The Employment Tribunal is being live tweeted by a team of volunteers from @tribunaltweets

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 three-person panel hearing the case.
• Panel = any one of the three members 
• CGDE (CGD Europe) – Respondent 1
• CGD = Centre for Global Development – Respondent 2
• LE = Luke Easley, Vice President HR, CGD
• AG = Amanda Glassman, COO CGD
• MP = Mark Plant, COO CGDE
• MA = Masood Ahmed, President of CGD and Chair of the Board of CGDE  – Respondent 3
• CH = Cindy Huang, Co-Director of Migration, Displacement and Humanitarian Policy; Senior Policy Fellow (based DC)
• EM = Ellen Mackenzie, Chief Financial Officer and VP Administration, CGD [DC]; Trustee of CGDE (based DC)
• HS = Holly Shulman, Director of Communications (based DC) 
• C1, C2, C3, C4 = four individuals who recorded complaints against MF and who in respect of whom reporting restrictions (preventing publication of their names or email addresses in Great Britain) are in place. 
• QI= Quantum Impact
• WORIADS = Worthy of respect in a democratic society

Short cuts to the evidence sessions:

• Maya Forstater
• Luke Easley
• Amanda Glassman
• Mark Plant
• Masood Ahmed

Short cuts to closing submissions

• Olivia Dobbie (for respondents)
• Ben Cooper QC (for claimant)

Day 1 – Admin

Day 2 – Reading

Day 3 – AM & PM – Discussion of reporting restrictions

Day 4 – AM & PM – Maya’s evidence

Witness statement

OD: I’ll do some signposting as you’re going to be sitting there for a while hearing my voice. I’ll start with employment status will take most of today, then your tweets etc. Page 23 of the bundle please.
OD: I take it this was a genuine employment contract
Mf: I’m not a employment lawyer
OD: was that your understanding
MF: yes
OD: and that contract came to an end in May and no further contract
MF: yes
OD: (missed) is it your case your employment started on the first contract or the second?
MF: I don’t know I just described what happened
OD: I’ll go through the lead up to second contract
OD: you wrote (missed) for further work
MF: yes
OD: turn to page 53, email between you and employer is asking what MF wants to do
MF: following discussions about what we wanted to do together
OD: you’ve been offering your services for research and writing since 2003
MF: not a lot a company as an individual
OD: a sole trader, since 2003
MF: since about 2000
OD: you were looking for funding for a larger piece of work…this was you and V working together and went about getting funding
MF: yes
ID: a collaboration
MF: yes
OD talks of MF directly working with fundraisers…(missed) and you knew at this stage there was no promise of future paid work, all contingent on funding

OD: you were in discussion with another company and offering them the work CGD wasn’t interested in
MF: yes there CGD didn’t think it fit their mandate and they were interested in pursuing
ID: this is how you ran your consultancy
MF: no not really
ID: turn to 469 we can see your messages with employer (and reads out email)
MF: yes
OD: in Oct 2016 you were told you were a consideration for a visiting fellow. You knew this
MF: yes
OD reads the correspondence.
The two capacities to engage with CGD are not inextricably linked are they?
MF: that wasn’t the basis of my fellowship
OD: these capacities are not definite (discusses different fellowships)
MF: they can offer one without the offer but thats not what was offered to me.

OD states MF went looking for work elsewhere
MF: it was an associate position and didnt get very far
OD: it would have been unpaid affiliation?
MF: it was similarly contingent on funding
OD: let’s look at the how the visiting fellowship came to pass, page 418, this was the invite you received
MF: yes
ID: and came from the US entity?
MF: I was told CGD and CGDE operated the same
Od: but it’s not CGDE
MF: that’s not what I was told
OD challenges further and MF states that’s not what she was told. OD takes MF through the email which is heading CDG. This visiting fellowship came through before any contract
MF: the two processes weer completely linked
OD: that wasn’t my question
OD continues to read out email from CDG.
OD: from the few quotes I’m sure you agree there was no obligation here
MF: yes
OD: even in the one restraint, your affiliation whether a conflict of interest, it doesnt say dont publish, just don’t publish with CGD
MF: yes
OD: it’s not a contract is it
MF: no
OD: paragraph 25, 26 you refer to a table of visiting fellows which reflects distinction between paid and unpaid. You say your fellowship had a salary.
OD: do you have the doc? 420?
MF: yes
OD: this is the doc referred in your witness statement. The names you give are all visiting fellows
MF: yes
(OD reads out names and whether they had a salary and no office) we can see you have no email or office and has salary.

MF: I did have an email. I’m not sure what this doc was produced for.
OD: you got your email in 2017. What we can see is no pattern of visiting fellows with pay, email or office or both. It’s rather ad hoc, there sno strict pattern
MF: no
OD: and we know that CGD does give office space and fellows could use office spaces whether paid or unpaid.
(Missed)
OD: there were other visiting fellows that did substantial work
MF: I don’t think so, I don’t know
OD gives examples of people
MF: I don’t know
OD: moving to second contract…
OD: this was your second contract with either entity, the US entity and its different from the London team
MF: it is
OD: page 498 these were your convos before the contract was issued. OD reads emails
Mf: I was strongly encouraged to be in the office on Wednesdays.
OD: being encouraged and required are different. If you didn’t come in you wouldn’t be in trouble
MF: if I didn’t I dialled
OD: from your own wording it says you ‘aim’ to get to the office
OD: we can see here you say you will do other complimentary work so you already had paid sources of work for the year
MF: yes
OD: you also did work for tax journal
MF: yes I wrote articles
OD: paid?
MF: yes
OD: we can see your delineating (missed)
MF: yes
OD: and some work was in similar space to what CGD did
MF: it was complimentary
OD: and no prohibition
MF: yes there was
MF: it was by MA and I shouldn’t work for clients that’d be a conflict of interests
OD: but that was conflict of interest, but you were free to do work that didn’t do that
MF: yes but I was only part time for CGD
OD: we can here you’re described as a consultant I this and states CGD should not be responsible for income taxes and vat…you invoiced throughout this contract
MF: yes
OD: it was limited in time wasn’t it
MF: yes
OD: on page 44 we see your fees was a total that would split on deliverables. So you weren’t paid a salary
MF: I don’t know. I was included on the table of salary and was paid. I wasn’t PAYE.
OD: if we got to page 246 this is exhibit A which sets out the work itself
MF: yes
OD: this was the doc taken from your terms referenced when you drafted. If we look to page 246 there’s a summary of deliverables at the bottom
OD: So the pay was contingent on delivering these
MF: On paper but didn’t work in practice. The initial plan didn’t go as planned and I was told to invoice and I did
OD: while we’re on invoices, it was always the case throughout the interactions you had to invoice to be paid…right through to Dec 18
MF: yes
OD: and you created the invoices not a CGD template
MF: no
OD: same for your other clients
MF: yes
OD reads from page 245
OD: so these were written rather loosely, noone was dictating to you which research orgs
MF: yes I did this in collaboration with V
ID: and you decided yourself without input some times
MF: yes

OD: repeats very loose and noone dictating
MF: that’s correct noone knew how the work would develop
OD: you could do the work when you thought it appropriate
MF: I couldn’t turn down events for no good reason
MF: there was no time table fixed because we didn’t know what it would entail
OD: you didn’t have to request time off for holiday
MF: no
OD: and you weren’t paid when off
MF: no
OD: and weren’t entitled to sick pay
MF: no
OD: you say you were considered part of the CGD
MF: yes it was with CGD but considered a colleague of CGDE
OD: the work you did with OB wasn’t under CGD contract?
MF: the plan was to build a program of work that would sit in CGDE
(A lot of confusion about the CGD and CGDE)
ID: it says you were invited to lunches before your capacity as a visiting fellow
MF: the two were completely connected. The work I did under the contract didn’t stop when the date ended.
(Missed)
OD: You never had to inform someone if you couldn’t make a weekly lunch. I suspect its not true
MF: no I was told to come by Hannah and not contractual and if I wasn’t coming I was expected to dial in.
OD: you say OD encouraged you spend time at London office…so this was before your appointment and its merely encouraged not obligatory
MF: as I said, we talked about how we would work together and how I would be integrated as part of CGD team & we were strongly expected to be in office one day a week as part of that team
OD: it was up to you as to where you worked from, you didn’t go regularly until the end
OD takes MF through her statement where she said this and MF says this is a typo as to when it started
OD: that’s not true is it
MF: Wilton Road was the first office, then to new Zealand house then a temp office in trafalgar Square then another office
OD: it terms of attending regularly that’s not true is it
MF: that’s a typo
EJ: are we using the term ‘regularly’ to mean ‘frequently’
OD: I meant once a week
MF: yes…the days I didn’t come in I was travelling for work and about 3 times I dialled in on zoom
OD: Jan and Feb there was no additional work or pay, just what was contained in the second contract
MF: yes I was completing that work
OD: the full grant wasn’t extended
MF: no
OD: now business cards were provided to visiting fellows
MF: I don’t know
OD: there were othe revisiting fellows who had no contract and were entitled to business cards
MF: I don’t know
OD: if we look at 501 of a business card you provided, we can see a gmail address
MF: it’s my personal email address
OD: so let’s look when you got a CGD email address and you clearly didn’t have it when you got these business cards. You got it 7 months into your second contract. You only got it because OD was trying to get that for work and to send out invitations
OD takes us through 551 where OD gets an email address for MF.
OD: that’s how it came I to existence
MF: yes
OD: and despite this you still used your Gmail
MF: yes
OD: you referred to having access to the intranet, isn’t that because of email address
MF: yes

OD: and that email gave key cards
MF: (missed)
OD: you don’t know if unpaid fellows got key cards?
MF: when we moved offices we were taken through safety training and given business and key cards and that was done for all of the team, not for distant fellows
OD: and all fellows could book rooms.
MF: I don’t think it would be sent to occasional visitors
OD: it may not have been sent but had they requested then they’d be entitled to use that room
MF: I don’t know
OD: hosting events was part of your deliverables
MF: yes and events in 2017 and 2018
OD: and being invited to Xmas party and away day, visiting fellows are invited?
MF: I don’t think so
OD: you don’t know
MF: no
OD: the use of the term slack in regards to the London team. And you weren’t provided with laptop and used your own
MF: yes
OD: and it was hotdesking
MF: yes
OD: and no company credit card
MF: no
OD: wondering when to take a break
EJ: this seems a food a time as any. Well resume in 10 minutes.
EJ remind everyone the order of confidentiality.
OD: you refer to the fact you have a photo and biog on the website and listed as a fellow
MF: yes
OD: and un paid fellows were listed
MF: yes
(Missed)
OD: you were never a budget holder
MF: no
OD: you were never shown how to use sales forces
MF: yes that’s right
OD: that was for tracking funding
MF: contacts in fact
OD: but you didn’t do that
MF: no Paddy
OD: you referred to two other consultants and who had managed contract with CGD and Vijaya
(Missed)
OD: you accept this wasn’t one of the deliverables
MF: not the main ones but those papers needed supervising
MF: I was expected to work with Vajaya
OD: you said this worked as was part of the work I was contracted to do as a visiting fellow
MF: no I wasn’t contracted as a VF, I was contracted as (missed)
OD: you didn’t line manage anyone?
MF: no
OD: you never had appraisals
MF: no
OD: the second contract was the seed grant and was never extended and the work did otherwise come off. It would be fair to say it was a theme that came up time and again
MF: Yes and we knew that would be the case
OD: your work was international task and illicit financial flows was niche? Not a core part of CGD
MF: fell under sustainable financial flow
OD: it wasn’t a topic of the core part of CGD, only you brought in?
MF: initially Owen Barder (and names a few others)
MF gives more info on that. OD takes us to page 631.
OD: in convos where Vajira will propose to MA… this is where its suggested your role was niche…(missed)
MF: I’m not a tax expert I was just working on a tax project for CGD at that time
(Missed)
OD: page 574, an email to Vijaya and Paddy about Maya’s contract coming to an end. (Reads email)
MF: I’ll stop you there, complainant 3 you just mentioned her
MF: for the purposes of live tweeters
OD: of course
(Missed as im checking I’m not in breach)
OD: we can see your email to Owen you’re correcting something he’d written when he’d, in defence of you, page 642, and then you respond correctly him on 641. (OD reads email) so you weren’t be paid from unrestricted grants
MF: no
OD: noone offered you a fresh contract?
MF: the funders all worked together and so we had hoped these funders would fund us and pick up quite quickly. When we realised it was going to be longer, Owen and I sat down and talked about what I could do
ID: we can see you’re telling Owen you need funding and had understood there was no obligation for you. It was all contingent on funding
MF: yes
ID: at this time when no obligation you didn’t know you’d get another contract, you’d booked attendance of other events in the area of tax
MF: yes I was invited to present to the UN in February and the paper ID done with CDG
OD: page 632, we can see an email from you to V (read email) so despite having no ongoing work with CGD you had arranged to go to these events and they were not CGD told you to attend
MF: non of the events through the whole contract… There wasn’t a distinction between specific events I was invited to and encouraged to go to.
OD: but you sought them out in your own right
MF: in order to raise the funds was raising the profile of CGD as an org able to contribute to international tax
OD: there was no obligation for you to fundraise
MF: had I said I would turn down events at UN it wouldn’t have been looked at well.
OD: at these conferences you could have picked up paid work
MF: no they weren’t those types of conferences,
OD: to be clear these are no events CGD told you to go to and you weren’t paid
MF: yes
MF: I was there as a fellow for CGD
(Missed)
MF: this was outreach with policy makers at events like this
OD: you didn’t secure funding for tax work
MF: yes
OD: and continued to work for Bteam
MF: yes
ID: how much work did you do for the beam?
MF: I’d do nothing for weeks and weeks. I didn’t have an ongoing commitment to them.
OD: you also worked for NGO principles for investment
MF: yes
OD: how much work
MF: a single project
OD: you didn’t work for another think-tank
MF: wasn’t really work, I presented a paper
OD: and you did paid articles for tax journals
MF: yes
OD: even at the point of discussing employment, you did other work
MF: I did
OD: so all of these were other clients you did work for via your consultancy
MF: I did work for them as an individual
OD: your work with Bteam wasn’t a piece of work it was ongoing
MF: yes I supported a group they had
OD: by 2018 you were friends with OD?
MF: not friends but we get on
ID: and he was going to stick his neck out for you with your opinions
MF: that wasn’t about friendship that’s the culture there….
OD: and the third contract, page 247, this is with CGDE rather than the second CGD US, this was work thats wasn’t your specialism
MF: as I say I’m not a tax specialist
OD: that’s what you’d worked in
OD: this was to produce a paper and the evidence summarised for inclusion in CGD methodology paper. It was discreet work
MF: yes
OD: the main body of the contract is almost identical to the first contract which you accept was genuine consultancy
EJ: MF said earlier she’s not an employment lawyer
OD: I’ll save that for closing submissions then…. turn to page 248 (reafs) so you had freedom to do this work.
MF: I was doing research for one module and ha do fit it with the timing of the product
OD: but the hours and days of the week you could choose….

