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.

Yes, not saying she's not good, just that it feels like she's left trying to patch the holes that CGD created.

Mumsnet got a mention. Good.

Waves at OD. "I don't want to be misquoted on Mumsnet".... FFS

OD doesn't want to be misquoted on Mumsnet apparently.

@foodfiend

I believe that OD has previously pointed out that she has childcare responsibilities, limiting the time she can put in 'out of hours'.

I appreciate that, but the optics aren’t good. Essentially comes across as “I’m not prepared.” For whatever reason.

You know OD has a profile on here somewhere.

we all correctly quoted OD on that

the right to manifest a belief is something that can lawfully be interfered with ...

@ShagMeRiggins I don't that's fair. Everyone needs to balance their time and you cannot just say always available.

Wait what, she said the correct comparator would be someone without a belief?

Hahahaha - big up to the MN FWR massive

I find the BC=hero, OD is a baddie implications a bit silly.

For all we know OD is a TERF and BC a TRA. They're both highly skilled professionals doing their job. If the case wasn't properly argued and there were errors in law, then potentially would leave any judgement open to appeal. Lets hope this is is all done as well as it can be by both sides.

@DomesticatedZombie

the right to manifest a belief is something that can lawfully be interfered with ...

But surely only when it's clearly 'beyond the pale'; and Maya has already proven, in law, that her beliefs are absolutely mainstream and obviously WORIADS.

I think OD is really overreaching now. She's perilously close to appearing somewhat lost.

Giggling at OD's reference to the backside of the website.

(Not misquoting. She did say that.)

@similarminimer

I find the BC=hero, OD is a baddie implications a bit silly.

For all we know OD is a TERF and BC a TRA. They're both highly skilled professionals doing their job. If the case wasn't properly argued and there were errors in law, then potentially would leave any judgement open to appeal. Lets hope this is is all done as well as it can be by both sides.

Could you refer us to any comment where anyone says that? Because I haven't seen one.

I think judge is going to draw a negative inference from respondent's failure to call EM as witness....
The judge could find that the respondent's conduct was really shady, they may have lied or misrepresented their position, and yet the claim could still fail on employment status, couldn't it?

"tabbycatstripy Wed 23-Mar-22 13:00:03

'If most people in the UK believe XYZ is fine and your employee has an opposite view when will they be so toxic in the views of others, even unreasonable beliefs of others, you can sack them?'

Exactly. If I were the only pro-choice person in the UK, or the only pro-life person in the UK, would that give my employer a basis to sack or refuse to hire me, or am I allowed to think what I think, and say I think it, even in the face of every single person in the country disagreeing?

I think I am. I think that's the whole point of the law."

It is a fascinating issue. For example when I was married you could not even rape your wife during marriage and when I was born we had just decriminalised male gay sex and i believe suicide was still a criminal offence. In other words views of what is perfectly okay then and what is now regarded as utterly dreadful have changed - as to the majority in the UK. Not everyone however has changed their views and some people come from cultures abroad to the UK with extremely different views.

I hope we can live in a UK where you can have very different views from others. I am in the 9% who has not had the covid vaccine which makes me a killer in many eyes, but hopefully not grounds, were I an employee, to sack me for the view. What you do in your spare time has always been ani ssue empoloyment lawyers wrestle over. Some post office workers years ago used to go abroad to football matches in their spare time and were hooligans. The tribunal I think said their criminal actions outside work were so bad that brings the employer into disrepute to be associated with them so it was fine to sack them (fair enough, that is a criminal offence whereas have a view on what is a woman is not - unless our awful hate crime laws have gone so far that even expressing a contrary view on that is a crime).

I would like workers to be able outside work to support any unpopular cause or group they like whether that be anti or pro abortion, support for russia or ukraine, remain or brexit, Tory, Labour, communist.

I still in terms of anything under my real name and public profile try to ensure no client knows my views on most topics as that is safer. If you say you vote Labour you annoy Tory clients. If you say the other you annoy the other half so not saying anything can be simplest. it is one reason I don't support the current position where even judges are allowed to give speechs and interviews and we see their pictures (never mind live streams of the Supreme Court). When they were simply an office without a view, picture or any information known about them it was better. I expect everyone will disagree with that view of mine however... anyway I am off topic and have too much work.

I am looking forward to my twins starting their employment law elective topic next week on their LPC (law) course if they let me read the notes as it is a very interesting field.

A woman who advocates for dismantling women's rights disses Mumsnet while being hindered by limited time due to childcare duties.
Where would we be without our sense of humor?

[quote Whatamesssss]@ShagMeRiggins I don't that's fair. Everyone needs to balance their time and you cannot just say always available.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s fair either. I’m saying that’s how it comes across to me—unprepared.

I think this was discussed in an earlier thread similarminimer. Solicitors instruct barristers on the basis of their previous work and reputation. They wouldn't instruct someone who was known to have opposing beliefs/conflicts of interest.

I agree though that OD has a tough job here!

OD has dreadful material to work with and a client from hell. I can't imagine any barrister doing any better tbh.

Her side may yet win on a technicality (as it were).

The problem with arguing about something being offensive in a legal context is that there should be a test of reasonableness. (Something that seems to be lacking from the hate crime laws in the UK.) Without it you're opening up scope for bullying. Relating reasonableness to offence is something that has been completely absent from CGD's case.

Something that seems to be lacking from the hate crime laws in the UK.

OD's interpretation appears to be along the same lines, that it's how the offended person perceived it.

Yes, Clegosaurus, I was confused by that too. As I understood it, BC suggested comparator should be someone with different beliefs but similar expressions, whereas OD seemed to be proposing the comparator should be someone saying all the same things but not meaning them...? But that doesn't make any sense at all. Can anyone interpret for me?

Do tribunals normally get an audience like this? Was just scrolling through the list of who's here... hi everyone!

The website stuff is pretty funny imo. They deleted her from the website, and then deleted EVERY OTHER alumnus from the website after the tribunal claim highlighted her deletion as additional victimisation. Leaving a load of 404 error pages behind, and with the trail clearly visible via internet archives. Doh.