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

I’m getting black screen saying no one is presenting. Can someone help?

MA is trying so very desperately not to say anything that can commit him to anything, really. Just put up a massive wall of waffly smokescreen.

No discussion about her core beliefs?? There certainly was in the American office, from what we heard 2 days ago

@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars

I’m getting black screen saying no one is presenting. Can someone help?

A couple of times I've had a blank screen with sound. Try closing it down and going in again. Enter name, make sure cam and sound not selected, and enter pin. Good luck

In MA's world it was all an academic business discussion about the impact on CGD and none of the outrage expressed by LE and AG made it into any discussion MA was involved with.

MA is attempting to quarantine himself absolutely from the trans activism raging through CGD. He had no interactions with QI. But he did read the QI report, the Szabo report, and the complaints.

MA really doesn't want to be left holding the can for any of this does he?

@LouiseBelchersBunnyEars

I’m getting black screen saying no one is presenting. Can someone help?

I've just managed to get in. Don't choose the connection with no cam or mic, you seem to have to the one where they are both available. They must have auto-mute on their end because they'd have complained about my very noisy child if not.

This brings to mind a boss having a consigliere to make sure that he's never seen to know about or be in proximity with anything that goes on.

I wonder though that if MA persists in his "I know no-o-othing" then how is he going to explain his rationale for his decision-making?

I have joined successfully, by going in with camera and microphone on, and then switched them off asap

I'm pretty sure MA will be sent off into a conveniently timed retirement after this performance.

I'm in!

BC did you understand that the complainant said she would seek a constructive way forward.

MA yes

BC did you understand that one of her central concerns about the QI report was that it judged her guilty of disrespectful conduct but gave no examples

MA yes

BC presumably you looked at the QI report to see if that was valid

MA I read the report at the same time, might have read the report first

BC but you thought about whether her response was well judged or whether she was wrong?

MA at the time, I read the report I read the response I read the other report and rather than go back in, which I didn't do, I stepped back and thought from a management point of view, this has been going on for 3 months, how do I know bring it to closure. I focussed more on how to deal with the issue which I had delegated but hadn't been dealt with.

BC so do I understand that the answer to my question is no, you didn't take the time to consider whether her reposnse was well founded.

MA I did not. I figured that MP and others were going to do the detailed assessment of how reasonable this was.

this entire shitstorm is caused by letting gender ideologues shouts of "transphobia" - purposefully intended to cause NO DEBATE in a THINK TANK - run everything, even when the senior management didn't have an issue with what MF said and may have evern agreed with her views

MA: I delegated the issue but it wasn't solved. Then I decided to get involved.

That explains it, he's identifying a time period when he saw nothing of what went on and there's a specific moment at which he learned enough to make his decision.

BC: I'm going to start with the final decision in Feb 2019. You were not closely involved in obtaining the reports from Ms Szarbo or QI. Did you carefully read Ms S report when you received that?

MA: I read her report and the QI report and the complainant's response at one point mid-Feb when I decided I needed to deal with this issue myself, as the process I had put in place to have it dealt with wasn't getting anywhere fast enough.

BC: So you did receive and read Ms S's report?
To bundle
You received on 6 Feb the shorter QI report. You did not receive until end of claimant's relationship with respondents, the longer one

MA: this is all i got

BC: and you then received the claimant's response to that report, and read it carefully.

MA: yes

BC: Did you understand that the claimant was saying explicitly that she would seek a constructive way forward? 2nd para on p1778.

MA: yes

BC: did you understand that she was explicitly seeking a way forward?

mA: yes

BC: Did you understand that one of her central complaints / concerns about QI report was that it judged her guilty of disrespectful conduct, but did not give examples

MA: yes

BC: presumably you took the opportunity to see whether she was right?

MA: I did read the report at the same time.

BC: but when you saw her response, presumably you thought about whether this was a well judged response or whether she was wrong about that?

MA: at the time I read the report, response, other report, rather than go back in and do what you just said, I steppd back and said, from management point of view, this has being going on 3 months - where are we and how do I bring this to closure. How do I deal with this issue which I had delegated but wasn't getting done. That's what i spent my time focussing on

BC: So do I understand that the answer is no? You didn't take the opportunity to think about whether her repsonse was well founded?

MA: I did not. Assume d others would do detailed assessment

BC: does it follow from that it would be pointless to ask you further questions about whether claimant's response was justified, as you didn't form a view?

@ATeamAmy

I'm pretty sure MA will be sent off into a conveniently timed retirement after this performance.

He seems utterly at sea and totally clueless

@Signalbox

On day 1 she was asked to mute when BC was questioning the witness. But the judge made it clear that she has every right to take notes whilst she was questioning witnesses and that people should stop complaining.

It's Judge Glennie's tribunal but it makes it better for everyone is background noise is suppressed as it does weird things to pulling the speaker window and messes with the gallery view that he wants.

It would also be helpful if J Glennie were to intervene to correct the chyron from MP to MA.

Small thing but I wish they would correct his name. They did it previously when witnesses changed

I noticed that, Penguin. Excellent

BC - asks if MA carefully read Ms Szabo's report

MA - skimmed it, plus claimant's responses, because things weren’t getting resolved quickly enough

BC - was sent the shorter QI report, but not the long one

MA - this was all I got

BC - read claimant's response to report & read carefully?

MA - yes

BC - did you understand that claimant was saying she would seek constructive way forward?

MA - yes I read that

(BC asks him to confirm he understood - MA is taking this v v slowly)

MA - read QI report & Maya's response at same time, can’t recall which first.

BC - did you think her response was well judged or wrong?

MA - didn’t think either, stepped back. Thought it had been going on too long & needed to be resolved.

BC - so the answer is no? You didn’t examine the claimant's response?

MA - no, I assumed MP and others would do detailed assessment

BC - so would it be pointless to ask any further Qs about whether the claimant's response was wrong or well-judged?

MA - I’ll answer if you like, as best I can

BC - I’ll take it that when you read all the reports, you formed no view about their merits?

MA - I took away certain views - happy to share those views..

[Like pulling teeth here, frankly ]

MA continually offers to provide information in a way that suits MA. BC continually declines.

I’m in guys, thanks!

I'm meeting up with an old friend who's spouse is making a journey to nonbinary at the moment. I'm going to listen rather than talk but so far I would say their journey leaves tyre marks all over her life.

BC - you single out claimant's tweets re Comic Relief. You are rewriting history because there's no ref to them in the report you saw?

MA - that’s a mistake on my part and I apologise

BC - there was no ref to CR tweets in any of the docs you saw

MA - sorry, a mistake and I transposed

I'm playing catch up again here, but on the last few bits of MP examination I'm so glad that Ben is a man - it's too easy for a woman's point when quoting facts about sex offenders to be diminished when a man responds with the BNAM shtick. Ben as a man has extra credibility needed to deliver the points, much as I hate the fact that it's true.

So, Ben - is he GC do we think or just on the side of beliefs being a protected right?

MA mentioned the comic relief tweets in his witness statement. These tweets are not present in the documents MA says he restricted his reading to. This means that MA was getting involved in this in ways that he is withholding from the tribunal. He's smart but thinks he's smarter than he is.

BC makes his killer point here. The Comic Relief tweets were only referenced in the longer QI report which they all say they hadn’t seen.