(OD goes through the fee for this work which was to be invoiced.)
OD: you had no right to expenses under this contract
MF: I don’t think so
OD: and responsible for your own tax
MF: yes
OD: the fourth contract came about by OB and MA…page 646, the 3rd contract had started but not the 4th. MA emails OB (reads out email beginning ‘maya is not the right person…’) ‘any commitment we make to her would be limited in time and scope’
NF: Owen and I had spoke about this…opens father had died and he had time off and this project was late and I had skills in the area and we’d had a discussion but then he’d discussed with Massod and agreed a way forward
OD: this work on commercial confidentiality wasn’t your core work on tax
MF: as I’ve said in was working on tax for a year with CGD. I hadn’t said I was a narrow tax specialist.
OD: but you were fundraising for tax work
MF: yes we wanted to raise funds for that project
OD reads another remail from Masood which suggests MF should be expanding her work
MF: yes that was in notes
OD: we can see your involvement was ‘limited in scope’
MF: I don’t know…the feedback I had is on page 693
OF: I’ll take you to that shortly
OD: I’m sticking with the relationship for now…we can see on page 668, (reads email) so no obligation to accept the contract MF: yes although I’d already accepted it. I originally spoke to OB and went through a range of possibilities and this is the email coming back to me.
(Missed)
MF: I thought that would be the end of that
EJ: what do you mean by that
MF: (missed) if I’d not taken the solution offered…and there was no contractual obligation I’d do those projects at that point but there was an expectation I’d be a paid visiting fellow
OD: so you could have just walked away
MF: there was no obligation but an expectation I would
OD: if we look at the wording we see you had input into the rate
MF: I accepted that rate
OD: you could asked for more
MF: I don’t know but that’s what I was offered and accepted it
OD enquires to usual day rates with MF.
MF: I accepted the offer by Ian
OD: you simply picked the day rate option
MF: I can’t remember, we agreed on the primary offer he gave which was a day rate
OD: in respect to the work you had to accept the scope of the work
MF: yes the project wasn’t well developed at that point and needed to be worked out
OD: and part of your role was to develop
MF: yes to work out the plan
ID: we see that email from Ian Mitchell and here you suggest bullets and timelines and list the flow of the work
MF: yes
OD: and above that we see Ian sending an instruction to Jaqueline Craig about the contract. That’s how it came about
MF: yes the two contracts came to pass as a means to remain as a visiting fellow at CGD
OD: looking at the wording of the contract…is identical to the third contract, do you agree
MF: I think so
OD: we can see whats been agreed with Ian is formulated into this contract
OD: and you obligated to and did send invoices and this contract wasn’t specific of weekdays and hours
MF: together with Charles we worked that out
ID: and you were in charge of running it
MF: yes but the plan of the project and there being a working group had already been developed by CGD (missed)
MF: yes
OD: page 806, this is an email from you to complainant 3 (will refer to as C3) where you’re reporting back on the work (reads email)
OD: with respect to activities in tax you were funding yourself
MF: yes
ID: and there’s a clear distinction between the work
MF: from CGDS point if view the two were linked, certainly with my discussion with Owen…I needed funding in the interim and
MF (cont): wasn’t exactly subsidising but was allowing me to be a visiting fellow while pursuing other funding sources….(missed)
OD: you saw them as separate
MF: yes
OD: so all the other activities were in the hope of funding
MF: yes in the name CGD
OD: and for you not just CGD
MF: well these were blog posts I’d done and published for CGD
ID: but these other activities weren’t obligations
MF: It was constructive ways to gain funding for CGD
OD: but you didn’t have to
MF: no it was an email from a colleague asking what I’d been doing
OD: you stated you went to tax conferences before CGD…so mutually beneficial to raise your profile
OD: you describe it as business development and no instruction to go to the events…
MF: not sure I use the term business development…it wasn’t looking for consultancies, it was looking to develop the program
OD: you got paid for that
MF: no I didnt
ID: But the reason you did was to get funding
MF: yes
ID: page 112, this is a list you sent to C3 of things you had done under the title of visiting fellow over the last 6 months
OD: we have all the matter you list, now a lot of these are papers. Was there any other paid work?
MF: paper for council in foreign relations was an honorarium and paid for travel. Working with B Team was paid work.
(OD going through MF’s various paid work and MF responding in detail.)

EJ: can I just intervene.. are you saying MF that this was part of the project and the fee was for that project
MF: yes it was paid under the contract
(OD asking for more paid work info)
OD thinks its a convenient place to stop considering the time.
EJ tells Maya she mustn’t discuss the case and we will return at 2pm.

OD: paragraphs 57 and 58, you say you and Paddy Carter had a good working relationship and had discussions about joining CGD.. this email was starting a convo about being an employee
MF: yes that was the first time it was put in writing
OD: turn to page 542, it says here I’ve discussed with our front of house and it would make sense for CGD to host this event…theres no mention of your capacity (missed)
MF: no that’s not right. The grant from the beginning was aiming to build a longer term program.
MF: I don’t know who forwarded this email to me…she was putting something in writing we’d discussed already…the thing she was asking me about was moving it CGDE
OD: that’s not what she says here (reads email)
MF: the aim was to build longer program ..and a bigger proposal
OD: that wasn’t my question…if it gets extended do you want to be involved…firstly do you want to do a grant.. she’s asking if you’re interested in being involved with the extension
MF: no I’e been involved with CGD since 2016 and checking I’m still happy with the relationship. This isn’t the first time it came up. When we developed the first proposal there was no question I might not what to be involved
OD: that’s not what she says
MF: when I go this email I wasnt surprised this was my understanding all along
OD: this is your first thing you forever to in your entire witness statement
MF: we talked about ideas about funding for the work with the idea I would do that work
OD: there’s no discussion of moving you to staff
MF: no
OD: because there had been no discussion by this time
MF: no
EJ: is that no I hadn’t been or no I don’t agree
MF: there hadn’t been a discussion about whether I would remain a visiting fellow or staff
MF goes on to explain further
OD: page 541 we see your reply (reads) so you weren’t too thrilled about moving to CGDE didn’t you?
MF: no I wasn’t unhappy about it, I had been working…just wanted to understand my place in the org.
OD: thats because you weren’t integrated to the London
MF: yes .. (states her colleagues hadn’t joined yet
OD: you understood there were two different entities now didn’t you
MF: I thought I guess it would be OK and agreed with what she proposed
OD: October 3027 is the first times you were discussing in terms of employment not just interaction
MF: yes
OD: 561, we see what’s being asked of you (reads email about waiting for funding and a CGD email address)
OD: (reads Maya’s response) and you were awaiting funding and the funding never came through
MF: …it was contingent on funding…
OD: you say it’s this time you discussed your qualifications…its unusual for staff not to have a Masters?
MF: I don’t know
OD: and you’re highest qualification is a BA
MF: a first class honour degree from Newcastle…I asked if this was a barrier and she told me it wasn’t
OD: I’m going to say she did say that but it was rare
OD: in para 6 of your statemen…first time MA had seen your CV…and we see you providing your CV and Vijara sending it on. This is the first time MA saw it, you didn’t send prior
MF: no
OD: you knew there was a process to go through
MF: yes
OD: and you knew there would have to be perpetual funding
MF: as I say it was always contongent on funding
OD: you knew MA would have to approve the role
MF: the exchange with Vijara showed I needed MA backing
OD: you knew you’d have to do a job’s talk

(Missed my connection is slow)
OD discusses correspondence with Vijaya…and this is her feeding back to you about MA and your work, (reads emails) at this point you were given a very clear msg from MA about your projects of being taken on
MF: I was given the message to work on tax & diversify on another area
MF: and I should keep going
OD: it’s standard for NFP to take on staff without funding.. and why it’s usually done with contractors
MF: that’s not my experience
OD: you’re saying that’s not the case
OD: (too fast) final sentence on you from MA, ‘any commitment we make will be limited in scope’.
MF: he appears to be. this wasn’t a msg sent to me
OD: this view by MA that you should have limited involvement was long before any of your tweets?
MF: the msg I got from MA was that there was prospect of me being employed if we were able to raise funding
OD: you base that on the email
MF: and the verbal msgs I had from Vijaya and Owen and others in CGD if the msg had been given to me that
I’d never be employed by CGD I wouldn’t have pursued that but that wasn’t the msg
OD: I think you’re taking an extreme position that what I suggested. Your saying expectations of others you relied on but whatever others may have thought you knew MA was the decision maker?
MF: this email is about a whole range of things…this is the context he’s talking about me here
OD: I’m going to interupt you’re not answering the question. You understood MA was the decision maker
MF: I knew he was the Head of the organisation.
OD: that wasn’t the question.
OD seeks further clarity from MF and asks
OD: I’ll ask you again this was long before you’re first tweet
MF: yes
(Missed)
OD: surely all of this must have occurred after the February email. It was very clear there was a way to go before the discussion would be opened
MF reiterates there was good prospects to be employed
OD: that’s your interpretation of the email?
MF: I interpret the email that she had a convo with MA about prospect of employment and it was positive
OD: I can read and your paraphrasing it back to me. Are you saying that’s your interpretation?
MF: yes
OD: page 343 and the specific working you draw attention to we see your name 4 lines up (reads lines) it was widely socialised (missed)
MF: that’s one of the reasons
OD: that’s the only reason
OD brings up more evidence (too fast)
OD: so where we have an intention to recruit it specifically states that and then this final role you would recruit someone as a senior fellow…when they discuss you they talk of taking you on for tax…there’s no indication to take you on
MF: its clear this is about staff appointment
OD: BC please do not interupt…there are three roles mentioned and not for you
MF: that paragraph is about staff roles
OD: precisely the conversation of taking them on but you aren’t discussed
OD: you weren’t there for the convo
MF: no
OD: looking at page 813, just putting context MF was on 4th contract and you’re saying Hi Mark, can we have a chat about the Gates proposal?
MF: parts had been integrated…(missed)
OD reads email where MF asks questions
MF: I sent Mark my concept notes …and now I wanted to see how it fitted in to the proposal
OD: it’s clear from this convo you weren’t privy to the convos as you asked to look at it
MF: yes
OD (reads another email): so this is work that was separate to the tax team coming to you as an external consultant
MF: it hadn’t got that far, it was a discussion if it’d be a good idea
OD: and that came in your own regard as you were approached so it came to you MF not CGD
MF: it came to me as visiting fellow as CGD
OD: I would put it to you it came to you not CGD…this was you bringing consultancy work into CGD
OD: I’ll leave it there…It’d be easier to secure contracts if it goes through CGd and funders would rather work with orgs than individuals
MF: that’s not how it was
OD: but that is the usual
MF: no
OD: we know you were working on a contract and hadn’t done paid tax work since 2017 for CGD
MF: I wrote several blogs and continued to engage in fundraising for CGD. There was no explicit funding tied to that
*missed)
OD: page 830 we see discussion with Mark Plant but it’s been agreed your work came under his program. We can see here what he says in funding and there is no promise of work. If funding came through you would start a discussion. There’s no indication MP spoke to MA
MF:no
OD: you’d asked to keep yourself available for another client
MF: to finish a project yes
(Missed)
OD: and never approved
MF: no it wasnt
OD: page 836 we can see a talk with Vishal (reads out)
MF: it all got put in a third section
OD: and one part wasn’t just the initial grant and we can see they were hesitant on that work
MF: it was the tax work that went j to the proposal
OD: we know that Mark plant spoke to MA and he could ‘discuss’ bringing you in… and MA restated his view to me about MF to be employed 1. Full funding 2. More breadth and expertise. Neither conditions were met
MF: we don’t know when it was
OD: I’ll be asking a supplementary question on that
MF: your first tweet wasn’t until the end of September. Now paragraph 94 you say the way you were listed it’s indicative you’d be employed.
OD is still trying to assess whether MF had been given any indications of work with CGD
EJ: is MF saying that what was said to her by CGD in 2017 was still applicable in 2019?
OD: that’s a good rephrasing
EJ asks MF
MF: yes, my expectation was that my ideas and my name is in the proposals
EJ says to take a break here.

(The last part of that was confusing and difficult to track, my apologies and we’re taking a much needed break for 10 mins)
We are back. EJ reiterates the order of confidentiality.
OD: just before the break we were going through prospective employment was indicated. Few more questions. You now know MA spoke GG at the gates foundation and that GG didn’t consider your tax work to be Important
OD: (reads the email)…up until this point the convo you had was with Vishal
MF: yes
OD: you describe you were shocked when the gates grant went through but you weren’t taken know. Is that accurate
MF: yes I wasn’t told it was funded without my name being spoken
OD: so it was the fact there was no mention not that you weren’t employed.
MF: I wasn’t mentioned at all and everyone knew that I’d worked on it and Mark said afterwards I wouldn’t be employed
OD: starting on 2118 these are msgs with Alice Evans where you say ‘in theory still waiting but starting to think CGD wants me…’ you had low expectations and insecurity that you won’t have a job in January. That’s in stark contrast to what you say in your witness statement
MF: my experience with CGD was that the day the funder had said informally you have the green light for funding, it moved fast and didn’t wait till the contract was signed to move…I tried to get a meeting with Mark and he couldn’t for about a month
MF cont: and I was worried Mark wasn’t returning my msgs and I now know there were meetings about me and my tweets. I didn’t know that at the time and thought they didn’t want me.
OD: you understand you hadn’t convinced your power of worth
OD: if the last thing that was said a discussion would be had on funding
MF: I would have expected to be told the grant was signed off before the announcement and something about my work …
MF cont: the fact it was announced without any mention and straightaway told me I wasn’t to be employed it was humiliating

OD: Mark said there was no route to you eing a fellow
MF: that’s not what he said to me, we hadn’t discussed job titles..
OD: your work was too narrow it wasn’t to do with your tweets
MF: no that’s not right, he didn’t say anything about the breadth of work.he aside I’d antagonised people in Washington with my tweets
OD reads another email about a discussion about being nominated for a visiting fellow
MF: Mark had said you’re not going to be employed but you can stay on to do the gates work and a visiting fellow. He explained I can have one more year as a VF.
MF cont: I now know he didn’t have the mandate to make that offer but that’s what he offered. I don’t think he said nominate I think he said renew…. (missed) it was the only offer on the table
OD: you knew you needed to be nominated and that what Mark says here but he didn’t have the power
MF: he didn’t raise that would be difficult
OD: now on to workplace culture, page 505
MF: yes the emails about the rules
OD: this was a reply and the context is he, Owen, was defending a complaint about your work
MF: about a blog post I think
OD reads out the email reply from Owen.
OD: you knew there was an expectation that you’d communicate in a way that was respectful of others.
OD: yes…You refer to workplace culture…part of that culture is informed by work policies and events
MF: if it was largely informal rather than written down.
OD: in March you attended an event by Alice Evans
MF: yes
OD: ‘a brown bag brainstorming session’
OD: a memo on Gender equality was sent round in March and you attended
MF: yes
OD: we can see 657 a letter from CGD and which says to aware of subjects raised and also attached handbook saying it will help inform London office discussions
OD: 659 we can see the bullet points recognising implicit biases for men and women, particularly POC and LGBTQ (explains acronym)
MF: yes but it wasn’t mentioned in the workshop. My understanding gender was USA for sex.
OD: meetings on Gender identity were discussed where people could group according to this and you’re directed to the USA handbook…then we can see the first bullet point language, we should form rules before discussion about pronouns
OD: it was about pronouns wasn’t it
MF: no
OD: it doesn’t say anything like that in this .. you say you didn’t understand the culture…People who have transitioned or moved away from their birth gender
MF: this wasn’t about people who identify as trans
OD: that wasn’t my question I wasn’t suggesting the whole talk was about that…including lgbtqi and breaking down in groups, everyone who identifies as a woman on one side and vice versa
MF: sorry I don’t understand. Noone asked me my Gender identity
OD: that’s inclusive though isn’t it
MF: inclusive for trans people?
OD: I’ll use your words as I see there’s no difference between sex and gender
OD states she will move on if MF doesn’t answer her questions. OD goes in about circulating the policy of inclusivity.

