Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Maya's tribunal next Tuesday (21 and 22 March)

243 replies

chilling19 · 17/03/2023 21:23

Just got this email - on how to request access

Update on Stand With Maya!

This week I finished writing my seventh witness statement in this case, and we assembled the fifth bundle of evidence. My lawyers wrote their fourth opening statement, and I am preparing to be cross-examined for the third time.
I am claiming for compensation for injury to feelings, aggravated damages, lost earnings and future earnings.
The tribunal will be the same panel as before, and the hearing will be online.
If you would like to watch you should email in advance to [email protected]k_ — the email subject should be PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST - Forstater v CGDE & Ors 2200909/2019 - 21 and 22 March.

OP posts:
Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 11:53

Ah maybe it is CDG who don't want Mark Plant to be there, rather than he's hiding

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 11:55

Based on how shit most of CDG (and Garden Chambers) were at logical and critical thinking I'm clearly in the wrong job if some of them are getting $150000!

Ameanstreakamilewide · 22/03/2023 11:58

I do keep shaking my head, @Chrysanthemum5 🤦🏻‍♀️

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:00

BC just showed that P Mills' witness statement about whether initial funding needed to be in place for someone to be appointed relates to recent policy and now she's saying she has no idea whether it would have applied to MF.

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 12:00

I'm enjoying seeing a little bit of BC again. But I would definitely not want to be being questioned by him, and maybe that's a lesson CDG have learnt

Chrysanthemum5 · 22/03/2023 12:02

I'm distracted by the sheet behind Mr Miller - what is behind there?

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:02

BC is presenting a case to the tribunal that P Mills witness statement can't be relied on because much of it relates to recent events that she can't say would apply to in the case of MF's employment and that it contains incorrect information that has been fed to her.

CriticalCondition · 22/03/2023 12:08

I love it when BC looks up while carefully forming his question and then slowly brings his laser gaze down to witness.

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:21

BC: Was this your judgement? [ie the position MF would have been given]

PM: err .. umm ... err ... err ...

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:25

Hmm, was she looking at an updated CV which included Maya's experience at CDG? Or the CV that existed before Maya started at CDG?

OP posts:
nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:26

This seems to be that CGD have got P Mills to identify the target seniority for MF based on little more than MF's CV and would have come to a different view if she'd had an in-depth discussion with MF.

EmpressaurusOfCats · 22/03/2023 12:27

Poor woman, sounds like CGD have dropped her right in it.

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:27

'Clearer CV'. But Maya was not required to apply for anything at this point - if she was she would have tailored her CV accordingly. Which PM acknowledged when she said 'fleshing out'.

OP posts:
nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:27

That would be good to know chilling19. I wonder if those in the hearing know or whether it's a lost, potentially helpful, detail.

LipbalmOrKnickers · 22/03/2023 12:28

'moderate your tone'. Bloody hell!

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:28

Ben - know your place!

OP posts:
CriticalCondition · 22/03/2023 12:29

Yikes, P Mills has just suggested Maya's CV should have been clearer if she wanted to be assessed as suitable for a senior role.
It's all getting a bit fractious now.

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:29

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:27

That would be good to know chilling19. I wonder if those in the hearing know or whether it's a lost, potentially helpful, detail.

Yes exactly. Looking at an old CV is pointless. Certainly when I am mid project my CV languishes until I need to apply for the next one.

OP posts:
Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:33

BC: 'Were you strongly encouraged to rubbish the claimant?'

Ouch

OP posts:
LipbalmOrKnickers · 22/03/2023 12:34

Ben is en fuego!

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:36

BC has got PM to admit that her assessment of the seniority MF would have been given was, effectively, only done on the basis of MF's CV and she hasn't taking the opportunity to find out about MF from the relevant people in CGD..

Original poster
chilling19 · 22/03/2023 12:39

So, assessment based on an (outdated?) CV with no reference to the work Maya carried out for CDG.

As Ben pointed out, any of us could have done the same.

And if this is a legitimate method of recruitment, why do organisations bother with interviews?

OP posts:
Ameanstreakamilewide · 22/03/2023 12:41

I always assumed recruitment processes were a load of old arse, but man alive!

nauticant · 22/03/2023 12:42

She was backed into a corner and seemed to say that that was a normal recruitment process, that a salary would be awarded solely on what an HR person who'd never met the applicant, would decide solely based on their CV.

Nah.

CriticalCondition · 22/03/2023 12:43

I wonder if poor PM knew when she joined CDG in autumn 2021 that she'd be in the witness box in this case.

Swipe left for the next trending thread