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

loving JG too!

I'll stop transcribing now as see I am repeating Posie's stellar work

Surely this is all going to come down to whether it is agreed that Maya was employed? Because the CGD witnesses are a complete shower.

@MayaWasSackedForGCBeliefs

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

MA tried to talk over the JUDGE

Loved this. Wasn't I clear, please do shut up

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.

Not sure. I think barristers tend to take on cases that they sympathise with if they can. I think Ben is on Maya's side, and not just for the money.

""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?""

Lol! We've all been there where we've seen the cv of some high flying man and then we've met him and thought 'WTAF'.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

Judge Glennie is nicely respectful to MA.

Tribunal judges and members must encounter all manner of people and handle them in an equitable way, I should think.

Could anyone please dm me a link to the bundle? I was watching at work but now I'm home and the bundle link has disappeared from the chatroom!

@PenguindreamsofDraco

Oh I quite agree Ben is superb, and clearly his view is unimportant - I was just speculating. I would assume that if his views were strongly TWAW he would have been unlikely to take the case. So that left 2 other likely views for him.

Who would have thought HR documents could be the basis of such amazing courtroom drama?

To my mind, it doesn't really matter what BC's personal views are, because what he is defending is the rights of people to have their conduct at work examined with transparency. It's clear to me that there was no transparency about CGD's processes, and also that they were being discriminatory.

Mind you, when did common sense ever matter to witchfinders.

In the same way as some do not tire of the Harrop and KJK two-hander I'm feeling a little sad that some of these exchanges are not available for posterity in full technicolour and audio.

@allmywhat

Who would have thought HR documents could be the basis of such amazing courtroom drama?

IKR? I am GLUED to this, it's absolutely fascinating.

What's the Harrop and KJK two-hander?

@user2519782463

Could anyone please dm me a link to the bundle? I was watching at work but now I'm home and the bundle link has disappeared from the chatroom!

Pick them up from here.

hiyamaya.net/

[quote ThePennyJustDropped]@PenguindreamsofDraco

Oh I quite agree Ben is superb, and clearly his view is unimportant - I was just speculating. I would assume that if his views were strongly TWAW he would have been unlikely to take the case. So that left 2 other likely views for him. [/quote]
He wouldn't have the option not to take the case. Cab rank rule - barristers are hired by whoever hails them first! Absolute cornerstone of the bar.

I don't really understand how barristers get assigned cases - is it that they can choose to say no to a case but they can't pick and choose?
But isn't Ben Cooper also doing Alison Bailey's case against Stonewall? Is that just a fortunate coincidence then?

@nauticant

Again, we see how the involvement of QI turned this into a shitstorm. I want MF to win and for other organisations and institutions to see this.

Me too and for QI and cgd ? Think tank to spontaneously combust and never be seen again. I keep coming back to this is a think tank that did fuck all thinking.

I mean give me a job in one, I'd do sod all thinking for nice sums of money, and I swear I'd never mention gender ideology ever. So long as I'm handsomely paid.

I'm feeling really conflicted. On one hand this is absolutely fascinating and far more gripping than anything on tv, on the other, I'm painfully aware that this is real life and that Maya has had to go through all this.

@allmywhat

I don't really understand how barristers get assigned cases - is it that they can choose to say no to a case but they can't pick and choose? But isn't Ben Cooper also doing Alison Bailey's case against Stonewall? Is that just a fortunate coincidence then?

Solicitors instruct barristers that they think will be good for the case. So, AB's solicitor could have approached BC because of this work.

@MrsSteveMcDonald

I'm feeling really conflicted. On one hand this is absolutely fascinating and far more gripping than anything on tv, on the other, I'm painfully aware that this is real life and that Maya has had to go through all this.

Yes, seconded. It must be horrendous for Maya.

Doesn't the solicitor instruct the barrister? I presume Maya's GC solicitors sought a barrister who was either sympathetic or at the very least not hostile to GC views.

@ClawedButler

What's the Harrop and KJK two-hander?

He wouldn't have the option not to take the case. Cab rank rule - barristers are hired by whoever hails them first! Absolute cornerstone of the bar.

That's interesting but don't some of them 'specialise' as such, or are known to fight hard for a particular 'side' so would not be the first pick for the 'other' side if you see what I mean?

Is it different in Criminal Law where there is a definitive split on Prosecution or Defence?

I think that's for criminal cases isn't it where the defendant is unrepresented? A claimant can chose whoever they want for a civil case.

BC: 29 Feb transcript from call. The explanation you gave for decision was a truthful one?

MA: I didn't go into all the details, but gave headline explanations

BC: it was truthful?

MA: yes

BC: we have no other contemporaneous record of the rationale? We have seen Mr P's talking points. My Q is - is there any other record from that time for the rationale?

MA: not that I am aware

BC: p 107 these are the respondent's grounds of resistance. The decision not to renew the visiting fellowship is addressed. No explanation is provided. The only other explanation is 3 years later

MA: those are my reasons, not what I said on the call.

BC: we are just identifying the various iterations of rationale. 2 documents from the time, one document produced 3 years later. I'm going to suggest that your witness statement is not a true or accurate reflection of the actual reasons at the time, do you agree?

MA: no, I don't agree

BC: further elaboration that you gave us a short while ago - a further attempt to spin and elaborate. Do you agree?

MA: No, I don't agree.