OD: pages 154 (reads CGD policy about treating individuals with respect) then under conduct covered and prohibits all forms and lists protected characteristics
OD: so it was very clear these were their policies…what comes through clearly CGDE is adopting the same approach including recognising gender identities and gender expression
MF: I wrote a comment to it which was that being jnclusive cannot mean prescribing everyone has a gender identity because many ppl don’t believe in that. I responded asking people to separate by gender identity makes everyone hae to have that belief
OD: if an employer indicates it has a workplace culture you recognise you respect that culture…you can’t just do your own thing
MF: not if the rules discriminate unlawfully
OD: you think being told to be invlusive and respectful who has a different gender identity from their birth gender is discrimination against you
MF: no being told I have to have the belief
OD: you to go along with the exercise would cause no harm to you
MF: its the same as being asked to pray when not religious
OD: do you really believe that?
MF: I believe sex is important and we should be able to talk about it
MF: I said I don’t have a gender identity and we had a discussion in the women’s group because being a woman getting pregnant, menopause, vulnerable to rape are not an identities they’re material reality of women’s lives
OD: in a workplace setting there’s no risk of rape or sexual harassment you’re being asked to respect differences to birth gender
MF: if we’re being asked to divide by sex and sex is protected characteristic and
MF cont: women are paid less in CGD why does that need to be that we identify as that, that we choose that?

OD has moved on to when the policies will be adopted and MF says her understanding of it was it was about men and women in CGD
MF: but gender is often used as a synonym for sex
OD: you then say you went to a protest and left a pamphlet at work
MF: yes it was Fair Play for Women
OD: if we look at this doc it shows its a step by step guide to fill out the consultation
OD: the opening page we see in bold ‘female rights are under attack and the government is robbing women of their right’. It’s written in very dramatic language
MF: its written in campaigning language
OD: not a neutral document and it’s advancing an agenda
OD: S o not neutral
MF: no
OD: we see it takes a very firm stance and opposes the proposals
MF: its a campaigning doc
OD: it says one of the ideas is self ID which will leave to the end of women’s spaces…but this didn’t have any bearing did it
MF: it would for women in prisons
OD: but it wouldn’t would it
MF: its still being proposed in Scotland and EHRC has stated it will impact
OD: it basically means a small proportion of transwomen to get a GRC and wouldn’t impact in anything else because of the Equality act.
MF: its respectable to advance this argument and changing the definition of sex of a male to be that of a female it will impact
OD: But it wouldn’t have affected the Equality Act would it
MF: the Equality Act uses the words men and women and if those are defined elsewhere then it does impact
OD: a transwomen could sue as a female if they had a GRC,
MF: sue?
OD using examples of transwomen and gender recognition certificate.
MF: the case law is not settled on that. There have been cases in Scotland for the last two weeks

OD says MF seems intent on not asking questions so will move on.
OD now moves to an account set up by MF and is looking at a tweet where MF talks of a misunderstanding and how the guidance had got the law wrong…so you understood that the Equality Act and its exceptions and
that is separate from the Gender Recognition Act…an act to legally change gender
MF: sex…so the person could sue as the sex
OD: there were no proposals of that nature
MF: the EHRC said there are serious concerns of changing the basis of gender recognition which will impact the equality act
OD: I’m going to have to move on and we have to agree to disagree

OD goes on to read parts of pamphlet pointing out there is no statistics.
OD: that distinction between transexuals and transgender isn’t right
MF: that’s what the Equality Act says
OD: so you think to be transexual you have to have surgery on your genitals…the distinction isn’t defined anywhere in law
MF: transgender isnt defined anywhere
OD: the judges handbook states transexual is an outdated term
MF: transexual remains the word used in the equality act
OD: we can see for each question in the proposal the pamphlet is saying how to vote
MF: it wasn’t a vote it was a consultation
OD reads more from the pamphlet
OD: why is it suggesting transwomen are dangerous to the child
MF: the expectation is the person is male
OD: so you think men are a danger to children?
MF: its safeguarding children to say the truth about what they experience. They need to know what male and female is
ID: your saying its a safeguarding matter that transwomen are with children
MF: no its so the child can say their reality
OD: you think that’s an acceptable statement to make
MF: yes … it’s child safeguarding (missed)
EJ has interrupted to ask if a convenient time to stop
OD agrees and EJ asks if she is on track for the timetable. EJ says we will resume tomorrow at 10.
Thank you for following today, apologies for any typos and parts missed, that’s the nature of live tweeting and, as always, we do our best to bring you open justice. Have a good evening and tune in tomorrow at 10am when we reconvene for #ForstaterTribunal.
Thanks, @Wommando

Day 5 – AM & PM – Maya’s Evidence

OD: yesterday we finished about the campaign leaflet you left in the London office. Id like to finish that. The last page of leaflet, 391.
MF finds it
OD: we see in the comments that says everything they need to know ow is in this place. The leaflet doesn’t encourage wider reading
MF: it doesn’t discourage them. It doesn’t have notes
OD: no other links?
MF: no

OD: you left this in the office so anyone could read it. You were acting as a proxy for the campaign
MF: I brought it in as I’d been at the protest that morning
ID: sorry…yesterday we managed to get through 20 pages now where you’re straying for answering the question
Mf: ask it again
ID: you were spreading the word in the London office
MF: no
BC: I don’t think it’s fair to say MF wasn’t answering the question. She was interrupted as to why she brought it into the office
EJ: the questio is you brought it into the office, answer no which
EJ: Ito which the answer is no. Yes and no questions aren’t helpful.
OD: but she went into a narrative and we’ve lost more time
EJ: I’m more interested in hearing what’s being said, if yore moving on the answer was no and we need to know why is the answer no
EJ: why was it in the office?
MF: I’d picked it up that morning at the demonstration and talked about and they asked questions. They asked why it was important to me and I said I’ve got this leaflet if anyone wants to read it
EJ: thank you
OD: page 973, you are this was the image you posted on slack. Slack is an internal comms in the London office
MF: yes
OD: you say you posted on an informal forum and you holding a banner about self id and if anyone wanted a xonvo get in touch

OD: this is the discussion
MF: the initial msg was in group channel and this set of msgs were private direct msgs
OD: Arthur a research associate, a junior role yes
MF: yes
OD: Arthur gives us an insight…he says you say transwomen are men in heels and it crossed the line
MF: I don’t say that in the office those are quotes from tweets
OD: Arthur’s reply he doesn’t try to convince against GC belief does he
MF: no
OD, we see him saying if you should talk about transwomen more respectfully and this is a distraction form the patriarchy
MF: yes he is commenting know my tone and I wasn’t disrespectful
OD: page 79, you say I think there is a group of misogynists not natural allies to women, gamergate, porn advocates, then give an example of David Channellor. Who was convicted of raping a 10 year old. He’s not trans is he
MF: he’s a crossdresser
OD: that’s not trans is it
OD: you give this paedophile the reason transwomen aren’t recognised as women
MF: no that’s not what I said…there are ppl using trans rights movement who want to silence peopletalking about safeguarding.
This happened in the green party who was an activist and agent for some aimee and actively had ppl renived from green party for stance on safeguarding and was on bail for this rape at the time…convicted given 22 years and GP hadn’t been told or ignored.
MF cont This was an empty if undermining safe guarding by waving the trans rights flag.

OD: so you talk of this man and his DAUGHTER and you use this one bad apple as an example.

MF: I gave other examples…
EJ says don’t need more details
ID: let’s stick with David channellor
OD: you’re saying you don’t know his gender identity, are you saying you didn’t bother to check as it’s

(Missed)

OD: you understand this reads as moral panic
MF: I explained to Arthur it wasn’t moral panic. Wasn’t saying trans were a danger just everyone is not a natural ally
IF: You say here you would treat any transwomen with respect but I ahouldnt have to play along with delusions. Do you accept you infer people who don’t share your belief is under a delusion
MF: I’ve made clear I use the word women to mean adult human female and not anything else

MF: it is impossible to be male and female or become female…wha5 is possible is to go under transition and I respect that but anyone who believes a male person is female who can get pregnant and give birth I would say is delusion
OD: you’ve said nothing about pregnant and birth you’ve just added that on..

MF: my belief is sex is real immutable and important and haven’t stated a beleief about gender
OD: reads the Philip Bunce tweet about. You knew bunce described themselves as gender fluid. Do you accept cross dressing is an act of expression but gender identity is something internal isn’t it
MF: I don’t know
OD: you know some gender fluid dress in the way of their gender identity to describe a gender fluid and non- binary as a man in heels…(missed)
MF: I don’t know what’s going on in Philip bunces head
OD: you did know he describes himself as gender fluid, not dressing up for a stag do
MF: Cross dressing is listed under Stonewall
ID: take me to the bit where you described bunce as a man in heels
You also describe him as bringing his hobby to work and xould be seen to undermine
OD: his gender identity
MF: hobby is a neutral description of something you do in free time
OD: you think describing sikh man in a Turban is offensive
MF: no that’s a religion
OD: you do say your tone could be moderated
EJ: are you saying the tone of this msg is respectful to trans people
MF: it was a private msg and adequately respectful
OD: moving on to your tweets, page 913. This tweet is about manels (reads tweet) you knew that the no manels pledge was what CGD had adopted.
Mf: wasn’t clear at the meeting and my understanding was under discussion
OD: it was on the website but your attention hadn’t been drawn to it
MF: yes didn’t know that
OD: you chose thos example because you knew it was relevant
MF: yes pip bunce was in the news
OD: you had 2000 followers at this time and followed you for tax and sustainable development.
MF: yes
OD: you knew before you posted this that pip bunce was gender fluid
MF: yes I read the article and I did
OD: and if you’d read it they said the term transexual was old fashioned and didn’t like it
MF: I didn’t use the term

OD reads more tweets and responses
OD: You knew they described themselves as 50/50
MF: but not legally
OD: doesn’t matter legally

OD: you still think it’s acceptable to describe them as a part time cross dresser
MF: yes part time as in on some of the time
OD (reads out more tweets and refers to Josh Powell who responded and has 1500 followers..) then we go to 913, we can see Alice Evans engaging and reads. She’s the one who came into facilitate the Equality talk you attended
MF: yes
OD: page 912 we gave Matt Collin joins thread
OD: (reads tweet) matt is at the world Bank and formally CGD and has 6000 followers. Page 920 we see Rachel meagre…..

(Missed)
OD: (reads tweets) you accept by using material reality it has an inference your reality is the only reality
MF: no its referring specifically to the reality of sex
OD: I appreciate you believe sex can’t be changed, that’s right?
MF: yes sex can’t be changed.
Missed

MF: you accept some people do sex can be changed, saying there smo basis in material reality could be offensive to them
MF: is someone says a man can get pregnant I don’t think it’s offensive to say they can’t and nobody complained about these tweets
OD: noone is asking about pregnancy
MF: yes but having a body that can do this
OD: wait a minute you didn’t say this in your tweet. I’ll ask you one more time do you see how what you said is offensive
MF: I think people can find anything offensive
OD: a transowoman did complain didn’t she
MF: no I understand CQ is non binary and didn’t complain
OD: Claire works in tax policy doesn’t she?
MF: They
OD: page 9115, (reads out tweet of Philip bunce getting an award for women was just like giving award of colour to white people) you wrote you don’t see the difference between Rachel Dolzel pretending to be black as a man saying he’s a woman
OD: so what you were saying that there are gender inposters
MF: no I said (repeated)
OD laughs and says: well that’s not what comes across here, you’re saying people are posing or faking their gender
MF: the tweet doesn’t say that
OD: it infers it
Mf: it doesn’t
OD reads out more tweets
OD: now this thread was about manels
MF: it started the discussion off but the manels question was used to explore. It went some way from that
OD: you see there’s a pattern you bring in the topic of women being assaulted and harrassed.. and risks.
OD: (missed) The next tweet is 948 this comment here (reads out) she is an affiliate of CGD
MF: yes
OD: she’s prominent
MF: yes
OD: if we go to 949 to her other comment, I’ll read your comment and then yours
OD reads long responses out (too fast)
OD: she’s commenting on the way you’re conveying it
MF: yes
OD: coming to the end of tweets, page 155 please, we have Igrid a development economist
MF: I don’t know but yes
OD: ingrid says its better to prioritise gender diversity.. she says she wouldn’t take such an approach
(Reads out another tweet by Maya)
OD: this is expressed in a way that is mocking towards ppl who don’t share your belief
MF:its expressed in a light hearted way not disparaging

OD reads out tweet
OD: you think the language a feeling in their head infers some sort of mental illness
MF: no it just says its a mental state not a physical state
OD: do you not think it’s a right to be addressed by their preferred pronouns
MF: no, where does it say that
OD: you get to describe how you get to be referred like Miss ms.
MF: yes

(Missed)
OD: can you see how what you’ve said here can be seen to mock transwomen and ppl who don’t share your belief?
MF: there are transwomen who share my belief
MF: what I’m saying ppl are tying themselves in knots to avoid saying the truth
OD reads another tweet
OD: is it completely inappropriate someone proves their gender to take part in a panel

Mf: how do you know if you have a mixed panel if you can’t ask them
MF: you would ask them how they identify
OD: what you say its about sex
OD: so do you think it acceptable dut to speak on a panel to prove their birth sex to prove you have a mixed panel
MF: I don’t know
OD: we’ve gone through the disciplines and fields of the people who replied to you…and all of their followers would see your replies and then followers could click and see full thread.
MF: yes
OD: on your twitter handle you had CGD which linked to their twitter page and you twitter handle was on CGD website
MF: yes
OD: in two places. And your bio sees you a part of CGD to the outside world
(Missed)
MF: twitter accounts are personal
OD: we can see she writes personal blog and is on twitter and you wrote that
MF: yes
BC: can I just check the Bundle as different numbers
OD: that’s concerning
They are discussing the discrepancies

OD: you accept you used that tweet about tax
MF: a lot of things
OD: that’s what it says on your statement. Your cgd footer had your twitter handle on it didn’t it
MF: yes
OD: anyone who received your email could see that
MF: that was my personal email
OD: you also used your twitter handle on articles you published, eg. The Guardian
MF: yes
OD: you posted on Facebook too and that had a link
MF: not sure
OD: and your blog had twitter handle
MF: yes
OD: so your handle was on all of these and that was to encourage to follow you
MF: yes for info also my phone number my Skype and Web address
OD: and anyone could click and see your tweets
OD: do people could follow then they see your tweets
MF: not replies
(Missed)
OD: noone dictated your content on blogs
MF: I’m sure we’ll get to that
OD suggests a break, EJ says break at 11.20
(missed)
OD: now complainant 1 says you were transphobic and problematic for funders, and complainant 1 2 3 notice your twitter
MF: I see what you see

OD reads an email which says 3 individuals have come to him saying your tweets are transphobic but you can see he’s not blindly accepting it or labelling you will that
MF: not at this point
OD: Amanda glassman agrees in this correspondence but doesn’t say your transphobic or a bigot. We can see the focus is the issue distracts from your influence. Can you see that
MF: she says (read the response)

OD read more correspondence about social media policies and behaviour
OD: (reads out policy statement from Luke Easly) so from those internal emails between management, there’s noone branding you for your belief
MF: not at this stage no
OD: and noone said there’d be an impact with CGD
MF: no
OD talks of Farrah who gave diversity training to CGD and Holly works there
MF: yes she is most senior
MF: and she’s not judging your belief or describing you as a bigot
MF: no
We are now breaking for 10 minutes. See you shortly. #ForstaterTribunal
We are back. EJ gives the restricted reporting order again.

