Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

The Telegraph also mentions Luke Easley, the director of human resources at CGD who was a witness for Maya's old employer.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/transgender-people-agree-using-terms-men-women-afraid-speak/

As does the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-people-scared-to-back-dissent-maya-forstater-employment-tribunal-told-nk9c6zccx

This, also, is a matter of public record. No need to initial.

Yup, re raising children gender neutral, for me that means not raising children in a way that socialises them into gender roles and that genders what are simply human traits. It does not mean denying their sex, it simply means not relating their sex to a sex role in any way.

Ooh you're all over here. I've just copied this over from the old thread:

MichaelMumsnet I'd just like to reiterate what everyone else says, there are no reporting restrictions on this tribunal, as per the Judge. He allowed live-tweeting from the courtroom and quoted "open justice" as being paramount.

It would be extremely unfair to restrict access to this thread - when the Judge has said the above

How would you raise a child gender neutral in that way? As parents you could be very careful to try and present gender neutral role models for each sex but how do you isolate them from gendering imposed by society (females in caring roles around them, male bin men, builders etc) without isolating them from society?

Not entirely clear why we're being held to a higher standard than the rest of the known universe.

Is it because we is wimmin?

theflushedzebra it seems the judge has more interest in open justice than Mumsnet have.

What are the general legal concerns, MNHQ? Because there are no specific reporting restrictions.

Contempt?

First there has to be a serious risk of substantial prejudice.
Professional judges are generally considered immune from any potentially prejudicial reporting in the media.

Libel?

Not if it's a fair and accurate and contemporaneous report of legal proceedings.

As several have already pointed out, this was in open court and the judge specifically permitted live tweeting.

@MichaelMumsnet to remove posts is over blown censorship. There are no reporting restrictions. The people involved are publicly known via the MSM articles, twitter and self reportage. The Judge allowed live tweeting.

To do this just looks like disrupting the threads for the sake of it and no doubt losing pertinent information in the process.

I'd also like to add that none of the witness are entitled to, or have been granted anonymity. This is a case with no reporting restrictions, no jury to prejudice - just a single judge (and judges are considered to be above such things.) All the information is in the public domain, and it is in the public interest.

It is definitely in the public interest of women.

I'm sure you've had lots and lots of reports by people who don't us talking about this - but they don't want us talking at all.

There was also another witness for Maya's old employer. A six foot four non binary person who was there to testify as to how they thought Maya's attempts to engage her colleagues in respectful conversation about the issues relating to the GRA consultation, was actually ALL ABOUT THEM. And that Maya was obsessed with penises. (Was hard not to laugh at that point!.

At one point, Maya's barrister asked this individual "do you think it might be possible that Maya is not nearly as interested in you as you are in yourself?".

Oddly this person isn't named in the media.

The judge didn't say there was any kind of reporting restriction however (I was in court) so I can't see a problem in mentioning this person's name.

I suspect the reason they're not named in the press isn't anything to do with reporting restrictions, but more because the press turned up to hear Kristina Harrison testify in the morning session, heard a bit of Luke from HR before lunch and then all buggered off at lunch as they didn't think this particular witness's testimony was important enough to be worth hanging about for.

I can't prove it's a matter of public record, however, so will play along for now and call them CQ.

post-edited by MNHQ to clarify that with no reporting restrictions in place CQ here refers to Clair Quentin.

@MichaelMumsnet to remove posts is over blown censorship

Yes, this. It's appeasing bullies who are no doubt all over this thread and nothing to do with reporting restrictions.

@MichaelMumsnet
Your 'tidying up' has made my posts from the tribunal unreadable. 'C' is the initial used for the Claimant in legal proceedings. It therefore looks from my posts like it is Maya 'speaking' rather than CQ.
I was at the tribunal when the Respondent employer's counsel asked for restrictions on live-posting from non-journalists. The Respondent's counsel claimed that the Respondent's witnesses were particularly vulnerable although when the judge asked she put forward no ground to substantiate this. The judge refused the Respondent's request and made it clear that members of the public could live-post. The witness statements with the witnesses' full names were available for members of the public at the tribunal to read.
I'm posting this on both threads.

post-edited by MNHQ to clarify that with no reporting restrictions in place CQ here refers to Clair Quentin.

