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

If I were EJ I would be getting very annoyed with MA's evasiveness. Do those of you who are watching have an impression of EJ's attitude toward these tactics?

BC: Am I right that when you read the QI, the Szabo and the claimants report carefully, you didnt form any opinions on the merits of them

MA: I took away some conclusions

BC: in your witness statement - you identify some of the takeaways from the reports, ptcly QI. one of the things you single out is the example of the claimants tweets in relation to Comic Relief. This I suggest tells us Mr A that you are spinning and rewriting history because there is no reference to Comic Relief in the QI report. Or in any document you saw at the time.

MA: I was aware of the Comic R tweets and it may be an error on my part.

BC: I suggest that you were not aware, because there is no document sent to you that mentions them.

MA: It may have been mentioned by Amanda

BC: But there is also no evidence of any document that refers to the CR tweets to Ms Glassman, as they were only in the longer QI report. This is an example of you deliberately re-writing history, and does not reflect accurately what you were thinking at the time.

MA:No if I was deliberately trying to rewrite history I would have done it more carefully

MA says 'obviously an error'

BC - you're obviously not a details man

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

BC: From your answers so far, when you read QI report, Ms S report, claimant report, you formed no views on merits of them

MA: I took conclusions from them.

BC: let's take what you say in witness statement... you identify some of the takeaways from the reports, esp the QI one. One of the things you single out from QI report is the example of the claimant's tweets to and in relation to Comic Relief.

MA: yes

BC: this, I suggest, tells us that you are spinning and re-writing history. There is no reference to comic relief tweets in teh version of the QI report that you saw, is there?

MA: then a mistake on my part to attribute to that report

BC: No reference to Comic Relief tweets in ANY document you saw at the time, is there?

MA: I was aware of comic relief tweets. If i have mis-transposed into report that is my fault

BC: I'm going to suggest that you were not aware of the Comic Relief tweets at the time, as there is no doc sent to you that refers to them. Am I right?

MA: it may have been mentioned to me by Amanda

BC: I think I'm right also in saying that there is no evidence of any document being sent to Ms Glassman referring to those tweets either? They are only referred to in long QI report which MR Plant tells us was restricted to himself and LE.
Para 53 of your witness statement, is an example of you rewriting history to put together the info in your witness statement, which does not reflect the things you were looking at at the time. Right?

MA: No. It's an error, but if I was trying to rewrite history I'd have done so more carefully

BC: You're not a details man, are you? Let me suggest to you that this slip-up, if that is what it is, isn't a mistake, it is rewriting history

MA: disagree

BC: This is an example of you deliberately rewriting history that does not truthfully reflect what you were looking at at the time.

MA: If I'd have been doing that, I wouldn't have made the mistake.

BC: You're not a details man. This slip-up is not you making a mistake it's you rewriting history to help yourself.

BC we're not engaging in a debate, I'm exploring with you your thinking at the time and we are going to assess what that reveals about the rationale. I've taken it from your answers that when you read the sabo report, the QI report and the claimants report, you formed no conclusions about the merits of them.

MA I took conclusions away - can share that if you think thats useful.

BC well let's take what you say in your witness statement - you identify some of the takeaways from the reports, particulalry QI report, one thing single out is example of the claimants tweets to in relation to comic relief.

MA yes

BC this I suggest tells us that you are spinning and rewriting history because there is no reference to the comic relief tweets in the version of the QI report you saw

MA then it's a mistake on my part to have attributed this to that report. I apologise.

BC there is no reference to the comic relief tweets in any document you saw at the time is there

MA I was aware of the comic relief tweets if I've mis transposed them into that report its an error.

BC suggest that you were not aware of the comic releif tweets at the time, there was no document sent to you at the time that refers to them. is that right.

MA may have been mentioned to me by AG who was most closely looking at implications fro funders and partners

BC I think I'm right also in saying there is no evidence of any document being sent to AG before the end of the claimants employment that refered to the comic relief tweets. only referred to in the long QI report which MP said was restricted to him and LE.

MA what's the questions?

BC para xx of your witness statement is an example of you deliberately rewriting history in putting together the reationale you seek to advance in y our witness statemeent, which does not truthfully and accurately reflect what you were thinking at hte time. ist hat right.

MA disagree. If I did it deliberatly, would have been more careful.

BC one of the things charateristic of you is that you are not a detail man - you rush about, don't get into things. suggest this slip up is not you making a mistake, it is you rewriting history and now going through things which you think may be helpful and adding them in.

MA disagree with that.

long pause!

BC calling MA a massive liar. Riveting!

This is rivetting.

cross-rivetting!

No if I was deliberately trying to rewrite history I would have done it more carefully

Under oath

@ThePennyJustDropped

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?

Irrelevant to the (outstanding) job he's doing. He'd be just as excellent and well prepared if CGD had been lucky enough to retain him first. His own views and opinions won't feature at all.

Although I hope GC, because that's just common sense

@GrinitchSpinach

If I were EJ I would be getting very annoyed with MA's evasiveness. Do those of you who are watching have an impression of EJ's attitude toward these tactics?

No he has a great poker face.

