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!