OD: we just left with the email of Holly said she would go to Farrah for a quick review and we get this quick review on same day
OD: and we see what was actually being discussed and says MF was okish (missed). Another email asking if the issue was MF viewpoints or done on twitter as CGD… there was a couple of things MF did, shaming, acting as a gatekeeper, CGD can comment on this
OD: nothing in this report says you are discriminatory or a bigot
MF: (is reading) no it suggests leadership felt unsafe
OD: it’s just offering guidance as to how to manage your tweets
MF: its a review of my tweets
OD: its more than that it goes on to give recommendations
MF: its a review of my tweets and recommendations
OD: nothing indicates formal process against you
MF: if there been a formal process they’d have told me they were doing it
OD: after we see Luke easly suggest interim steps.. First is to say we will engage in a dialogue and reiterate these are not CGD policy and making staff uncomfortable
OD: Co times reading the email
MF: he doesn’t say reality
OD: we see MA agree with the steps and a diversity training day….we can see from lukes perspective on the wording and tone you used
MF: that’s what it says yes
OD: we don’t have anyone else discriminating or judging your belief
MF: no
OD: page 1050 another email read out from CGD and say MF is being exclusionary. (Reads more and says she read til the end then ask questions)
OD: having received this you were aware
MF: yes
OD and some people would find them offensive and exclusionary
MF: yes
OD: you were asked to put a disclaimer in the tweet stream
MF: yes
MF: you did do that but didn’t clarify that
OD: I couldn’t go back into it without reignited them and with putting that in. If anyone asked me if it was a CGD position and I’d have said no
OD: so you didn’t do that
MF: I couldn’t figure a way to do that and I thought I responded to the request.
OD: pick up on two parts, by putting the disclaimer on profile not tweets they can’t see your profile
MF: I couldn’t put a disclaimer on every tweet
OD: you could ha e highlighted
MF: no that was the problem
OD: you could have sent a tweet about it
MF: I could have if I’d been asked but I was using ‘i’
OD: you reply to luke and you do copy them all in
MF: yes and Owen
OD: and here you seek to argue that this is an issue that CGD should make space for
MF: which paragraph
OD points to
MF: I wouldn’t call those arguments I was filling in facts
MF: if CGD does not wish to host the topic I’ll look for somewhere else. I was filling them in
OD: you argue your belief
MF: I explained my belief
OD: you liken anorexic to trans people
MF: I’m emailing feelings about a person’s body can still be serious
OD: here you are likening teans people to psychiatric I’ll ess
MF: I’m likening gender dysphoria to a psychiatric Illness
OD: Gender dysphoria is not a psychiatric illness
MF: its treated by doctors
OD: it’s used to assist them
MF: I’m not a psychiatrist
OD drawing differences between anorexia and gender dysphoria
MF: they’re both things that affect people’s health
OD reads another statement of maya saying she will continue to say this.
MF clarifies what she said.

OD: you go to say you’re working on a blog post with Jonathan Gleney and you say you’re happy to share it with anyone at cgd. You wanted them to post your blog post
MF: I raised it as an option but made it clear I wasn’t fixed
OD: it was aim to use CGD profile to advance your arguments to give them legitimacy to the development audience
MF: no I was writing a blog post relevant to development and I thought if colleagues were interested CGD might consider but also might not
OD: on email sent to Kathleen stock referring to your blog post, so you were holding out hope CGD would publish it
MF: no I knew that
OD: if you published elsewhere you could still use CGD title
MF: yes
(There is a discrepancy in pages and they are sorting it)
OD: so this is you sending on your reply to the individuals and bringing th ediscussion to a wider audience, there were UK based
MF: yes I think I was forwarding it to them because I’d been involved in informal convos
OD: but you’d been informed colleagues were concerned and you didn’t know which colleagues at this time
MF: I think just did know as I’d spoken to Owen who had spoke to luke.
OD: so you did know the 4 names
MF: no I had an indication it was ppl in DC
OD: for all you knew one of the complainants could be someone you forwarded this to
MF: it seemed unlikely
OD: but one was in the London office
OD: you knew you’d cause a stir sending this on
MF: no
OD: you knew your reply was going to cause a stir
MF: no. I meant I could see my tweets had caused concern in DC and it was my tweets caused concern not the reply
OD: so why would you need to what you said in the reply it doesn’t correlate
MF: because the msg I’d received from luke my tweets caused concern in DC and that was an issue for london
OD: you set up another twitter account
MF: yes
OD: you could have said you would comply with CGD stance. You don’t say you will abide by that
MF: the tweets weren’t about work interactions
MF: I said inwould respect their self definition of their gender identity and had no desire to rude to people.
OD: you also have been told it’s offensive to say transwomen are men
OD: and that a woman is an adult human female.
…
OD: you could have said you would keep that out of the workplace.
MF: I was giving my view on the UK debate…luke could have come back with other details
OD: we see Ellen mckenzie saying there may be backlash from staff. We see you are broadly supported.
MF: he also says we saw her being a senior fellow
OD: we see luke responds saying its not that MF said an unpopular stance but its that she stands by her rhetoric.

OD: noone is saying you can’t remain as a visiting fellow or bigot
MF: Amanda says hard to see me as CGD figure
ID: they had reservations understandably
OD taking through correspondence about Philip bunce being ‘part time crossdresser’.
MF: she’s commenting on a transgender woman and we know that’s not accurate
OD: it’s used as an umbrella term
MF: but they aren’t a woman and doesnt identify as one
OD: it’s the specific language your using
MF: luke says I called a transwoman a part time cross dresser which isn’t right

Missed
MF: were going round in circles here.. the
OD: the point remains the concern is the language used not your belief
MF: luke wrongly wrote me
OD: then you send the blog to owen
MF: yes
OD: this blog argues strongly against recognising trans women as women that’s the tone
MF: it argues to have the debate
OD: to separate between trans women and women
MF: Between male and females
OD: and when you say male you mean transwoman
MF: it means anyone who is male
OD reads out parts of blog
OD: now this rather tends to suggest trans ppl would say they’re a woman if they say so, as if there some other reason they would say their gender identity
OD: so you’re saying it’s not real and true for those people
MF: no I say what I say in the blog so it’s based on self iD which is what someone say
OD: reads out about women being redefined. That’s a mocking tone isn’t it
MF: no
OD: on the name of inclusivity isn’t mocking?
MF no
OD reads more of the blog about women losing their rights
OD: this is a theme..you regularly bring it back to an alarmist situation
MF: when you change a policy what are the impacts and if there is a policy that allows People identify as they want, what happens to vulnerable ppl
ID: are you saying a trans security guard or teacher are a risk and you can’t trust them
MF: no if a woman says a man is in a woman’s toilet because they can’t trust that their own perception
OD: no you didn’t say that you were specific
MF: in single sex spaces the norm is you challenge someone who is the right sex and due to voyeurism and so forth.. you can turn to staff and say there’s a man in ladies showers
MF: looking at the paragraph noone can say in good faith that it looks like I’m saying that
OD: you are saying transwomen can be a danger
MF: I’m saying in a single sex space people should be able to trust its single sex
OD: the risk of sexual assault
MF: not only that. Dignity and privacy and not saying a male person who says their transgender is any more of a threat than a male
OD: you don’t say that
MF: yes I do, it’s here
OD: then you mention Karen White
MF: yes I’m talking about the risk and that did happen
OD: Owen suggests edits
MF: yes
OD: there were 6 I accepted but not this one
OD: you state that services for women should not be opened up to males…. (missed)
You say that adult males are males at birth (goes on, too fast about maya stating impacts on women and girls)
MF: I thought my language was clearer
OD: you forwarded that blog onto luke easly and you said you tried to write without offence but it’s necessarily exclusionary because of the subject
OD reads out correspondence between senior CGD staff
OD: you were encouraging CGD to discuss your viewpoint
Mf: encouraging all viewpoints to be discussed
OD: you say to Ian Mitchell there should be a CGDE discussion.
MF: yes
OD: and here to mark plant you forward the blog post and say your open to how to open the discussion. your pushing the same point
MF: I’m putting forward ideas for discussion in the normal way. We had just done work for safeguarding so this isn’t odd
OD: they’re a financial think-tank not an equality think tank
(Missed)
OD: it was only relevant in peripheral ways
MF: that’s a lot of CGDs work
OD: it’s not CGD to draw that distinction
MF: that’s what I was saying (missed)
OD: we can see Mark plant’s response (mentions diffusing the situation) he emphasises it needs to be non confrontational or professional
MF: but I don’t think it was
OD: I took you to all of the tweets which talk about your tone and language
MF: noone has said it was not professional
OD: they’d commented on the tone and problematic and offensive
MF: to say that transwomen are male is seen as offensive
OD: I’m not going to argue with you
OD reads more correspondence about the blog and the edits
OD: so again discussing your blog noone is calling you a bigot
MF: they’re also not saying it’s unprofessional or offensive
OD: we know Mark plant discussed with you (reads correspondence)
So again noone is sidelining you
OD: next the slides from the video you posted. We see page 1125. This is by the same pamphlet org Fair Play for women.
This is also part of their campaign against Self id
MF: yes
OD: we can see evn convicted rapists can get birth certificates if they say they’re female
MF: yes
OD: it talks of all the places that allow TW to use facilities
MF: yes
OD: we can see the repeatedly drawn association if more people change gender there’ll be more sexual assaults
MF: no its talking of the loss of female spaces which are there for women who have been sexually assaulted
OD: no commentary with this just music
MF: what it says is female people need female people spaces
OD: then it says more trans will be more sexual assualt
MF: no its saying spaces for women and girls are there to be male free and some are there directly for women experienced sexual assault. privacy dignity and safety.
BC interjects that MF hadn’t finished
EJ confirms the confusion
MF: it states there are 510, 000 sexual assault and rape and 99% of sex offender are male (reads fully)
EJ: we can read what it says but OD is asking something different. What does it imply?
OD: you say privacy dignity and safety
OD: the suggestion is if more TW allowed to self ID there will be more rapes and sexual assault.
MF: if ppl are able to change the legal sex on their birth certificate including rapists, as no safeguarding the the implications would be that extremely difficult to protect female
MF: (cont) only spaces.
OD: 3 women a week murdered by partners that has no bearing on self id
Mf: it does for those married to male who self id and also domestic violent shelters, exhusbands can self identify
OD: you’re giving an elaborate statement. (Missed)
MF: no its saying any man can get a certificate
OD: you were told there were complaints about this video
MF: (missed)… a video I had tweeted reminded people of the nation because of the colour scheme
OD: there were complaints
MF: I don’t think there were complaints
OD: you then discussed with Amanda glassman, paragraph 157 of witness statement
OD reads correspondence about Amanda glassman who asked MF ‘is this the Hill you want to die on’
OD: (missed) page 1208, this was an ad in the metro with the same org. And you tweeted ‘choose reality’
MF: yes
OD: you accept by retweeting you’re endoring
MF: yes
OD: this was a series of tweets you put out about comic relief. To celebrate women comic relief put up a TW. You rtd from Jean hatchet (reads tweet)
MF: yes as part of a thread that started and comic relief responded and I tweeting a long thread putting in context
OD: comic relief firmly believes people are who they say they are and …. you wrote (reads the tweet)
Can you see how it looks like you’re mocking?
MF: I was commenting on

(My connection went)
OD:…. a 6 year old girl…that’s a mocking tone
MF: that’s their identity
OD: of the comic relief 240000 there could be potential funders
MF: there could be anyone. It’s a serious thread it’s not mocking
OD: we’ve covered Mark plant and gates grant but following we see emails
OD: at 1283, we see Mark encouraging Owen to get support for what I’ll describe as his side of the camp. Then 1357, we see Ellen mckenzie to Amanda glassman about the visiting fellowship and its causing division
MF: yes my visiting fellowship was to be looked at because of my tweets

EJ suggests this is a good time to stop and we will reconvene at 2pm.

See you at 2pm

We are back. EJ reminds everyone that there is restricted reporting order enforced which means it’s a criminal offence to report the names and emails of specific individuals. Let’s contimue
OD: we were just getting up to the SPG meeting. Now you were informed by Mark plant there hadn’t been a consensus reached about membership renewal and there’d be a process and a report would be produced
MF: yes
OD: now 1374 in bundle, here we see MA telling Mark we need a chat and they have to tread carefully. He’d decided there’d be no formal investigation
MF: I don’t know
OD: and Mark was getting advice and guidance
MF: yes they didn’t have a policy and were using me as a case study
OD: Mark also informed you it was your tweets and it was how to resolve them
MF: yes but it was presented as CHD putting forward a policy and my tweets were the case in point they were trying to work the policy out on
(Missed)
OD: page 1479, you say thanks for updating me mark and I’d like to make the case this is a policy around the world (costs to read)
You attach the article and you added graphics of men and women labelling sex organs
OD: you wanted CGD to publish
MF: no (missed)
OD: and after an amended policy was sent round that said new CGD policies… all staff have responsibility to read… you replied critiquely the draft policy
MF: I raised a couple of issues
ID: you copied this to the entire CGDE and Mark plant separate
OD: do you ot think you should have replied to Sara alone as the email suggested.
MF: no because I wanted to make my comments in writing
OD: the invite said you can speak to sara,
MF: yes (reads response)
OD: so do you think that was appropriate
MF: it was within CGD culture. I didn’t want to take up time in the workshop but did want to raise them
OD: so it was deliberate to share with your colleagues
MF: yes she said it’d be discussed in the workshop with all of them
OD: you theme is your continuing to ask for space for your views
MF: If it was a workshop to discuss this
OD: there’s a theme here you wanted space then sent it to everyone for discussion. It’s a repeated pattern for to air your views
MF: no I wasn’t compelling them I was responding to discuss the policy as was the culture of the order
OD: page 493, (reads staff email about policy)
Page 501, we see luke easly asking ombudsman that he’s been tasked with getting an advisory committee
OD: an advisory Committee was being sought not investigation.
MF: I didn’t know about that
OD: you describe in your statement as kafka esque investigation
OD: the purpose was advice
MF: yes advice on how to deal with me
OD: there were genuine attempts to get someone to advise and you accept Ruth sarbo was entirely independent.
MF: yes she didn’t speak to me
OD: page 1506,this is email (reads email)
OD: can you see the effort is an effort to move forward it’s not damnation if your beliefs
MF: no
OD: the purpose its to come up with a way forward