BC - MP reported back to the core group, including yourself - clear from his report that the claimant was being constructive and suggesting a sensible solution

MA - it was

BC - intransigence at this point came from Ms McKenzie

MA - she was certainly intransigent yes

BC - it really didn’t matter what [claimant] might say in that note - she sets out the constructive steps she might take...Ms McKenzie had formed an implacable view against the renewal of her fellowship

MA - no it didn’t happen that way, I can explain

EJ intervenes - please do

I was wondering whether a brilliant QC who was a trans ally would have been able to pursue this case as effectively as BC.

BC: Mr Plant reported back after his meeting with the claimant on 18 Feb, to core group including yourself.

MA: Yes

BC: It was clear from his report, that the claimant was being constructive and suggesting a sensible solution, wasn't it?

MA: it was

BC: the intransigence at this point, came from Ms Mackenzie, didn't it?

MA: she was certaintly instransigent, yes

BC: and so when the claimant wrote her note for the SPG [ref to bundle] it really didn't matter what she might say in that note. She plainly sets out the constuctive steps she is prepared to take - adding disclaimer, avoiding tweeting main account, not initating conv in the office. It didn't really matter - as Ms Mackenzie had already formed an implacable view

MA: i dont' think that is accurate. The way it worked out is that I was in Australia. I got these reports. I decided I needed to take a decision on it, as had been going on a long time. I didn't think the two reports allowed us to take a decision. I looked at the balance of risks and benefits to keeping the claimant on, and I came to the view, right or wrong, that the risks of the claimant continuing to be involved in this debate, because of her strong and passionate views, was such that over the next year we were likely to have more instances where we would then spend time on internal fall-out, repeated conversations on social media. Finally, I felt that I had a fractious management team, and I needed to put a stop to this. If I kept the claimant on for another year, and we kept getting drawn into a contraversial subject, would get drawn in and held responsible for this issue

BC refer to bundle MP reported back that after his meeting with claimant n 13 Feb to the core group including you, it was clear from his report that the claimant was being constructive and suggesting a sensible solution wasn't it.

MA it was

BC the instraginence at this point came from EM didn't it.

MA she was certainly intransigent yes

BC so when the claimant wrote her response it really didn't matter what she might say in that note because she plainly sets out the constructive steps she is prepared to take, disclaimer, not initiating in office etc, didn't matter how constructive she was clear that EM had formed implacable view about her renewal and retention in any capacity.

MA that's not accurate. I was in australia and got these reports and decided then that I needed to take a decision because going on for too long, didn't think the QI and Sabo report enabled us to take a decision, looked at the balance of risks and benefits in keeping the claimant on as a VF. came to the view right or wrong that I felt that the risks of the claimant continuing to be involved in this debate because of her strong and passionate view, over the next year if she was with us we were likely to have more instances where we would end up spending time dealing with the internal fall out and having repeated conversations with her about social media. Growing fractious management team - needed to put a stop to it. If I kept the claimant on for another year, if it recurred, then it would put MP - sent to london to put new management approach in - would weaken his credibility as leading member of the team.

JG gone further in your explanation that I was expecting. don't want to lose thread of question.

Ma waffle

JG sorry not clear, that was an indication for you to stop

Amazing stuff.

Just remembered this PP from last night much earlier in this thread:

Just looking at Masood Ahmed and ahead to his evidence, and he seems likely to be formidable. Got his degree in 1971 at LSE. At the World Bank, then DfID (interesting), then a Director at the IMF. He joined CGD in 2017, so would assume he came into a culture and wanted to change some stuff

Not quite sure that "formidable" has turned out to be the mot juste?

MA - explanation is basically that they didn’t want to spend time dealing with what he calls repeated convos about this and we were dealing with 'fractious' staff members.....MP would be drawn in and have to take complete responsibility for 'the issue' and he didn’t want that.

EJ basically tells him to shut up ('you have delighted us long enough')

Oh, the judge is not getting on well with MA at all. I think that we've all had dealings with a MA and we all shudder at the recollection.

JG "I wasn't clear Mr Ahmed, that was an indication to stop (talking).

MA tried to talk over the JUDGE

So....he didn't see any mention of tweets relating to CR, but somehow was aware of them by mistake?

BC having internet problems. We've all been there Ben!

Oh, the judge is not getting on well with MA at all. I think that we've all had dealings with a MA and we all shudder at the recollection.

Indeed.

BC: I think that is at the very least the 3rd elaboration of the reasons for your decision that I have heard. Let's trace it through:

• you ask Mr Plant to supply talking points to explain the decision for your call with the claimant. Correct?

MA: yes

BC: the first iteration of reasons we have [bundle]. I went through those with Mr Plant. He told us this reflected he was acting as your secretary - talking to you and then writing down what you said to him

MA: we had a conversation. I said to him we needed to bring an end to this and not move forward with the review. He said to read Maya's note to SPD.

BC: Let me rephrase my question. Do these reflect Mr P reflecting back to you things you said to him, or are these his ideas?

MA: I gave him a general sense of the reasons. This is his articulation based on that conversation.

BREAK

Did BC just say 'pacific' or was it a poor internet connection?