the position at the time that discriminating against someone re their GC views was so acceptable that they didn't even consider this scenario from their lofty perch on the 'right side of history'?

It is only now that I am fully appreciating what Maya has achieved in shifting the narrative. Without her fight, we would still be stuck in GC = evil territory. Also Allison.

Both warrior women.

OP posts:
Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 11:48

Good on her for sticking to what she knows, but isn't it against the tribunal rules for someone to be giving evidence on things others have told them happened rather than things they actually were involved in?

nauticant · 22/03/2023 11:47

https://www.cgdev.org/staff/patsy-mills

I think she's accompanied by a solicitor for CGD. Rather than an emotional support person.

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 11:46

Thanks @Ameanstreakamilewide she seems to be a sacrificial lamb. I wonder where Mark Plant is today? is he watching do you think?