Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 4

[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

Thread three, here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507443-Maya-Forstater-Tribunal-March-2022-Thread-3

Abbreviations:
BC = Ben Cooper QC, counsel for
MF = Maya Forstater - Claimant
AP = Anya Palmer, assisting BC
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents
EJ = Employment judge, leading the panel
Panel = any one of the 3 members

CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1

CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2

LE = Luke Easley, Vice president for HR and operations at CGD, first witness for CGD
AG = Amanda Glassman, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Fellow and Board Secretary of CGD and a Trustee of CGD(Europe), second witness for CGD
MP = Mark Plant, Chief Operating Officer of CGD Europe, third witness for CGD
MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE – Respondent 3, fourth witness for CGD

EM = Ellen MacKenzie, an off-stage character at CGD, involved in much that went on.

Maya's website has lots of relevant information and is collating the live tweets.
www.hiyamaya.net

twitter.com/tribunaltweets is the account to look at for the live tweets. Plus some live posting and discussion on these threads.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

They will send you pin number and a link to log in to the tribunal.

'You have to spend your time rebutting what the submission and closing statement of the notional opponent rather than concentrating on your own summation?'

Seems like a decent use of the time to me. All BC's arguments are in his skeleton, and the first judgment deals comprehensively with the protected beliefs. He has to deal with this weighing up argument.

BC's version of Lee and Ashers is making much more sense than OD's yesterday.

I think so too. It was meant to protect Asher's human rights more than his corporate identity, surely?

So someone with GC beliefs forced to observe people preferred pronouns is compelled speech?

One good argument is: this is my interpretation of statute and case law, you can go through it methodically and it makes sense all the way, and there's their interpretation of statute and case law, try to follow that and you'll do your brain a mischief.

BC observed OD's submission yesterday as I think MA did, but no one from the CGD side seems to be watching BC's submission.

I find this surprising. Are they so sure that they will win?

Oooh 'OD swooped 'magpie like' on phrases and then used them out of context'

Got a login and am just sneaking in between meetings... BC is everything I've dreamed of!

OD is there.

MA was in earlier. OD is in now.

beastly, I wasn't really seeing it and then he bit his thumb.

BC: You are almost bound to accept MF's account... once you accept that, then it inevitably follows that the defendant's account is spin and deliberately misleading... We have little glimpses from these documents that you could just about stitch together into a defence, but when you cast the light back, the only sensible reading of what happened is that there was a deliberate effort to redirect funding away from the claimant in order to find a pretext for abandoning the relationship with her. You should ask yourself the question why the claimant is told 'it's because of your tweets' if that had no bearing? The answers are clear. When you cast the light forward on to all the other detriments... what hope had MF of ever being given further work? What was the point of the whole process, how much bearing did any of the later issues have on the decision? We already knew the relationship was broken because of the decision over tweets... It's about the kneejerk, prejudiced reaction of Washington to MF's beliefs

@DomesticatedZombie

beastly, I wasn't really seeing it and then he bit his thumb.

Hahahaha!

BC seems to be relying a fair bit on MP's evidence which, at the time, struck many of us as being the most frank and plausible of all of the CGD evidence. MP might want to look at what happened to MF and reassess his future.

Most unfeminist thing ever - but is BCQC hot?

They aren't showing in the view I can see, hence my comment. Thanks for clarifying

I am smiling every time that BC refers to the prevailing attitude in CGD towards MF as being prejudicial and bigoted.

Did I just hear a chicken squawk?

BC: there's no description of what MF actually said. No one called her or explained anything to her. The absence of evidence from her speaks volumes. You should draw every possible adverse inference from the absence of that evidence. MF confirmed at least one person said 'you can't say that'... he gives a clearer impression of the visceral reaction. MA characteristically sought to spin this in his statement, although he had to abandon this in his evidence. The action was driven by people in Washington who misunderstood MF's beliefs. MP's submission unlocks the reason behind the decision and gives the lie to the idea that it was all about the manner of expression or the fallout from MF's tweets.

@spacehardware

Most unfeminist thing ever - but is BCQC hot?

Just checking in to catch up. Thanks all. So great to see all the excellent common sense (and in depth knowledge of employment law, obvs) on display in the tribunal from BC, and on here, after so much obfuscation and nonsense from CGD.

BC: MF was never given an opportunity to respond to specific. MP expressly said he didn't want MF to explain herself because it would aggravate people in Washington. He was accepting of not putting W's views to the claimant because it was about the full body of her work. MF was deliberately being denied the chance to respond to views about her language, tweets etc, because a) prejudices of Washington colleagues; b) because it was thought there was nothing she could say that would defend her views - essentially the 'no debate' position identified in Miller. Anything she could say would be bigoted so she shouldn't be allowed to say it. Shows it's about the beliefs themselves, not the expression.

Have to go back to work now! Will catch up when I can

@nauticant

I am smiling every time that BC refers to the prevailing attitude in CGD towards MF as being prejudicial and bigoted.

me too. it's true though innit?

by the actual dictionary definition of bigot, they are massive, massive bigots

put that in your 'I'm a good person' pipe and smoke it wokesters

is it a break or is there a technical problem for others? I have nothing now, even on refreshing and reentering (I left the room for a moment so if a break was announced I missed it)

I am loving the fact that he is out and out suggesting they are liars…so refreshing! As a woman I am so trained in being kind it seems so alien to me.