Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 2

[Sophoclesthefox]

Forgive the presumption, @Mforstater, but you’re probably busy in the pub right now, or passing on all of the fan mail to you legal team so I’ve made a new thread to carry on the fascinating discussion.

Round up your cats, rabbits and weasels, and let’s go!

——————————————————————————————

From thread one, here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all your support: emotional, intellectual, financial, spiritual(!) reading the Mumsnet feminism board is where this all started for me!

The case starts tomorrow.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

It kicks off at 10am - the first bit will be "admin" between the judges and the lawyers working out the timings, issues and any reporting restrictions hmm.

Once that is all sorted the judge and the panel will go away to read (probably for the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday)

I will most likely give evidence Wednesday and Thursday.

@tribunaltweets will be tweeting the whole thing (assuming they get permission from the judge)

Links to papers will go up throughout the case at www.hiyamaya.net.

Any other questions I am happy to answer them (apart from the ones where I have to say "that is for the tribunal to hear"...)

I have made a spectators guide with FAQs etc here

Lots of love

Maya

@CompleteGinasaur

What the ** has Helen Webberley got to do with this tribunal?

Nothing at all. It's a redirect from an eternally irate, persistent derailer. Just smile and move on!

@CompleteGinasaur

What the ** has Helen Webberley got to do with this tribunal?

You may as well ask what clownfish have to do with humans. Never stops them, does it?

Look, a squirrel!

BC opposes letting OD ask MP supplementary questions as a way of bringing in new evidence, which is also opposed.

@OvaHere

I missed this major contradiction from earlier

twitter.com/soppystern/status/1504075363139432451

Forstater case today (paraphrasing):

Respondent: “Maya’s blog was lacking evidence”

Maya’s counsel: “Maya refers to the Karen White case…a real case that happened”

Respondent: “Maya shouldn’t have referred to the case. It’s better to talk about the issues in the abstract” …

"That would never happen"

"It did"

"Ssshhhhhhhh. Let's not talk about it."

BC saying hearsay evidence from Ms Schulman shouldn't come in via MP.

Is there skulduggery afoot?

Thank you, SamphiretheStickerist. This is followable thanks to tabbycatstripy's brilliant transcription and organisation of a lot of material, but I thought I'd missed something.. though I couldn't see what possible relevance Webberley could be. Should have known it was a squirrel.

(And is that the first bad faith poster today, or have I missed one? If it is it must be a record, surely?)

EJ says we should continue with MP's evidence and address question of additional evidence at the end.

Do we know what this additional evidence is?

OD asking about work programmes and what stages they were at when MP came to London (not sure when).

MP says things were a work in progress as the office was expanding.

Sorry, @SpinningTheSeedsOfLove.

Yes. Thanks for the focus.

In other news Nazanin now landed in Oman

OD: Was the claimant required or obliged to attend Wed/Thursday lunches?

MP: Highly encouraged but not required.

OD: Did AG ever express to you that she thought the belief that sex is immutable and people can't change sex is a belief that was bigoted and transphobic?

MP: no

Thank you everyone who explained what a manel was - I'd not heard that term before!

Can't thank tabbycatstripy enough for this, plus all the explanations, comments, discussion. Makes me feel quite emotional!

It appears to relate to what was established practice in CGD about keeping former employers/consultants profiles on the website after they left.

I'm sorry, my fault and did not intend to derail.. Just had a little WTAF moment..

BC begins. Asks MP about points not in his witness statement.

Attendance at lunches. Not party to discussions that MF had with other senior staff, were you? (MP says no).

BC says MP didn't need to have a conversation with MF about that because expectations were understood?

MP: Correct

BC says MP's understanding is second hand or general and MP agrees.

BC asks whether in practice MF always attended or gave a reason.

MP said she was there regularly but not always and he doesn't know if she gave a reason.

BC: Discussion of programme structure (not clear on this).

BC asks whether principle that CGDE was integrated into CGD was always in place?

MP: There was coordination between the offices.

BC: Management was always integrated, yes?

MP: Yes. Increased integration was envisaged but not always in place.

BC trying to establish that CGDE was integrated with CGD.

BC says what it meant in practice was President was boss of Europe CEO.

MP says there was some independence.

BC asking about the SPG, saying function was to advise and determine strategy for combined org.

MP: correct.

BC: In practice, there was always flexibility about where work was done.

MP: Yes, a certain flexibility. (Longer answer)

BC: From the perspective of a VF, in practical terms, the affiliation was with the overall org?

MP: Yes, for a VF that would be true.

BC moves on to culture in London.

BC: MP took over as interim CEO in September 2018?

MP: Yes.

BC: It is correct to say that there was banter in the London office? Related to work and other things?

MP: There was in 2017 when we were small. DIscussion as we worked and at lunch. Similar culture moved with the office in 2018. Then in separate rooms but the banter was less.

BC: But continued?

MP: Yes.

BC: On work and non work topics?

MP: Non-work was generally at lunch or end of the day.

BC: There were no real boundaries as to level of controversy or sensitivity?

MP: Unfortunately no. I was uncomfortable about some of the subject discussed. Others too uncomfortable.

BC: Do you remember: Brexit

MP: Yes.

Covers Trump, Brexit, party politics, nationalism (MP doesn't recall), immigration, race and racism (MP doesn't recall), religion (doesn't recall).

Variety of topics and answers.

BC: Feminism and sex discrimination?

MP: Feminism yes.

BC: do you remember Mr Barder talking about his vasectomy?

MP: Not directly I heard reports.

BC: DIscussion of circumcision?

MP: Don't recall.

BC: Mr Barder expressing a view on infant circ as form of CA?

MP: Do not recall.

BC: Is Mr Barder an atheist in the Richard Dawkins mould?

MP: He expressed such views.

BC: Mr Mitchell a Christian?

MP: Don't know.

BC: Do you recall that they would have robust discussions in the office?

MP: I don't recall.

BC: When OB expressed his religious views, was he expressing a view that religious views have no basis in fact?

MP doesn't remember any of this in the office.