Yes it's open democracy, the judge said.

@Birdsfoottrefoil no you can't control society, but you can control how you raise your own children, and whether you are imposing sex roles on them or not.

Ah, OK. It's not all 3 witnesses who are being initialled.

Only the 6 foot 4 one in a green skirt, who started off their testimony by questioning if they needed to answer questions, spoke over the female barristers in the room, at one point tried to tell the judge how to do their job, took up a huge amount of space (not because they're very tall, but because they stretched out in an entitled way, kind of like Jacob Rees Mogg) and who came across, in my opinion, as self obsessed and a bully to Maya online.

That witness.

Oh, and they happen to be a barrister.

I wonder if they're weight around and telling MN not to name them. I wonder if they're embarrassed by the ridiculous things they said and don't want their name on it. Or they just like to be in control, perhaps. Interesting.

Thing is, it is a matter of public record though.

Ah, that explains it. I was getting very confused by all the initials. I thought C meant 'counsel'.

Thank you tech nerd! And thanks to everyone tweeting. And everyone clarifying about the freedom to have open discussion on here. It’s absolutely shocking how this pivotal case for women’s rights is not being reported in the mainstream media.
So it’s really essential that we can discuss it in detail on here. Not least to create a record of arguments that women can refer back to in future.
If this case goes Maya’s way, as it should, there will be major pushback by the usual suspects on women talking together here and on women asserting themselves individually in their workplaces.

Clair Quentin was the third witness.

Has been named elsewhere, so no 'ahrgh' here on Mumsnet.

Has an interesting internet footprint.

There are many other things off-internet that, as most of us on mumsnet do, even though we have information we do not name, or try to shame or even discuss. Even though we often wish we could. But this is Mumsnet, not the farmers, or twitter, or any of the likes. If only the platform we use respected that most of us respect the rules, eh.

C also referred to claimant (so CC was claimants counsel, RC respondent’s counsel).

Witness CQ was also asked to confirm that he/she/they tweeted as DQ at one pointed. Maybe he/she/they don’t like it to be known he/she/they were DQ (unless he/she/they are using their email address). But it is a matter of public record that the judge allowed. (Using ‘he/she/they’ to avoid giving identifying information about his/hers/their gender in case MN want to censure that bit of court-allowed information too).

post-edited by MNHQ to clarify that with no reporting restrictions in place CQ here refers to Clair Quentin.

Since the judge has said he is likely to rule within a few days some of the press may be holding fire so that they can cover that rather than the case day by day. It seems safe to assume that the Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail and Guardian will actually follow up - it would be seriously weird for them to decide to cover the first day of a hearing and then leave it in limbo. (Also we don't know what will be in tomorrow's editions yet of course).

Can't believe MN are censoring this thread!

Is anyone on Spinster, is it being discussed over there?

Hopefully that's one place where women have freedom of speech...?

Not least to create a record of arguments that women can refer back to in future

A record that MNHQ are ‘tidying up’ to ensure it is ‘squeaky clean’; that doesn’t sound sinister at all does it?

Hi all

A couple of clarifications

@MichaelMumsnet - the Judge expressly said live tweeting (and presumably any social media including Mumsnet ) is allowed in the name of open justice. There are no reporting restrictions on the names of the witnesses or others named tribunal proceedings (so please put stuff back MNHQ!)

On time for a judgement: the judge now has two days set aside to deliberate and write his judgement. He said if he gets it done in those two days it might be out in a matter of weeks, but if he doesn't and needs more time to finish it will likely be out in January.

What are your instincts Maya? are you allowed to say?

Sorry - should have started by saying, you must be fucking shattered! And with the most enormous thanks and congratulations to you and Anya for the most terrific few days.