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

Ha, OD is saying garden court treated Allison worse than CDG treated Maya. Not an appealing argument.

Now aggravated damages.

OD talks about categories, and she says the relevant acts were not committed in a high-handed, aggressive, and malicious manner. Different from a case involving intentional harm.

Again, I can see her argument here.

About letters to funders there was only one and that was in response to the highly publicised The Times article.

Pronouns are like Rohypnol article gets a mention. It's not surprising that a non-binary person would find that offensive.

OD does not like the Pronouns are Rohypnol article. 🤨

Now onto CGD's conduct during litigation. A tribunal would need very significant evidence to find for MF here.

It's not surprising that a non-binary person would find that offensive.

Name something they wouldn't!

OD: The damages to be based on "the loss of a chance".

OD: the claimant has not proved there was funding for the 0.9 role.

That's an argument that MF was quite some distance from actually having lost a job.

All the comparators claimed by MF have postgraduate qualifications and she would be the only fellow to be appointed lacking these qualifications.

That may well be the hook that lets CGD off, Nauticant

Perhaps that explains why they’ve come back to tribunal? They think this will let them off paying damages, and they will then claim that not paying damages = they were justified in their actions / the good guys etc all along.

As opposed to the technical question of was she employed / was there a job for them to oust her from?

OD is pairing down the damage. There was only 0.5 funding. MF's academic background is far less relevant than comparators, then you factor in the job level, then a reduction that MF might have left before the end of the 2 year term. Also a big discount that MF probably would have ended up in a sex and gender campaigning role in any case. (That's to say that by leaving CGD MF hasn't actually lost a career.)

It's sort of like this:
Yes there was discrimination.
But MF wasn't too bothered.
She was only in the process of maybe getting a job.
Even if she had got it it would have been at a lower salary than she's claiming, it would have been at a lower seniority than she's claiming, and she probably would have left the job early in any case, probably to be a sex and gender campaigner.

Only the most resilient woman could cope with this kind of court case. Anyone who had a breakdown after loss of employment, and fell into poverty and homelessness wouldn't be sufficiently mentally resilient to cope with the process. So it seems there will never be a case where this could be proven - what's the point?

10 minutes break then Ben Cooper to do the closing arguments on behalf of Maya Forstater.

Surely that last line of argument by OD is absolute BS? They’re arguing that losing her job, being publicly trashed and accused of bigotry, having to go through the legal system to rescue her reputation has made no difference to her future employment prospects, and she would have chosen to give up well paid work to become a campaigner if all that hadn’t happened?

well they would say that wouldn’t they.

I think Maya would have a difficult time getting a job in many organisations now she's the public face of terfery. Magnificent though she is, this has narrowed her career options considerably.

And most women would not have had the rising from the ashes Phoenix moment Maya's had. Most women would lose their jobs and suffer, and their children would suffer. We know this.

Excellent précis nauticant

OD would argue that if Maya had gone away meekly and never caused any fuss once she'd been cast out of CGD, then her career prospects in her previous line of work would be far rosier now than they currently are.

It's why we're so grateful for women like Allison and Maya. They're aware that so many of us would never be able do this, and so they're warriors on our behalf.

Ah yes the 'woman know your place and let us do whatever we want to you without making a fuss' line of argument.

Also the “well, you brought it on yourself” argument.

BC now up. It'll be interesting how he capitalises on the testimony by P Mills.

Apparently BC is going to focus on the law.

3 preliminary observation on the evidence:

• PM HR expert evidence is inadmissible because your assessment would be equally as relevant as hers.
• CGD chose to call a witness with no knowledge of the relevant events, there are potential relevant witnesses, she effectively gave heresay evidence. The tribunal should draw an adverse inference that the relevant witnesses weren't provided.
• MF's evidence has been clear and consistent. He commented on the fact that OD argued that because MF didn't give up on life but struggled on all was well.

Finally we were treated to an "otiose"!