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

BC: I understand from that - is this correct - that one of the functions Ms S saw in the QI report was to provide the claimant with details of the concerns. Clear that the complaints can't be put to her because they are inadequate, and Ms S is saying QI might be asked to provide a comprehensive report, and one purpose is to clarify the concerns to MF.

MP: yes, QI report could be shared, yes.

BC: Ms S is however also very clear that this is not to be one-sided. She thinks it is equally important for people who have raised concerns to understand MF's position and context in UK.

MP: Y

BC: You had further discussions with Ms S which it's clear from other correspondence you were more candid, and do I infer Ms S was clear that there are problems with understanding on both sides in her view?

MP: Where are my comments?

BC: (Looks for it. P1629) -

Ms Szabo (sp?) seems to have been one of the few professionals involved in this whole mess.

MP: yes, I wrote this to MA.

BC: You refer to Ms S pointing out that CGD needs to spend time articulating policy on controversial speech, which tells us you had conversations with Ms S.

MP: Yes, particularly on that point.

BC: I asked you whether she was also more candid in saying that she wasn't saying MF's views were unacceptable.

MP: I don't remember.

BC: It would fit with the rest of the report?

MP: She says that in her report, yes.

BC: She wanted to emphasise that it would be unfair to hold MF to a standard you hadn't articulated?

MP: I don't remember that conversation.

BC:

Ms Szabo (sp?) seems to have been one of the few professionals involved in this whole mess.

That was my thought too.

BC: It would be unkind of me to ask how it's all panned out...

How can he retain all this info, maintain energy to keep on whittling away all day and still manage to thrown in quips like this?

BC: You in email on p.() were emailing core group who were considering how to proceed, suggesting next steps?

MP: Y

BC: Based on this report?

MP: Y

BC: If we pick it up, she suggests it is not handled as a disciplinary case, but it is at this point that this changes, isn't it?

MP: I never viewed it as a disciplinary, but this is what she suggests.

BC: Notes it presents thorny problems for an org without an organisational policy on this. That was the briefing you gave her?

MP: Y

BC: issues of communication, and how much tolerance CGD has for heterodox ideas?

MP: Y

BC What she was conveying was need for clariy on those issues?

MP: Y

BC: If you were going to be raising problems about tone, those needed to be spelled out, yes?

MP: Y

BC: But also what we see is that it was a question as to whether you would tolerate heterodox ideas?

MP: extent to which, yes

BC: One question being explored was would you tolerate GC belief?

MP: Yes.

Got to break again now!

Interesting ramifications here, surely, for multinationals. Clear that Ms Szabo, in Switzerland IIRC, was very clear that there is a (major) cultural difference between Europe and the US.

to save tabby's hand

BC: So about the QI report. Ms S says MF should contribute to it. That means, to its writing
MP: yes
BC: and read it when done
MP yes
BC and comment on it
MP yes

Maybe Ben can be the new (thinking woman's) Bond?

Does anyone recall the Rumpole story of the sailor who faked his death in a boating accident so that his wife could claim the insurance (they'd arranged it together)?

He was called as a witness during his wife's subsequent murder trial and crumpled under Rumpole's cross examination and uttered the phrase (I paraphrase): "She can't be guilty. I'm alive and well and living in Cricklewood."

I have a weird sense of that here.

He's never going to be short of a date, that's certain.

Adjourned!

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus I think John Mortimer would have been a very good writer for the dramatisation

Immense work, tabbycatstripy. Thank you (and every one else chipping in).

Thanks for posting this Nauticant - I'd forgotten how brilliant it was. Time for a reshare I think.
www.facebook.com/fairplayforwomen/videos/hands-off-my-rights/331873417425619/

Rarely have I enjoyed a mid-hearing quip as much as

BC: It would be unkind of me to ask how it's all panned out...

I actually laughed and it hurt my stitches

@Iknowitisheresomewhere

What May be possible to do is obtain the audio of the hearing? Given there are not transcribers in situ, obtaining a transcript would mean the court getting someone to transcribe. I don’t know if it would be possible to obtain the audio and divide the transcribing among volunteers.

I think this sounds like a very good idea.

Our transcriptions were done by the court, hence the £££££.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove

Rarely have I enjoyed a mid-hearing quip as much as

BC: It would be unkind of me to ask how it's all panned out...

I actually laughed and it hurt my stitches

I missed the context of that!

New Thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3

@ATeamAmy

Immense work, tabbycatstripy. Thank you (and every one else chipping in).

Adding my thanks here and have just hopped over to add a little bit more to Maya's garden in appreciation of the bravura performance of her legal team...

Watching AG and now MP, when I think of the amount of grilling that MF endured and her unflappable calm demeanour, I'm lost in admiration.

Making sure the link to thread 3 is readily available.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3

Thanks tabbycatstripy