Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3

999 replies

Whatamesssss · 17/03/2022 16:43

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
tabbycatstripy · 18/03/2022 12:39

Clearly in his email to MA, the CGD argument is that her views are unacceptable to CGD (not her language or behaviour).

tabbycatstripy · 18/03/2022 12:39

'Known to hold contentious views...'

nauticant · 18/03/2022 12:39

Finishing cross-examination of MP at the conclusion of this point would be quite powerful.

Awkwardy · 18/03/2022 12:41

Ben: "This isn't about the nuance of expression. Because she holds these views, people don't want to associate with her anymore"

Plant: as a Visiting Fellow, yes.

Are we done here? How can they come back from this?

tabbycatstripy · 18/03/2022 12:41

EM's email:

'I find it surprising that Maya now seems to have developed an understanding of the issues and concerns we've expressed, and embraced CGD's policies...'

This is a false recantation! She is a recidivist!

Zeugma · 18/03/2022 12:44

BC - the claimant had her call with MA - at the end of the call you understood the possibility of a consultancy on the Gates contract - MA had given a verbal indication it was possible

MA - yes

BC - number of emails incl from Ms McKenzie - needed to be a verbal offer to claimant. You agree to write out a contract and send.

MP - [reads aloud] Yes

BC - but equally clear that MA recognised that any consultancy relationship would be untenable if you didn’t want her as a visiting fellow...Ms McKenzie also recognises difficulty - 'would be v hard to move forward at this point'
her views were regarded as 'unacceptable' in Washington?

MP - I disagree, I thought the consultancy could work

Iknowitisheresomewhere · 18/03/2022 12:44

@WallaceinAnderland

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?
This case is back at the Employment Tribunal, which does not set precedents, unlike higher courts (eg the Employment Appeal Tribunal) which do.

So the fact that Maya's views are protected is now law, because that was decided at the EAT.

The judge has all of the evidence (the 'bundles') referred to, which contain the pre prepared witness statements and all the back up. He will also have in written form the 'skeleton arguments' from both sides.

So the bit he doesn't have is what is happening live now - the cross examination. So yes - he needs to make notes on that as it happens. But basically what this is used for is to test the evidence that has already been produced.

ATeamAmy · 18/03/2022 12:46

@EsmaCannonball

Anyone finding the colour combination of black and red intimidating would have shit themselves upon entering the average bachelor pad in the 1980s.
An AC Milan or Sunderland football match must look like the Nurenburg rallies to this idiot.
TheABC · 18/03/2022 12:46

*I actually think what we've seen from Mark Plant is a fairly common male perspective and probably is quite close to what he thinks. We saw yesterday that he isn't actually that bothered about Maya wanting to distinguish between sex and gender etc, would've been happy enough for her to go on talking had it not become a problem for him, and would ideally have preferred the anti-Maya faction in the company to just get over themselves. At the very least, he wasn't bothered enough about it to want to go to any trouble at all.

But then got actively angry when the issue was framed in terms of the threat to women from male violence, Schrodingers Rapist etc. Basically his problem starts once it becomes in any way personal for him.*

It's male fragility, similar to the visceral reaction of white fragility. It's one thing to acknowledge that racism/sexism is endemic and structural, but another to realise you are part of the problem. When they say NAMALT, they are saying "don't include me! Or my friends - I am a decent bloke and as I like them, they have to be decent blokes too."

They refuse to see because it would mean acknowledging their privilege - and that's unbearable. If you are decent and love women, it means knowing that up to a third of your male friends would willingly hurt a female. If you are not decent, you want to cover up those feelings, you deflect. Either way, it's a visceral reaction.

butnobodytoldme · 18/03/2022 12:47

Times today, Scottish section, published finding they are outside their competence, to redefine women.

(Comments ask what is within their competence!)

OvaHere · 18/03/2022 12:48

@WallaceinAnderland

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?
IANAL so feel free to correct but I don't think this level of ET sets precedent. If Maya lost then went to appeal in a higher court (as she did with the 'belief' round 1) then I think it does.

That doesn't mean it won't have impact though and that it won't be referred to as part of other cases or in journals etc...

I think the TRAs have a similar case many years ago they claim sets the precedent to the 'right to privacy' argument (Kirklees vs ???) but I think in legal terms it actually doesn't.