Back and forth about the people involved in the process to get a advisory panel
OD: that wasn’t my question. It’s far from a kaka esque investigation they want to move forward
MF: I don’t think so
OD: there’s no suggestion of what you say
MF: no if there’d been a process I would have had a role in it
OD reads email from and there is confusion about the person it is from.
OD: we can see that’s the aim
MF: (reads) to make recommendations about maya forstater yes
OD reads another email about recommendations and maya conducting herself in a way of CGD policy
OD: you were updated about this
MF: yes, not on terms of reference but said he found an expert in employment law
OD: page 539, Mark plant’s email and says he’s brought the issue to this side of the atlantic and states colleagues
OD: Mark advised against you emailing MA. You didn’t complain about the process at this stage
MF: no I emailed him back
OD: late Dec 2018 you first set up separate twitter account
MF: yes
OD: nowhere in these tweets do you refer to men in heels makeup men in dresses, throughout this you used respectable language. You used the terms teanswomen at one point not male
MF: the description if Philip bunce was taken from his own description
MF: calling him a crossdresser was a description
OD: you’ve reminded me you would find that tweet description
MF: but here you use very different language to the tweets you used earlier
MF: no I don’t think I do
OD: you don’t think it’s different in tone
MF: the language is not different I say TW who remain legally men can be removed from women’s spaces
OD: you felt able to use the language here, you chose the language
MF: yes I chose it
OD: we see Mark plant contacted you to discuss the report, p. 1619, where he reaches out if you need next week to discuss
MF: I think I reach out to him don’t I. I say can we meet next week
OD: yes and you met and told you there be QI process
MF: I didn’t know the process was separate
OD: but you knew QI was going good do the diversity training and he told who you the committee was
MF: I didn’t know they were separate or any of that
OD reads email from Ruth sarbo about the QI assessment and that’s what management did isn’t it. They instructed QI asking to do deeper analysis
MF: yes
OD: on 1629, reads an email from Mark plant and so you understood process and didn’t complian
MF: I understood QI would investigate and talk to me and in the context of thinking about these policies and freedom of speech
OD: but you knew your tweets were th subject of the investigation
MF: yes
OD: and when you sought for an update from MP, QI investigation was ongoing, Mark tells you you’d have it this week.
OD: we can see the reports we’re sent from QI to mark plant and luke easly. Page 1744, we can see discussion between senior management about the report. Look at Luke easly he says he’s not asking Maya to agree just to ground rules…
OD: it’s clear that having reviewed the reports management is still not making condemnation of your beliefs, quite the opposite, they should be respected
MF: luke is
OD: a short version of the Qi report taking out management guidance was sent to you
MF : yes
OD: (reads response too fast)
You read this and described it as a pile of crap
MF: not to mark to a friend
MF: I wrote a long response and I didn’t use that language but I was very clear it was factually incorrect
OD shows reply
MF: yes
OD: you say you don’t think the QI report is useful finding a way forward….I do not accept it in its current state
OD: so although you don’t say its crap you are clear of your thoughts
MF: yes
OD: do you accept in a workplace that may feel offended by one another neither has the right to persuade each other
MF: I’m ot sure that’s right, it’s a think-tank about persuading people
OD: so you think it’s a right at work to try and persuade people at work you’re right
MF: I think I have the same right to talk about my understanding if the word sex as anyone else
OD: …D you accept its a laudable aim that people shouldn’t seek to persuade each other or is that your right in the workplace?
MF: I’ve said from the beginning we should be able to have a respected discussion
OD: .. an employer has to ensure tolerance between employees..
MF: I’m not an employment specialist

(Missed)
OD: and you say the tax work had nothing to do with sex and gender
MF: no it didnt
OD: page 235, an email to Kathleen stock (reads it out) that was your opinion that senior management hadn’t thought about it clearly
MF: Mark hadn’t expressed substantive views on it
OD: then what you did send to management under exclusionary language I think here they’re rejecting the definition of women as adult human… do you accept its offensive to some transwomen that they’re not women
MF: yes
OD: page 1784, you correct what you see as factual inaccuracies and you could do that
MF: they weren’t corrected
OD: they took your report into account
MF: I didn’t receive a response
OD: Mark took you through specific tweet language
MF: not really. We talked first about QI report and I said I didn’t accept it an put aside and talk about constructive ways forward

(Missed)
MF: he didn’t bring up specific language and I asked what had I offended people with and then he said about the black and red video
OD: and the tweet about material reality
MF: he didn’t tell me any others
OD: you informed him you understood the sensitivity of your tweets.
MF: I understood CGD didn’t have an appetite to talk about it
OD: this is mark plant trying to commend for the extension of your fellowship (reads email)
OD: do you accept you made all those concessions
MF: they weren’t concessions because I hadn’t dismissed the dignity and feelings of trans people
OD: you acknowledged the concession of sensitivity
MF: I did say I’d keep it out if the workplace
OD: but you understood the sensitivities or you didn’t
MF: he doesn’t bullet point that and I don’t remember acknowledging them
OD types and speaks mayas response “I respect the feeling and dignity of people but it doesn’t change reality”
MF: I said I wouldn’t raise a convo about it
OD: it was on the basis that the convo was so you old keep your fellowship… and you werent continued and and you walked out the meeting
MF: yes I was upset I was crying
OD (reads an email from MF to Mark.)
(Missed)

OD: we can see your final request to remain a fellow sent to mark plant for MA and colleagues
MF: yes
OD: at this stage you were angry
MF: I was upset. I’d been upset since December
OD reads an email from maya on p.2138
OD: so you were angry when you wrote this but believed you were restrained
MF: no I said I would restrained myself publically
OD: page 2107 the same email chain, (reads)
MF: I say again that you cannot change sex
(Missed)
OD: suggesting some situations you wouldn’t else you would have said all situations
MF: i don’t know I didn’t want to make a categorical statement I couldn’t stick to. Social situations is a vague term
OD: page 1823, (reads.. too fast)again you’re arguing for this debate to be had ag CGD
MF: yes the debate should be had
OD: your own friend said you were digging your heels in and wasn’t conducive to keeping fellowship
OD: tou said that would be good advice for self preservation but I can’t accept them gagging me…outside of CGD
OD: noone told you not to raise it outside CGd
MF: well my personal twitter account isn’t CGd
OD: but cGD was on your profile
MF: they were in my professional network
OD: we went over various places your CGD status linked….

OD: turn to page. 135, your letter being forward on, so he did send it
MF: no the members not the entirety and I now know they were organising opposition to me
OD: and in this covering email he discusses the convos he’s had with you and what he explained to you (reads) so you accepted leaving the pamphlet wasn’t appropriate
MF: I accepted I shouldn’t have left anything and I forgot and that’s a breach of clean desk policy.
MF: I don’t think it’s an inappropriate pamphlet
OD: then you had meeting you recorded without permission
MF: I’d mentioned verbally
OD: …and you already had litigation in mind
MF: no
OD: you referred extensively to the quality act
(Missed)
OD: you said you don’t think the treatment was justified
MF: yes
OD: you quote from a barrister who says a belief or disbelief would fall in the protected category and not the same as mockery. By the date you knew there was a legal argument
MF: yes
MF: I didn’t know if my belief was covered by equality act but I did know it might be covered.
OD: page 1861,(reads) Mark wants you to continue to work as a consultant
MF: he didn’t talk about the laminate project
OD: but CGD work was still being offered to you
MF: yes
OD: (reads) so he gives 3 reasons, the policies say has the right for gender identity, second you’d offended people, third that was the general consensus. You argue CGD refuses to accept the protected characteristic of sex and say it’s perverse
MF: yes
BC points out certain context should be read out.
EJ: I think it’s arid debate either way because we can read what is there
(Missed)
OD: you spoke to a former employment lawyer that day and had 38 min convo
OD: reads part of statement. So you had talked about advancing a legal case against CGD
MF: no that was me I was asking what I should do next
OD: so you didn’t want to bring a legal case at that time
MF: I was thinking about what to do next
OD: you’re not obliged to reveal advice from lawyers…you spoke to someone with legal advice
MF: it was a mum at the school gate
ID: again not to disclose your advice, did you know times (missed)
MF: no I didnt know the Equality Act covered certain things
OD: and why did you need a written confirmation?
MF: I wanted a written confirmation from masood.
OD: (reads maya’s letter to MA) you’re trying to bait him to say something that would help your case
MF: I wasn’t going to litigate at that point
(Missed)

OD: you say you’ve not been contracted as part of the team. You say it’s been downgraded again.. I di not feel its acceptable and going to turn it down.
MF: I guess i had. I had mixed feelings
OD: in the rest of the email your trying to divert funding
MF: if they were still interested jn my work I wanted to knw if anyone else was…the offer had only been made verbally to me and I wanted the offer made in writing.
OD: you’re trying to divert funding before discussing with CGD
OD: .. .you went behind their back to vishal to take their work away from them
MF: I hadn’t made a formal decision I was exploring my options
OD: page 9105, this was sent after while you trying to divert funding
OD: we see MA say that your position would not be renewed and the email address would end
MF:…yes I took that as final
(missed)
Od: he says nothing about the consultancy does he
MF: no
OD: this is the email you sent to 39 people, your goodbye email I’ll call it, and you say that offers had been reminded but you don’t say the contract
MH: Because I didn’t have that
OD: I’m going to stop you there it’s about you understood or belueved
OD: the reason you don’t mention the contract because you knew it hadn’t been removed
MF: no I was waiting for that
OD: and you didn’t write to MA
MF: I had already written and had not responded
OD: you had something published and an article in Sunday Times,
MF: the legal claim had steady been put in
OD: shst were you doing before this
MF: I didn’t know I had employment rights and tweeted it and mentioned it lost my job. At that point I was contacted by feminist lawyers
MF: the day I tweeted that to the day I put the claim in was 8 days

Adjourned for ten minutes
We are back. EJ reminds everyone of the restricted reporting order.

EJ passes to BC
BC: I’ve got 5 short areas to cover.
MF: letter from Amanda
BC: that’s right
BC: it was put to you this letter was specifically from CGD US not CGDE as well. Look at page 486, email from Amanda glassman….it refers to providing an occasional office in london
BC: then it says attending lunches in DC or when in London. Then you asked how you should describe the affiliation and told just CGD. Was your understanding it one or both entities
MF: both entities
BC asks about going into the office
MF: for research staff they had to be there on a Thursday

B: third area about questions you were asked about external consultants, you described how you supervised their work in practice but agreed you didn’t have authority. Look at 370
BC: this is part of the handbook of CGD and there are categories for independent contractors, then authority to enter into contracts rests solely with presidents or delegated staff person.
BC: What was your understanding whether ppl were employees of CGD or CGDE could enter into contracts with external consultants

MF: (missed) it had to go up the chain to be signed off and probably by Ellen
BC: my 4th area, p.876
BC: it’s the fair play for women pamphlet and you were taken to 177 about the proposals of the Gender Recognition Act were not intending to change the equality act and it wasn’t quite clear.
Take you to 883 in the pamphlet where can see it explicitly said the government has confirmed these special rules but we can see… (missed) what was your view of the proposed changes to the GRA on single sex spaces.
MF: similar to here that changing the definition of sex or male and female to be self defined gender, would make implementation of rules dufficult. there were legitimate concerns

BC: about Philip bunce and part time cross dresser
BC: take you to 619, this is a profile of philop bunce and the introductory part ‘for me my trans side is limited to gender expression as I’m happy with my assigned gender’ which is male. Tell me if I’m wrong he’s not unhappy with being male and says he likes to dress up
BC: an article he’d written for financial news…on page 2171, i have no desire to transition it doesn’t affect my physical make…the best analogy is choosing what clothes today…today I feel like this… describes gender fluid and doesn’t like transvestite
BC: do either of those identify the source of what you said earlier.
MF: he mentions twice wearing a dress and high heels and says its synonymous with a woman wearing heels one day and flats the next. I dint think it’s an insult to say man in heels it’s his own description.
BC: that is the end of your evidence Miss forstater
EJ: I’ll just check there nothing else, no, well that concludes your evidence MF and you are free to talk about it now. We will adjourn until 10am on Monday.
Thank you for following #ForstaterTribunal with us this week and all of your appreciative and supportive comments.

Have a great weekend from everyone here at @tribunaltweets and we look forward to bringing you more #openjustice next week.

See you on Monday at 10am.
@Wommando

Day 6: AM & PM – Luke Easley evidence

Witness Statement

BC [begins questioning LE]

BC: Statement of values from 2018/9 for CGD, does LE recognise?

LE: yes
BC: Link here to gender diversity poliy?
LE: yes

BC: email exchange here (LE not involved} but can you see discussing reactions to Ms Ssazbo’s report?
BC: And they are discussing decision not to publicise addition of that policy?

LE: Was not involved
BC: Draft version of Ms Szabo’s reports with Ms Huang’s comments. She is saying gender diversity statement does not say clearly what can be said in public: and she is accepting that it was in any case never advertised so MF could not have known its contents
LE [agrees that is what is said}

BC: quotes a note saying policy was not publicised internally or externally

LE: agree
BC: CGD value statement includes: non-partisan, & intellectual rigour on all topics, openness, sense of humour

LE: yes
BC: values statement says “transparency diversity personal & professional integrity”

BC: let’s talk about transparancy And integrity

[BC is taking LE through each one & expanding each a bit; LE is agreeing each time]
BC: from HR point of view – these would apply both to employees and those who are not – associates and so on?

LE: yes
BC: If you are doing an investigation or process that involved a judgement on any individual you need to do that fairly
LE: yes
BC: transparently?
LE: to degree possible
BC: particular when affects future professional life of that person, in CGD or outside?
LE: yes
LE: there are limits to transparency

BC: someone needs to know what you looking at them for. They need the equivalent of a charge sheet.

LE: don’t know what “charge sheet” is? Or “natural justice”?
BC: they need to know what charged with. What process is. What potential consquences are.

LE: yes

BC: They need probity –
LE: don’t understand term “probity”
BC: OK let’s say integrity
BC: Would be wrong to give false or incomplete information to person subject to a process?

LE: yes

BC: we can agree that if we found a departure from any of those principles, CGD’s principles, we would think it unusual?
LE: agrees.

BC: moving on to “diversity” in that values statement.
BC: This is an updated set of values – from after claimant left?
LE: yes
BC: adds “inclusion”. Is this different from “diversity”
LE: yes I think so
BC: do we agree they are not words with universal definitions. Different things to different people?
LE: Agreed. Though that’s true of many words
BC: we are going to be looking at inclusion and diversity of sex, and also of belief, at this hearing.

BC: we can agree that CGD is committed to democratic values?
LE: yes
BC: and to discussion and debate?
LE: yes
LE: well, within CGD work
BC: discussion and debate within work-related values. CGD values include vigorous debate – and disagreement – on political matters?
BC: in the political space – outside CGD – political campaigning is an important democratic value?
LE: yes
BC: including rhetoric tools – campaigning materials
LE: yes
BC: CGD does not say that political materials in a democracy should be censored in case of offence?
BC: am trying to establish that CGD had at that time explicit policy of impartiality, not-partisanship and promoting debate
LE: yes
BC: no policy on restricting debate on political topics
LE: we had policy of non-partisanship and [missed a bit]
BC: non-partisanship. CGD policy was that people might be required to say “NB this is not a CGD position” but, did not limit what anyone could say
LE: Yes but caveat of appropriateness
BC: This is essay posted on CGD website.
LE: yes
BC: it’s explicit about a) non-partisanship of CGD itself and b) CGD encouraging its people to explore their own interests
LE yes
BC: email from Owen Barder defending Maya Forstater and a colleague for views expressed on Twitter. States CGD non-partisanship and also freedom of CGD people to express their views?
LE: yes
BC: we’ll come back to the caveats (respect, accuracy) but we agree values?
LE: yes
BC: Complaint from Martin Kirk – a significant figure in international development?
LE: Don’t know but if you say so
BC: MK complains that MF and JS are “aggressive” – “barrage of trolling” – gives example of a report being called “fake news”.
BC: this is a robust attack? on a report by another development organisation?
LE: yes quite robust
BC: it’s OK to use these terms?
LE: there is context – this is within CGD ‘sphere’
BC: I think we are agreeing that before judging what someone says we have to consider whole context?
LE: yes

BC: Back to Mr Barder’s email: he says “tweet seems entirely reasonable given the medium”.
LE: yes
BC: He’s saying people can be more robust on Twitter than in an academic paper?
LE: yes it’s a pretty robust medium
BC: Twitter is like the agora, the marketplace. Free and open.
LE: It’s certainly much more converstational than an academic paper.
BC: Back to values at CGD. Particularly at London office. Culture of discussion and debate. Do you have comment on that?
LE: My experience in London office maybe only 3 weeks in total. So can’t speak to culture really
BC: But. looking at complaints vs claimant – surely you would have had to consider in the context of London office?
LE: [missed]
BC: Understanding what claimant said needed putting in context of overarching CGD context? And whether that differed btw London and Washington?
LE: yes
BC: but you’re not able to say what London context was?
LE: To an extent I could but not all
BC: Email from Mr Plant, copying you in.
BC: Describes London culture: looking at male-dominated culture. He says its an informal office, lots of banter, both work-related and not work-related.

