Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3

[Whatamesssss]

Thread one, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Thread two, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4505825-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-2?pg=1

BC: p() We see your first account of that conversation and you recount your impression of the conversation 'seems to understand the sensitivities and that it should be kept out of workplace.' So is it fair to say MF didn't agree her views are offensive/transphobic, but she was prepared to limit what she said?

MP: Y

BC: p() - here we see EM response: disbelieves the claimant understood why offence was taken, and disbelieves MF would be constructive.

MP: Y

BC: Not fair to say MF rejected everything in the report? Her critique was reasonable.

MP: Y

BC: Also note here that EM/MA see that same standards apply to contractors, staff and visitors.

MP: Not quite sure what standards she's talking about.

BC: Must be about not being offensive or transphobic?

MP: In the office.

BC: And on twitter?

MP: Y

BC: She would not support MF continuing with affiliation?

MP: Y

BC: p() - here EM is strongly agitating even though as far as you were concerned discussions were constructive. EM wants to cut the tie immediately.

MP: Y

BC: Met on 20 Feb 2019.

MP: Y

BC: p() - Email to senior colleagues about those discussions and also setting out your views on the VF and future status?

MP: Y

BC: You told her in second conversation that if she wished to still seek renewal of VF, you didn't think it would happen, but she should write a doc setting out why.

MP: Y

BC: You say you would support this for one year.

MP: Y

BC: And you identify that CGD had promoted a culture of allowing fellows to take any position?

MP: Y

BC: Again, nothing had changed your view that MF hadn't done anything out of line with existing rules and policies?

MP: Y

BC: You identified a question as being whether MF's position (beliefs) were so extreme as to merit ending relationship?'

MP: Y

BC: UK context was ongoing and lively debate?

MP: Y

BC: Not something QI had got to grips with?

MP: N

BC: Contrary to recommendation from Ms S

MP: They mention it in report but I don't remember substance.

BC: p() - 'I don't know where we draw the line. We need to articulate a corporate position.' (Longer answer). It remained your positino that you could not articulate the line?

MP: Y

BC: And you then say... (to effect they are on weak ground - she didn't violate policies, she understands inadvertent offence and has moderated behaviour). All remedial measures taken. So at its worst, MF had inadvertently offended some people, not deliberately.

MP: It did cause offence. Inadvertently.

BC: When you say not appropriate, you mean it had offended people because those people had misunderstood?

MP: Y

BC: And you were clear that she had done everything asked of her in response to concerns?

MP: Y

BC: We saw earlier that you know there was some PR risk but could go either way.

MP: In UK, yes.

BC: But others disagreed?

MP: Y

BC: EM principally?

MP: Y

MP: MF "inadvertently caused offence" and then he agrees that at least some of that offence was caused by the offendees not having understood MF's arguments.

@EsmaCannonball

Anyone finding the colour combination of black and red intimidating would have shit themselves upon entering the average bachelor pad in the 1980s.

Haha so true!

(Have to stop now)

Well I guess Netflix won't be getting the streaming rights to this compelling legal drama once Maya, Ben et al have been cast...

I often feel guilty and cowardly for not tweeting about this shit, or even being brave enough to retweet JKR or JaneClareJones.

This is why, isn't it? Because the machinations of business would just quietly do away with us and not many of us would have Maya's backbone of steel and Ben Cooper to pick it all apart and prove it.

It is just the most incredible service to all of us to have this put out in the open.

Has anyone told the Labour Party that all communication in red and black (logo and black text) is a Nazi message and inherently wrong?

BC - claimant sent you the note that you’d asked for - she outlined the work she was involved with & could be in future. Explained why being a member of SBG team was important. Feared that Twitter & blogs might now be the end of her but couldn’t ignore the elephant in the room.

Suspected QI report was not to do with language but was that fundamental issue was of offence.

MP - central issue is how that belief is expressed
BC - rephrases to give him another chance to agree

Why, what's this? A pride flag?

"master slave" pride apparently!

That's the one, @PrelateChuckles, thanks.

Thank you to all who are keeping us up to speed with this. I decided not to watch the real thing as I knew I'd do nothing else while it was happening. So really glad to have Tabby and others here doing the work

I feel like my donation to Maya's crowdfunder was so worth it! Gosh Ben earns every penny. I wish my brain worked like his

BC - claimant points out that language restrictions mean this debate cannot even be had. She was not trying to convert you and your colleagues.
MP - she was not.
BC - her arguments were perfectly respectable and supported by academic thought?
MP - that is what she said
BC - including a transwoman, Debbie Hayton?
MP - yes
BC - she didn’t know that she'd been criticised in an open letter, did she?
MP - no

@nauticant

MP: MF "inadvertently caused offence" and then he agrees that at least some of that offence was caused by the offendees not having understood MF's arguments.

I find these arguments unhelpful anyway. I've offended men over the years because I have an opinion or don't think it's my job to make them tea. Offence per se is not the way we decide what is and is not appropriate behaviour. If it were, MP would be in serious trouble as his arguments earlier are hugely offensive to women.

At some point the question needs to be asked what specifically is so offensive, and why.

BC - she’d been sent a report from QI which accused her of disrespectful communications. She was explaining why she didn’t think that judgment was correct. You couldn’t criticise her for addressing these point in response?

MP - that’s correct

BC - she reiterates the measures she’d discussed with you, added the disclaimer to her twitter bio, would not initiate convos in the office, but would not be completely silent - in her own time she did intend to engage in public debate and would engage if anyone initiated. Would be anything but intransigent. In fact was agreeing effective to be silent at work unless approached - and you thought she was genuine in this?

MP - yes I did

BC - if you & your colleague MA thought the VF should be renewed, it would be put to the SBG? [sorry, is it SPG]

MP - can’t recall exactly

BC - even if ultimately Masood's decision, it was a collective one

MP - it was Masood's

BC - I’m saying it was all of you

MP - maintains it was Masood’s decision

BC - refers to emails. MA emails MP and claimant asking for 'talking points' before meeting - this is how claimant learns of ultimate decision. Claimant writes to MP asking if decision has been made.

BC singles out reference in email to 'talking points re the decision' - wording indicates that the decision not to renew Maya's fellowship had already been made and MP was well aware - ie that the decision was not taken solely by MA, as MP is maintaining here.

This is doing my head in, there was no proper discussion in the final decision and the reasons were both known by everyone but in practice no one seemed to know what they were.

Save the Children on the bad list too. When you start to look it's almost like red and black is a very popular and common colour scheme that implies absolutely nothing.

Blimey! Ben's on fire.

We've seen it play out on social media over and over. Nothing short of complete capitulation to the ideology is acceptable. Having any disagreement is offensive.

It is the belief that offends. Which is why it's thought crime.

[long and involved debate here about how MP and colleagues communicated over not renewing the fellowship. BC being icy calm and surgical. MP looking pretty uncomfortable]

Plant: "it's precarious for us (CGD) to support you (Maya) in this debate, yes"

Ben: The real upset is among the staff isn't it?

Someone upthread said that there will be no official record made in court to preserve these proceedings. Is the judge supposed to just remember who said what? What if someone later denies saying something, is there really no official record. That seems crazy. Does that mean that this case can't set precedent?