Again though IANAL.

Zeugma · 18/03/2022 12:51

MP - she wasn’t sure she wanted to do the contract or not

BC - you say 'we want to get legal counsel on how to respond'...the sequence is this: you expect to formalise a contract. You then get her email & collectively think it sounds litigious because she says that she wishes to have confirmations that it's a hiring decision because some people object to her views on sex & gender identity. That’s why you don’t then formalise the contract & respond in a different way?

MP - we get legal advice, yes

BC - upshot was a draft email which 'very clearly and does bring an end to the overall relationship'.

MP - that was not our intention

Zeugma · 18/03/2022 12:53

BC - If you don’t see this email to bring an end to the whole relationship, the obvious thing would be to write to say we still intend you to work on the Gates contract?

MP - I disagree

MayaWasSackedForGCBeliefs · 18/03/2022 12:55

Maya's email to MA

Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 3
tabbycatstripy · 18/03/2022 12:59

From what I'm listening to now, EM was the leader of a small group of cry-bullies trying 'hold people accountable' because that's what gives them their bully-kicks. Really unpleasant.

Zeugma · 18/03/2022 13:02

BC - you wrote to staff following claimant's departure to explain

MP - it came out of the blue, they were upset and wanted to know why

BC - it reflects that they thought she’d been unfairly treated having expressed views on a legitmate issue...
......it was problematic for their ability to express democratic views in the UK

MP - there were some who wanted to know if she crossed any lines & what they were & what that meant for their communications

BC - you were v clear it was the positions she had taken & not any failure to be constructive

[goes through email and suggested amendedments by AG and EMcK]

MP said in email exchanges that to simply say it was the end of the contract was just a dodge

MP - that wouldn’t fly with staff

BC - reads from proposed email & amendments. BC suggests they took out 'the truthful account' and substitute that they addressed matters that made colleagues uncomfortable.
MP says in emails that Maya did everything asked of her and agreed to moderate her behaviour. There was no negotiation because she agreed with conditions asked of her.

'

allmywhat · 18/03/2022 13:02

So the fact that Maya's views are protected is now law, because that was decided at the EAT.

Wow. I had not realised that the (judge?) who decided the first Employment Tribunal against Maya had inadvertently us all such a massive favour. And he precipitated JKR's involvement too with that insane decision.

It must have been horrible and stressful for Maya, but it worked out very well for women in this country in the end. Thank you so much Maya.

Rodedooda · 18/03/2022 13:04

Jumping in to say I emailed tribunal for a log in and got an almost instant response.

Do join if you can at 2.

Zeugma · 18/03/2022 13:05

5 more minutes, says BC, but EJ wants to break now.

Back at 2.

So frustrating as I’m gripped, but I have to go out now. I'll miss Masood’s grilling by BC but catch up later.

MP must be wanting to run screaming, very, very far away.......

BrightYellowDaffodil · 18/03/2022 13:06

"Black and red" is "problematic" because it's a presentation "used by Neo-Nazis".

My bottle of loo cleaner is black and red; shall I write to Harpic to say I find this traumatic and please can they change all their packaging to nice safe pastel colours?

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/03/2022 13:07

EM was the leader of a small group…trying [to] 'hold people accountable'

I have to assume that CDG has HR. How comfortable can they be with condoning behaviour that would strike the passenger on the Clapham omnibus as being underhand?

MsGoodenough · 18/03/2022 13:07

Amazing stuff. Thanks so much Tabby and others. It is all bringing back horrible memories of when my boss tried to manoeuvre me out of my job (not related to sex/gender issues) it is amazing to Maya standing so strong for all of us.

Blogblogblogblog · 18/03/2022 13:09

Red and black are so well known warning/dangerous colours in the whole animal kingdom that lots of animal species have better survival rates as they are red and black. Even to the extent that harmless species survived by evolving to mimic dangerous animals colours eg milk snake mimicking a coral snake.
The whole red/black thing is preposterous.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/03/2022 13:09

I think the TRAs have a similar case many years ago they claim sets the precedent to the 'right to privacy' argument (Kirklees vs ???) but I think in legal terms it actually doesn't.

The TRAs are claiming the Jaguar Landrover case proves that non binary people are protected in the EA. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that argument the case was made at exactly the same tribunal court level as this one.