Is that like Washington?
LE: Washington feels a bit different.
BC: you’re on this email, did that not alert you to potential differences of culture?
LE: not aware
BC: asks a number of Qs about London office
LE: says “can’t comment” to all of them
BC: more Qs about what went on in London – lots of issues (political/moral/ethical discussions)
LE: Not aware/no comment on any of them
BC: MF says that people brought in booklets, leaflets, materials from many marches / meetings they had been to

LE: can’t comment
BC: you see this is surely relevant to whether it was OK for MF to bring in a leaflet, and to discuss, a meeting she had been to? Important that you understood context of this?
LE: Don’t know. It didn’t feel important at the time when I was looking at claimant’s actions.
BC: [takes LE to a CGD document about importance of airing ideas often and early – find out who’s interested – get discussion going]

BC: this is a classic proposing of free speech?

LE: this is re work-related discussion I think
BC: We can agree that CGD is saying that discussion is important for getting ideas going and finding out who’s interested?
LE: yes
BC: discussion necessarily involves making arguments?
LE: yes involves debate
BC: and CGD does not object to robust argument?
LE: no
BC: one could use pejorative terms like proselytise? But that just means, making an argument?
LE: yes but must not claim an argument is a truth.
BC: consider veganism. Someone might think that it was a moral and a practical position? Morally and practically correct both?

BC: you would not consider such a vegan to be doing wrong?

LE: If they called meat eaters ‘delusional’ I would
BC: [missed some – the dog walker came [!]]
BC: At this time CGD had no social media policy at all
LE: No we didn’t
BC: CGD staff & associates did different things – some people used their CGD roles, some used their names and put CDG on bio and so on
LE: yes
BC: Email from you LE just after you had the complaints?
LE: yes
BC [quotes] we do not have social media policy, if we did we should make clear people are not speaking for CGD, refer to bullying/harassment policy, be clear about not restricting their freedom of speech
LE: yes
BC: see Szabo report. She says there is no corporate position and no policy on staff etc engaging in external debate. That would apply to MF? No policy or guidance on parameters of external debate existed? Ms Szabo is correct about that?
LE: yes
BC: [reiterates] – not only no written policy, there was no corporate position or guidance at all?
LE: No
BC: [refers to an email] – this person is saying there is no corporate position? Saying there is no guidance could be given to someone starting out as an associate or staff member?
LE: yes
BC: discussion here that there would be speech limites – “race extermination” for example – is that the comparison being made?
LE: I never saw that comparison
BC: In all the communications we’ve been looking at here, there is no distinction made between the claimaint and any member of staff? She was considered under standards applying to staff?
LE: yes
BC: People did comment on these issues, without sanction or complaint?
LE: ?
BC: Here is Ms Glassman re what should be said to claimant. She says it would be inconsistent to tell claimant what can be tweeted because nobody else is told this?
LE: This is the first time we’d had to grapple with anyone’s social media use

BC: Am going to take you through a few docs then ask a Q
BC: Mr Mitchell here says “can we ask claimant to state ‘not CGD views’. Did we do this to X and to Y when they commented on Z? Would be inconstent.
BC: Example is 2 colleagues, one posting pro-manel-‘ban’ and one opposing manel-ban. Mr Mitchell is saying “we didn’t make either of them say their views were or not CGD policy, either before or after we changed CGD policy on them”.
BC: There clearly was no policy of preventing CGD researchers posting robustly on both sides of an important diversity question?

LE: but there’s context and also language to consider
BC: We have not had the tweets in question disclosed. Why is that?
LE: don’t know.
BC: What I am getting at is it’s not true CGD had not grappled with social media issue before?
LE: I didn’t know about manels thing till yesterday
BC: I meant CGD, not you personally
LE: Don’t know
BC: here’s an example of a very robust tweet about a Trump nominee. Very robust language.
LE: yes
BC: CGD didn’t require person to say “not CGD position.”
LE: No
BC: Just a CGD tweet saying we are non-partisan
LE: Yes
BC: Claimant was being treated very differently.

BC: Do you accept that you should have made sure properly to understand claimant’s beliefs in all this?
LE: I was more concerned about colleagues and about the language used.
LE: I did not get bogged down in trying to understand the nuance of her belief, no.
BC: We are looking at EAT ruling re claimant’s beliefs. You have read it?
LE: A while ago but yes
BC: Claimant’s belief is stated. Do you understand that there is a philophical belief stated here? Materialism is a philiosophical belief, partic on the left? Do you understand this?
LE: I don’t know.

BC: Do you understand claimant’s belief that women and girls because of their material reality experience life differently from anyone’s gender identity?
LE: Not sure I did understand it no.
LE: I looked at more ‘reality’ than ‘material’
BC [takes LE through further elements of the EAT ruling and claimant’s beliefs]

BC: Now looking from Miller: statement by Kathleen Stock: endorsed by EAT judge. Says there is nothing wrong with belief that woman = adult human female. And that gender identity is different.
BC: Did claimant not agree with Stock that transpeople are deservicing rights and dignity, throughout?

LE: not clear to me
BC: we will explore as we go
BC: Claimant referred you to writing by Kathleen Stock on philosophical postion?
LE: Yes. I did skim through them
BC: Did you understand that claimant believes sex and gender identiy different, should not be conflated
LE: Not really
BC: that she believes people should generally be treated by gender identity …
LE: not really
BC: … but that on occasion sex =/= identity matters?
LE: Understand her position a bit better now.

BC: Does CGD have a position that sex and gender identity are the same thing?

LE: Internally yes. I can’t speak about externally.
BC: Re internal vs external. One can hold the belief claimant does and still use people’s pronouns?
LE: yes
BC: Hold belief and treat people at work according to identity?
LE: Yes
LE: CGD treats people in all respect according to their gender identity.
BC: Does CGD have an instituational position on what law shuld be?
LE: Don’t know. My focus is internal
BC: So no position on whether someone can say sex =/= gender identity in a debate? Or TW are not women?
LE: Disagree
BC: But this is important. You are then not objecting to HOW she speaks – tone – you are objecting to WHAT she says. To her belief.
LE: I think “a man’s internal feelings have no basis in material reality” is offensive.

BC: This may be a good point to pause?
EJ: [finishing a note]
EJ: Yes, we will break. Remind LE must speak to nobody re case. Restart in 10
[BREAK]
[We’re starting again]

BC: Looking at LE’s 2nd witness statement:
LE: initially can’t find page – Oh OK I have it

BC: You say “we would not keep someone on website after ending affilication
LE: Yes
BC: You say here after removal of claimant that this is done in line with CGD policy. Did you know this was policy or did you just think so

LE: Was confused
EJ: [intervenes to re-read the reporting restrictions order]
EJ: LE you were saying it was your understanding which you now know to be confused.

BC: Mr Easley you did understand need to give truth & whole truth in statement and to tribunal?
BC: But you didn’t make clear this confusion when you affirmed your statement this morning?
LE: Didn’t realise I could jump ahead like that
BC: OK.

BC: This is claimant’s website profile while she was there. Feb 2019. She was visiting fellow until she wasn’t.
LE: yes
BC: Looking at chronology. 5th March 2019, just after termination of fellowship. Request to remove claimant from website. Does NOT say “as you usually do for ex fellows”
LE: No it doesnot
BC: Says here normal practice (April 2019) is to change people from fellow profile to alumni profile.
LE: yes.
BC: 5th May – claimant launches crowdfunder.
LE: Didn’t know. 5th May = Sunday Times article, to me.
BC: article was (partly) about crowdfunder.

BC: 8-9 May – her page is removed.

LE: Yes
BC: 22 May – claimant amends case to include removal of page as a victimisation claim. At that time – the alumni page included a number for former fellows.
LE: Yes
BC: We don’t get policy of not retaining alumni pages until 10 June.
LE: Yes
BC: in fact when CGD filed resistance to claim, the alumni page still existed with many people on it.
BC: in late June the alumni page was finally cleared.
LE: yes
BC: I summarise. When claimant’s page was removed, CGD policy was to retain alumni pages. Your statement given is untrue in this respect.
LE: I was mistaken.
BC: When you made statement, was it your knowledge, was it an assumption, or were you told.
LE: Mix of knowledge and assumption.
BC: You didn’t check.
LE: Regrettably no
BC: Claimant’s page was initally retained as alumna
LE: Yes
BC: and was removed after she filed claim
LE: Yes
BC: And CGD (am not saying you personally mr Easley) sought to hide what was done by later actions

LE: [missed]
BC: you say the first part was the same mistake/confusion you had made?}
LE: Yes
BC: you also say that the removal was in response to Sunday Times article.
LE: Not involved but I think so
BC: Somebody must have told somebody in web team to remove the whole of the alumni page. Chronology suggests that is not unrelated to this case.

LE: Not suggesting unrelated. Agree they were related.
BC: And this happened in order to suggest that the false statement in the respondents’ Grounds for Resistance was not false?

LE: Disagree. I would think it standard to remove profiles
LE: Am saying comms team decided not good idea to retain alumni pages because of case, but they would not have known what was said in Grounds Of Resistance, so not a cover up.
BC: You are saying related to case, but not to Grounds? in spite of chronology? How do you know comms team did not know of Grounds of Resistance?
LE: I assume that.
LE: This case highlighted not a good idea to keep old pages. Don’t know who decided.
BC: Truthful position in Grounds would have been “it WAS our policy to keep alumni pages; we removed claimant bcs Sunday Times; and we’ve subsequently changed alumni policy”- ?
LE: I agree
BC: we can see it’s not about this case highlighting policy though? Web page here makes a virtue of highlighting long term links with alumni?
BC: This is not simply a question of misunderstandings and assumptions. The respondent has presented a false case in respect to claimant’s web page.

LE: I don’t see that.
BC: different topic. Another point in Grounds of Resistance is that CGD and CGD Europe are separate. We agree structural separations eg trustees. But can we agree that in practice they operate as a single integrated international think tank.
LE: from HR point of view they are different & separate

OD: intervenes to make sure BC talks of what true at the time not what happened later.

BC: happy to clarify
BC: At that time CGD and CGD(E) operated as single international think tank.

LE: no –

BC: am not talking of adminstratively.
LE: not sure I am right person to ask.
BC: But you are main person in statements re employment etc. However let’s proceed.

BC: Can we agree CGD(E) is charitable company limited by guarantee established 2014 by CGD who is sole member of company
LE: yes
CGD(E) trustees and directors appointed by CGD(US)
LE: Yes
BC: CGD(E) trustees at time included Mr Ahmed Ms Glassman Ms Mackenzie plus two independent as required by rules

LE: Yes
BC: CGD(E) always financially supported by CGD
LE: Yes
BC: audit purposes – CGD(E) finances consolidated within CGD’s
LE: yes
BC: because under common control
LE: yes
BC: 2015 on, CGD(E) trustee report: under related parties it says work closely with CGD.
LE: Yes
BC: 2017 CGD(E) trustee report says same
LE: yes
BC: 2018: different wording but again says work with CGD on joint projects and initaitives
LE: yes
BC: consequence of that in-principle decision by trustees – here is 2018 – day to day operation delegated to strategy & planning group of CGD.
LE: yes
BC: “SPG” = senior people at CGD that set strategy?
LE: sort of
BC: and none of the task reserved by CGD(E) trustees related to staff employment or appointment of fellows.
LE: Agree
BC: Delegation of day to day management – 2016 board of directors meeting minutes. Say delegation to SPG enables integration of CGD(E) into management structures of CGD.
LE: Yes
BC: Essay we looked at earlier [I think values one] says SPG meets every other week. SPG is the management
LE: not sure
BC: there is this idea of “One CGD” by which I understand Mr Ahmed introduced Jan 2017.
LE: Yes “integrated programme model”
BC: means substantive work is done across the locations, not organised based on location
LE: yes tho some were local
BC: email re organisation structures going forward?
LE: didn’t see
BC: CGD(E) under Mr Barder had been looking for more independence, but this email says, they were not going to get that?
OD: intervenes that LE not privy
BC: will be raising with Mr Ahmed but still wish to Q Mr Easley re his own understanding.

BC: email here with 3 options – one recommended is “subsidiary model”. Retaining “One CGD” – that was current?
LE: yes
BC: As of Mr Ahmed’s appointment?
LE: It was a bit more organic and developing than that
BC: Email here re joint functioning especially fundraising
LE: Yes tho there was also local fundraising.
BC: Here re subsidiary model – explicit not a branch model? You may not have seen?
LE: not able to comment no
BC: email here saying CGD(E) to change to reinforce “One CGD” principle. Mr Barder lost suggestion for more independence.
LE: Hard for me to say
BC: that’s fine
BC: Here talk of single programme structure? You are aware yes?
LE: yes
BC: Says here, Operations Comms and fundraising will operate within CGD structure. Comms and fundraising already largely do: operations will become more integrated too.
LE: I think that was partly aspirational – still not fully integrated now
BC: Operations becoming more integrated?
LE: yes
BC: Fundraising already integrated
LE: Yes but, not quite as clearcut as that
BC: And Comms also already integrated
LE: Yes
BC: 2017 CEO report for CDG Europe. We can see the “One CGD” principle. Says for day to day purposes CGDE managed by CGD, supervised by the SPG.
LE: I can only comment on my own section of work
BC: you didn’t meet the claimant until Dec 2018
LE: I think it was actually Jan 2019

BC: So you’d given evidence about her employment and status by then, but from the abstract?
LE: Not abstract, but from my exp of fellows etc
LE: confirms had not been at any meetings with the claimant herself where employment status discussed.
BC: So looking at chronology of claimant within CGD and looking at your statement. Claimant contracted in 2015 for 1 paper
LE: yes
BC: Then worked with VR on a work programme re tax flows
LE: yes
BC: a “work programme” is a project CGD want to follow?
LE: may not be right person to comment
BC: CGD work programmes are CGD undertakings?
LE: not best person to ask
BC: You had said ‘collaborative’?
BC: I suggest that your answers are a spin on the case and given in light of issues now raised?
LE: No.
BC: Here is letter saying hope is to bring MF on board as visiting fellows in a few months. This was common in CGD? Expectation of funded work often -> visiting fellowship?
LE: don’t know
BC: I am saying it is not uncommon?
LE: Visiting fellowship is intended to be a mutually beneficial relationship
BC: Here we see where VR is suggesting claimant for fellowship now that funding appears imminent?
LE: Yes
BC: Here is offer of fellowship. Ms Glassman making clear will include office space London & DC as needed and hope of event participation etc
BC This is not a position ring-fenced re Washington, this is a relationship with CGD organisation-wide inc London. Visiting fellowship always whole of CGD

LE: disagrees – people say “fellow in London” or “in DC”
LE: Staff and fellows do differentiate by location
BC: look at LE witness statement. You say visiting fellowships were always relationship with CGD not CGD Europe.
LE: yes
BC: You say this with understanding of this case.
LE: No, I say re who invites, all that
BC: You are trying to mislead tribunal to have relationship viewed as with CGD, not CGD Europe.
LE: No I’m not.
BC: In practice there’s a distinction between visiting fellows based outside CGD, eg, academics working elsewhere – where there is the “mutual benefit” you describe … that exists?
LE: yes
BC: the other type is paid visiting fellows?
BC: this means fellows who do NOT have secure employment elsewhere, and they are brought in to work for CGD?
LE: have never thought of it in those terms
BC: My point is that the “external” fellows do not and can’t present as part of CGD, internal ones do?
BC: Externals can’t publish on CGD?
LE: Don’t know.
BC: [several examples of what external fellows don’t / can’t do] LE to each: don’t know
BC: Whereas for “internal” fellows, they are only there because the paid work for them to do exists?
OD: intervenes – pls clarify
BC: There is no benefit for an “internal” fellow if there is no work for them to do?
BC: and there is no benefit to CGD from relationship if there is no work to be done?
LE: Don’t know.

BC:Apologies if you are wrong person but yours was the statement about these status matters.
BC: We have here examples of visiting fellows that are paid, and those that are not?
LE: I see what is said but don’t know what to conclude from that
LE: Re-states that in his experience paid work and visiting fellowships are not connected.
BC: Agreed overall but that is different from saying that some fellowships were related to funding obtained.
BC: You say there is a rigid distinction between the honorific title of visiting fellow, and the obtaining of paid work. We say this is not so – we can see many examples of the link.
BC: in your statements you say circumstances when fellowships would not be renewed. All examples you give are of the fellows not meeting expectations.
LE: I don’t remember exact details
BC: Claimant’s fellowship was tied – she says – to funding for the tax flows programme. She is right surely? If she had not succeeding in the funding there would have been no appointment? And when she says if no funding, it would not continue?
BC: The fellowships I’ve said – the internal, paid ones – were partic important at CGD Europe? While they built up external relationships they needed internal research?
LE: Sure but I don’t make that link with paid/funded
[ Court is now stopping for lunch and will resume at 2pm]

BC: Confirms that LE wasn’t privy to discussions about expectations re claimant’s work, conditions etc?
LE: yes, can only comment on generalities
LE: says MF was invited to attend but not required to attend …
OD: Do you mean offices or lunches?
BC: ALL staff including claimant free to attend offices but no fixed hours?
LE: yes
BC: the lunches – MF in same position as other people?
LE: No. others required to attend: MF only invited, not required
BC: and re desks. Nobody in London had allocated desk. All hot-desking.
LE: No personal knowledge of that.
BC:2016-2017 claimant was working on project which was groundwork for a later and big project
LE: yes

BC: This is proposal to funder?
LE: Yes
BC: First output to be CGD paper, outlining the larger project. This is presented to funder as a CGD project? Not joint CGD/MF?
LE: yes
BC: And CGD does not present it as a partnership with claimant? and this is standard CGD practice?
LE: Colleagues later better positioned to answer that
BC: Claimant had a contract in 2017 for this first stage?
LE: yes
BC: And it was with CGD (not CGD(E)) because prospective funder was in US?
LE: yes
BC: and that is typical? contract would be CGD or CGD Europe depending on funder?
LE: can’t really say whether or not
BC: Let’s look at the “One CGD” principle. We see bullet saying no expectation that a “European” project done in Europe or vice versa. Talks of cross-geography re project work
LE: General agreement
BC: Looking at that initial contract. Clear MF must do the work personally?
LE: Says she can reassign if she gets written consent.
BC: Subject to that theoretical point, we note clause saying expectation is person named will do the work.
LE: It’s not theoretical
BC: What I mean is, the point is there as it could happen, but there is an understanding that the claimant will do the work.
OD: LE cannot comment on anyone else’s state of mind
BC: Let me phrase. People that take out the contracts do the work?
LE: because they want to’
EJ: Let me ask, as it ever happened that somebody else did the work?
LE: I do know it happened once.
BC: Contract describes work expected, in some detail. Contract is clear this is a CGD (not CGDEurope) programme?
LE: Yes
BC: Contract also clear this is groundwork for future multiyear project?
LE: yes
BC: Contract includes fundraising, networking, project-building. Core to any researcher position?
BC: Core to a STAFF researcher position?
LE: [Pause] yes.
BC: But not core to an independent researcher role?
LE: I think sometimes they might do some of it.
BC: Oct 2017 Ms VJ [main co-worker with MF] saying that taking MF on as a staff member / fellow tied to the funding coming in.
LE: different emphasis, more it could not happen before.
BC: you seem to have inferred that MF expected a senior fellowship and have concentrated your statement on this. But cannot see claimant has ever claimed a particular title. Are there differerences?
LE: yes
BC: for research associates MA’s personal input not needed?
LE: yes. MA involvement would increase with seniority of role expected.
BC: Your statement says opportunistic hires are occasional. Can we say route from associate to fellow is frequent?
LE: No
BC: 3 examples. This is proposal to Gates Foundation 2018. Late in process. Nancy Lee is visiting fellow at this time?
LE: yes
BC: Now see email a month later. Nancy Lee now Senior [something] Fellow. It is standard always to use people’s current titles?
LE: don’t know.
BC: We see Nancy Lee going from visiting to staff fellow. I suggest this is a well trodden path.
LE: Well yes Nancy Lee did it, that doesn’t mean well-trodden.
BC: Budget overview 2019 for CGD(E) we see proposal to make Michaela Gavas a Senior Policy Fellow – she was at that time a visiting fellow?
LE: Yes,
BC: Later we see this described as a promotion?
LE: yes.
BC: I suggest this is another example of a common route? A promotion?
LE: Well it happened in that case. I would not have used the words myself.
BC: Back to Gates proposal July – Sanjeev Gupta is a visiting fellow. Now we see SPG meeting agenda for Dec 2018, Mr Gupta to be promoted to Senior Policy Fellow, that did happen?
LE: Yes
BC: We have seen 3 examples just in the papers relating to this one case. I suggest well trodden route.
LE: No this was three just happening to happen close together.
BC: I suggest that no: successful project leads to promotion to staff
LE: you will have to ask others.
BC: You will not have been privy to discussions between Owen Barder and claimant re her position?
LE: No
BC: Work was being put MF’s way while they were waiting for funding?
OD: intervenes – [missed]
BC: Will rephrase. Olivia Dobbie suggested to MF earlier in this hearing that work was “put her way” in 2018?
LE: I didn’t hear this till last week
EJ: It was a simple question?
BC: Was work “put the claimaint’s way” in 20118 – do you know this from any source?
EJ: are you saying you don’t know Mr Easley?
LE: I know of the 4 contracts but not beyound that
BC: Let me ask: if work WAS being put the claimant’s way, is it CGD standard practice to put work to external researchers?
LE: can’t comment either way
BC: I suggest this means there was an ongoing work relationship?
LE: Don’t know
BC Let us look at these contracts. They are the same bar the task descriptions. This says the person contracted is to do the services?
LE: yes
BC: apart from this clause saying illness/injury can mean that with written approval contracted person can substitute.
BC: Absent illness or injury, the claimant is the person that will – and must- do the the work?
LE: Yes
BC: and this is CGD-standard?
LE: Others better to ask on that.
BC: CGD directs the work to be done?
BC: there is a detailed specification of the work?
LE: Yes, outlines deliverables.
BC: And it says she must comply with any CGD directions in doing the work?
LE: Not clear to me it says how she must work, when she must work. Hard to draw specifics
BC: So this specifies about working group with Mr Kenny; about coordinating with him and attending the group.
LE: yes
BC: GCD gives its researchers plenty of independence?
LE: yes
BC: and it’s clear claimant is part of a team, for this project?
LE: yes
BC: And we have a confidentiality clause here. This was a core CGD project?
LE: It says ‘strategic’ not core.
BC: And we have correspondence here (which claimant did not see) about notice period?
LE: yes
BC: we see a note that a 90 day period was agreed, because of nature of project?
LE: yes
BC: 60 days was agreed in the end. 30 was standard?
LE: Don’t know.
BC: You are HR director and you don’t know the standard?
LE: I was only directly involved in London detail for a short time.
BC: This was an important project and hence the longer than standard notice period?
LE: don’t really know
BC: IF the claimant had been put forward as an employee, with support internally and no opposition, that appointment would have been handled quickly?
LE: 3-4 weeks.
BC: 28/9/2018 complainant 1 comes to you. C1 is part of the “institutional advancement team” – fundraising?
LE: yes
BC: She says she thinks the complainant’s tweets are “transphobic” “exclusive” – = exclusionary?
LE: yes
BC: and problematic for funders?
LE: yes
BC: can we agree C1 is that saying a transwoman is not a woman is “transphobic”?
LE: It was more than that. Q of funders.
BC: that was speculation, about the funders?
LE: At that time I had not heard of problems with funders.
BC: To be clear there were never any problems with funders?
LE: Amanda Glassman better person to answer
BC: This is not good enough. You were involved throughout.
BC: If any problems with funders you would now.
LE: but AG manages funders.
BC: you attended all meetings
LE: not [missed]
BC: you were part of the team [lists all names] deciding this matter.
LE: Disagree that we were a “team”
BC: If there had been any question at all of any funder having any problem, you would know.
LE: yes.
BC: C1’s later comment in feedback is that anybody with gender-crtitical views should not be employed, because that is “transphobic”.
LE: yes
BC: there was discussion within the fundraising team about all this?
LE: yes
BC: and if someone has strong views that can harden a “groupthink”. Do you think that happened here
LE: No I think people thought for themselves
BC: C1 was in communication with Holly Shulman communications director about these matters
LE: yes
BC: We can see HS’s reaction – “OMG” – in an email subject?
BC: emails between HS and SA [member of team]. “Dumb and transphobic”. “Hasn’t done gender studies”.
BC: these are only the tip of the discussions – there were lots of discussions, that you were aware of.
LE: I see what you see in the bundle.
BC: you were not aware of anything not in the bundle?
LE: I have been careful to include everything relevant in the bundle.
BC: is it fair to say these are a visceral reaction and not any attempt at understanding claimant’s position?

BC: we have already discussed the “material reality” point. Do you consider the comparison with Rachel dolezal offensive?
LE: yes
BC: Context is that someone ELSE has tweeted the comparison – agree? and is inviting discussion about comparison with race?
LE: Doesn’t mention Dolezal
BC: Here we have someone who had previously tweeted opposite of claimant’s view – saying Tw are women – claimant is responding?
LE: had not seen that.
BC: Claimant is responding to an invitation to discuss this, with people she has previously discussed all this with.
LE: She mentions Rachel Dolezal.
BC: that is because she has been invited to discuss that comparison.
LE: but the comparison is offensive.
BC: Let’s approach differently.
BC: in a discussion on policy, law, all that, people use analogy and comparison to aid exploration.
LE: yes
BC: some analogies are better some worse.
LE: yes
BC: The fact that you find an analogy offensive does not mean it is.
LE: I find it really offensive.
BC: context originally was Philip Bunce and “man-els”.
LE: That is how you are characterising it. It is an offensive comparison.
BC: you are jumping ahead, please stay with questions.
BC: do you accept concept was whether conflating sex and gender identity obscures reality of the implications of sex and women experience discrimination?
LE: Disagree that –
BC: not what I am asking. I am not even asking whether you think it’s acceptable. I am asking whether you understand that that is the debate the claimant was participating in.
LE: had not considered it in that way.
OD: we have not established that it was like that?
BC: would prefer to continue.
EJ: Yes do.

BC: So – on the premise that I am correct about the nature of the discussions –
BC: so returning to Rachel Dolezal. Her view is that although she is not black, she has strong identification as being so. Agree?
LE: agree that that is RD’s position yes
BC: difference between the races are basically superficial?
LE: don’t know
BC: we can see claimant saying exactly that, in this tweet?
LE yes
BC: You have carefully read the claimant’s tweets?
BC: You can see that it is arguable (even if you disagree) that a say cultural race identification can be made?
LE: that’s actually CGD policy. People self-identify their race.
BC: So can you see that when criticism of Miss Dolezal is made, it’s because even though ‘race’ is a construct based on superficial differences, it matters becuse of the disadvantages those structures result in?
LE: but Rachel Dolezal was an imposter, she told people not to blow her cover.
BC: but RD has repeatedly stated that her identificaiton is genunie and deeply held.
LE: don’t know.
BC: So you have assumed that claimant was making a comparison with someone they believed to be lying, because that’s what you think about RD? You did not pause to think claimant might have believed RD?
BC: compare to Philip Bunce situation.
OD & EJ: too complicated – please break it down
BC: re-state that Philip Bunce was awarded a “woman in business award”
LE: but comparing that to someone who was only pretending to be black is offensive.
BC: claimant was exploring the similarity. Someone claiming a disadvantage they were not in fact subject to.
LE: This is very complicated and philosophical. The comparison was offensive.
BC: let us go back to start of conversation on Twitter claimant was having. Please read this bit in detail.

EJ: Shall we break, to give us all time?
BC: indeed
EJ: break until 3.30. Reminder LE must not speak to anyone during break.

{Break}
We resume.
EJ: re-reads reporting restrictions – the names of complainants 1-4 and their email addresses cannot be published in Great Britain. Criminal offence.
BC: Did LE read the pages?
LE: yes
BC: did you read at the time?
LE: I read quite a lot of them.
BC: Claimant starts by saying explicitly she agrees that transwomen are vulnerable people who should be protected?
LE: but later there’s offensive stuff, have to take whole
BC: We can agree this is a complex debate
LE: Yes and I have said in statements much sensible from claimant
BC: We have a tweet saying ,so if a load of people stopped identifying as women they could get paid more, stop being harassed. Do you understand point claimant is making?
LE: not sure I do, this ties my mind in knots. Her belief is confusing. She is couching it in academic terms but its’ really offensive.

BC: perhaps this is the problem?
BC: Is your point that claimant must not express belief in importance, relevance, immutability of sex at all – because you think that’s denying some people’s reality?
LE: yes that’s my view
BC: so when claimant says gender identity does not change reality, you find it offensive because she’s denying other people’s reality?
LE: yes
BC: You conflate identity and reality – claimant thinks the opposite. Is this fair?
LE: identify is reality – without identity there’s jsut a corpse

BC: I suggest that you are struggling with this because you can’t step outside your own views
LE: but I am looking at the language of her tweets, not at her belief.

BC: But we have agreed that the tweets must be viewed in context of her beliefts.
BC: Going back to twitter exchange re Rachel Dolezal: whole point of it, re sex as well as race, is – is there a difference between identity and reality
LE: yes
BC: And here she talks about what the reality of sex means for women.
LE: yes
BC: this is the context; and the claimant was invited to discuss comparison with R Dolezal
LE: She should not have introduced Dolezal
BC: She didn’t. The other tweeter did,
LE: Well she shouldn’t have mentioned Dolezal
BC: You have said inc in your statements “arbiter of someone else’s reality”. You’re saying it’s an offensive thing.
LE: Yes it’s offensive.
BC: Can we confirm definition of “reality”? You mean “identity”?
LE: I don’t separate the two.
BC: Confirm you don’t separate the two?
LE: Confirm that yes

BC: So “challenging someone else’s reality” doesn’t mean ALL instances – you disagree with R Dolezal – there are limits?
LE: but you can have that discussion without offensive comparisons to Rachel Dolezal.
BC: So we have here, re discussion about C1 and C2 complaints. We have Ellen Mackenzie here – Chief Financial Officer and VP Administration, CGD [DC]; Trustee of CGDE
LE: yes
BC: We also have initials MF? But cannot be complainant.
LE: Indeed. must mean Mark Plant
BC: we also have Amanda Glassman?
LE: yes
BC: these are your notes?
LE: Yes these are initials of people I might want to consult.
BC: The first 3 certainly became members of the group dealing with matter of claimant? Holly Shulman not so much
LE: yes
BC: And here we have another note, this time bringing in C3 too?
LE: yes
BC: can we clear up some confusion here. Your statement describes C1 and C2 coming to you and also that they mentioned C3 to you and was coming to Washington a few weeks later
LE: She didn’t wait, she skyped me
BC: Statement is incorrect?
LE: no – she just didnt’ wait
BC: C3 spoke to you on videolink? Was after you’d spoken to C2?
LE: I believe so
BC: Your second statement says – after email exchange with MF, you reported back to C1 and C2. But not C3. Could it be that you had not spoken to C3 at this point.
LE: that’s not the case
BC: But meeting with C2 and C3 definitely separate.

BC: But your meeting note has C2 and C3 on it, both.
LE: Note is of C2 meeting – I then scribbled C3 on it later as related.
BC: Note here about talking to Cindy Huang. Does that mean C2 had spoken to CH or that you were?
LE: the latter.
BC: C2 says how can she work with claimaint?
LE: yes
BC: But it turned out that all 3 of C1, C2, C3 did work with claimant thereafter? Perfectly professionally? Work was done?
LE: yes
BC: So we have no note of what C3 says to you.
LE: Not conotemporanously no, only my memory.
BC: which is?
LE: C3 said that conversations had been happening in the office.
BC: back to your statement. You say C4 came to see you at some point but you can’t remember when.
LE: yes.
BC: confirms C4 is in the Restrictions Order.
LE: yes
LE: [gives details about C4 that I’d probably better not write]
BC: we don’t know when C4 complained or what said. Or anything.
LE: Not really.
BC: looking now at senior colleagues reactions.

BC: you report to Holly Shulman, Ellen Mackenzie and Amanda Glassman. You say “cohort of staff” – this means C1-C3?
LE yes
BC: you say “came this morning” – that’s a bit of an elision yes? But never mind
LE: yes
BC: they said “transphobic” – this is not about tone?
BC: You say in email you looked at tweets and felt claimant was making a nuanced argument.
LE: yes. I felt it was a little bit sort of charged but yes was a discussion.
BC: You talk about some fairly sensible possible social media policy suggestions?
LE: yes
BC: you suggest people add disclaimers about personal views. You reiterate that MF tweets cross no line.
BC: You say you base this on reivew of the twitter conversations.
LE: yes
BC: This is after a more thorough review. You say first time round you’d looked at about 25% of the conversation. This is a fairly substantial proportion?
EJ: It’s 25%
BC: What I’m getting it as that you must have had good overview of discussion
LE: Just an estimate
BC: I am suggesting that 25% is enough to get good overview.
OD: that depends which 25%. Q takes us no further.
EJ: Perhaps we can get answer then we’ll know where it gets us
BC: Mr Easley I’m making these points to allow you to make your case fairly. When you wrote the second email you’d seen just about all.
LE: 25%
EJ: Mr Easley BC is saying that when you said you had read 25% then, you mean you’d NOW read just about all
LE: yes

BC: I am going to be saying that is not credible for you to say reading more tweets changed your view. I am saying 25% gave you a good idea of content and tone.
LE: please clarify
BC: Your 25% gave you a good view of the nature of discussion and its tone.
LE: Yes. At time I said it was OK but I changed my mind.
BC: Here we have Ms Glassman agreeing with you – nuanced, not offiensive, debate
LE: yes
BC: Mr Plant saying not inherently transphobic, it’s about words, notes sensitivity to words in TG community
BC: And here Mr Ahmed accidentally likes one of MF’s tweets, says he doesn’t know much about debate.

BC: At this point senior management broadly agrees CGD may need social media policy, but claimant has done nothing wrong.
LE: yes

BC: I am going to suggest that change towards client was not because of any reivew of what claimant said, it was because other people got involved.
BC: Here we have Ms Shulman saying there is a draft policy and a no-racist no-sexist guideline. People otherwise free?

BC: HS says she wants to consult QI [external consultancy]
BC: HS still with CGD?
LE: She left and returned
BC: HS could however have been called as witness?
LE: Yes.
BC: I suggest that what changes management view from “this is not offensive” to where we are now is not any review of what claimant says, but instead fear of sin of discrimination?
BC: We see here HS does contact Quantum Impact
LE: yes
BC: You joined conversation with QI
LE: yes
BC: HS not here to say why she makes comparison with subtitution “gay ” or “African American”
LE: no
BC: The “but you didn’t read everything” gets introduced at this point. This is where you start to worry about missing the sin of transphobia
LE: disagree
BC: Your witness statement says you called QI and set out concerns. Can I clarify. You are implying this is after a more thorough review, because your previous para is about that, but that’s not so?
LE: I’m saying I am not sure I had read every tweet.
BC: are you or are you not saying here that when you wrote this you had completed the full review that you said you did that changed your mind.
[I am slightly lost – we seem to be talking about timestamps in minutes and hours, and about what heppened when]
BC: This email is from the evening of that day?
LE: yes
BC: sequence is: you had NOT fully-read, and changed your mind, before the QI meeting. It was after that meeting
LE: that meeting did not change my mind
BC: You’ve said meeting was about your concerns and link with CGD. So who set out the issues? You or AG?
LE: dont’ recall.
BC: Email here from QI after THEY have looked at the tweets. About 90 mins before you email AG to say you’ve changed your mind.
LE: agree timing.
BC: When you added this email to disclosure to claimant you removed 2 paragraphs
LE: no
BC: If you look here: [finding reference]
EJ: this will have to be last line of Qs for the day
BC: [continues to look for email]
BC: [locates] this is you forwarding email to yourself – taking out two paragraphs.
LE: Does not ring bell.
BC: this is what goes to decision makers. Deletion surely significant?
LE: No.
BC: Let’s look at what is removed. This is QI apologising for “rambling” “foot in mouth”
LE: I can’t recall what she might have meant.
BC: Is it the case that it is QI told you you were dinosaurs failing to spot transphobia?
LE: Can’t recall any of thjat.
BC: But you can’t recall what she DID mean?
LE: no
LE: Did not know edited email was in bundle. Was expecting the full one. Not trying to hide anything.

BC: Will stop there
EJ: Re timetabling. We have Friday back, will we complete evidence this week?
BC: yes. We already knew I might vary timings over the witnesses, which has happened.
BC: Expect to finish LE tomorrow morning and move to Ms Glassman during the day.
EJ: We will have Monday morning and Tuesday for submissions.

OD: Am sole counsel. Will not be able to do submission properly without Friday: weekend has family commitments, young children.
EJ: We must do the case justice. Could both barristers look at timings and advise what they feel is best use of time. Let us know tomorrow. We resume at 10

EJ: reminds LE must not discuss case overnight.

Day 7 – AM & PM – Luke Easley and Amanda Glassman

BC: We were discussing “arbiting other people’s reality” and had got to the Quantum Impact report. I don’t intend to go through all the points in detail with you you will be pleased to hear
BC: But can we take it that what struck home most to you is what appears in your witness statement and the correspondence at the time.
LE: yes that’s fair
BC: We see the report summary here, begins “overall”?
LE: yes
BC: says CGD will need to decide what viewpoints are acceptable and which are not
BC: she makes an analogy – to inviting a neo-nazi to speak at a debate. Is it OK to invite provided you don’t agree. Instructive? That is analogy being made?
LE: Don’t really remember anything about neo nazis really.

BC: did you not think when you say it that it was an offensive analogy? Do you think so now?
LE: Didn’t read it as a comparison at the time. NOt how I interpreted it.
BC: You seemed yesterdy intent on drawing the worst inferences from MF’s analogy to Rachel Dolezal but see nothing offensive in this analogy?
LE: Didn’t draw the analogy
BC: We also see comment on this not being MF’s area of work. CGD didn’t and doesn’t limit what anyone can discuss?
LE: no.
BC: At the time none of you were drawing the distinction (which you are all making now) between viewpoints and mode of expression.

LE: no, it was always about how she said it.
BC: Under “other recommendations” – assessment of reputational position at that time. “Seems pretty contained at the moment”. Accurate?
LE: not internally contained – much blowback
BC: I meant externally, reputationally. No blowback for CGD from MF’s tweets
LE: No, not aware of any.
BC: Report is correct, “contained”?
LE: did not feel contained bcs internalities.
BC: Your witness statement (2nd one) – you mention 3 things changed your mind. 1) MF affiliation to CGD stood out on twitter bio. Lots of CGD affilicates had this?
LE: yes
BC: so that can’t be the issue as such
LE: The link was being created re reputational risk.
BC: you say “exclusionary statements” and the first is re Rachel Dolezal, we won’t go back over. And then the 3rd thing you mention is MF’s comments re a transwoman on a “man-el”. We see use of Pips Bunce to frame question.
BC: So you are descsribing Pips Bunce as a transwoman.
LE: yes
BC: you say the tweet is misgendering
LE: MF says later Bunce is a part time crossdresser
LE: Seemed to me MF is saying Pips Bunce would not count a s a woman on a “man-el”
BC: How much trouble did you take before deciding MF was misgendering Pips Bunce and was wrong to say part time crossdresser, how much did you investigate about Bunce?
LE: recall finding PB is non binary
BC: here is PB profile on Credit Suisse website. Uses word “trans”. You understand this is umbrella term?
LE: yes
BC: includes cross dressers. See eg Stonewall.
LE: not seen
BC: no sign PB views “cross dresser” as offensive
LE: agree
BC: We see PB saying OK with both parts of himself. Does not use “non binary” at all. His ID is about dressing up in both gender forms
LE Yes I see that
BC: so what is offensive about saying crossdresser about someone who dresses in both gender forms
LE: I thought offensive bcs PB actually nonbnary/genderfluid
BC: here is article you may be thinking of, uses those phrases.
BC: PB says no intent to transition. Says it is exactly like deciding what clothes to wear.
BC: PB says here being genderfluid is exactly like a lady choosing dress+heels one day and flats+no makeup the next
BC: If we are looking for offence potential can you see how many women might find it offensive to hear that when they wear trousers and flats they are somehow less female?
LE: yes can see that
BC: can you see women esp feminists might fnd it offensive to see being described in let’s face it gender stereotypes
LE: Can’t do the feminist view no
BC: Did you read press reporting re PB at the time?
LE: Don’t recall
BC: Here is Times article. Respectable publication?
LE: Honestly don’t know.
BC: Headline “anger over award for crossdressing banker”
BC: you regard on your own account “cross dresser” as beyound the pale, even tho the Times is happy to use it
LE: yes very offensive
BC: article says banker sometimes goes to work in wig and dress.
BC: Did you understand claimant and others were angry about woment’s award going to a man who sometimes wears women’t clothes to work?
LE yes understood that
BC: Anger about award going to a man that does not identify as a women? NOthing transphobic about anger?
BC: you regard anything that differs from your OWN view of what is offensive as crossing a line. I ask again. Is tyhere anything transphobic / offensive about MF and others being angry that a man that does NOT identify as a woman accepting an award for women in business
LE: Yes it’s offensive
LE: PB was awarded the award
LE: Presumably FT thought PB met criteria
BC: Did you understand that the reason people were cross is that awards for women are designed to address discrimination against women?
LE: don’t know. Perhaps they’re not all.
BC: Did you understand that MF & others with her views think the reason for distinguishing gender identity and sex is to be able to describe & develop policies etc that protect both
LE: Not at the time
BC: Did you understand that MF et al are concerned that conflating the 2 tend to undermine protections for women
LE: Do now, not then
BC: says here PB climbed career ladder as a man, only came out very late. Did you not understand that MF & others see this as example of that?
LE: um
BC: Did you understand offence and anger re this example?
LE: No did not
BC: you were looking for offence by MF and used your own views to find it?
LE: No don’t agree
BC: The Times re PB said “part time cross dresser” again only last week. Do you still think it’s offensive of MF to use the phrase
LE: YEs still offensive
BC: At the time MF recommended an article by Kathleen Stock to you, it’s in the bundle. You said yesterday you skimmed this. I suggest illustrative of your attitude. You didn’t take seriously, you were lookng for offence.
LE: No I took things seriously
BC: Did you notice KS was professor of philosophy at Sussex.
LE: Don’t recall
BC: did it not lend some authority to discussion? Clear this is a leigimatye public debate?
LE: Access public debate was happening yes
BC: You are avoiding “legitimate”. I suggest because you are firmly on one side?
LE: Please re-ask
BC: Legitimate public debate. You deliberately omit “legitimate”. I suggest this is relevant; you approached from 1 side
LE: I accept “legitimate”
BC: And PB is a very stark illustration of that legitimate debate?
LE: See that now
BC: So when you say one of worst thing was the misgendering of Phliip Bunce, surely you are saying that is not in fact legitimate debate?
LE No that’s not what I’m saysing
BC: So after you talked to Holly Shulman and Quantum Impact and had reviewed, you write to HS “Had viewed 25% and decided innocuous, but now educated by you I see that was wrong”. Had you been taken to task?
LE: No
BC: were you told to go and look again with a more correct viewpoint?
LE: No I made up my own mind
BC: But you were told by HS to go back. You were given the correct line to take.
LE No HS wouldn’t talk to me like that
BC: Having changed your mind you email the core group + HS to suggest 2 steps – a) tell staff who had complained that there would be training & MF’s position not that of CGD, and b) tell MF her position is not CGD’s
LE: yes
BC: in this email you pick 1 example “a man’s internal feeling has no basis in reality”. This is a misquote. You omit ‘material'”.
LE: Accident
BC: Telling however. You said yesterday you didn’t focus on “material” you focussed on “reality”
LE: I don’t recall deciding to omit
BC: You said yesterday your focus was on “reality”.
LE: Don’t know. Can’t talk about subconscious motivation. Didn’t mean to omit.
BC: but your subconcsious /unconscous bias is what we have to explore at tribunal
BC: You just didn’t take any trouble to understand the claimant’s, other women’s, view about the importance of the material facts of their reality. Prejudice you brought to bear.
OD: Can you break Q down
BC: Prejudice you brought was that any hint a TW is not a woman must be offensive and transphobic
LE: that’s not a prejudice, it is offensive.
BC: Can I clarify – this is your conscious thought. Transphobic, bigoted, offensive.
LE: offensive yes
BC: And HS prompted you to go back to tweets with that in mind
LE: No
BC: So here we see Mr Ahmed agrees with your proposals. You draft email?
LE: yes
BC: You use the same example, misquoting it in the same way, as inflammatory statement
LE: yes
BC: You also say CGD has institutional position on this: that someone’s gender identity is recognised. This means CGD has institutional position on nature of womanhood?
LE: No mention of womanhood. Position is that CGD always accepts someone’s gender identity.
BC: You write here that MF should acknowledge that her position is contrary to CGD’s. Not just about internal CGD policy
LE: I understood it as being internal only
BC: But later this is taken out becasue CGD does not tell people what to say externally.
LE: Yes it was taken out
BC: You also wrote to complainants, here is email to them “have contacted MF to let her know her views are contrary to CGD views, asked here to tweet that
BC: This is C1 and C2 that you are emailing and we can see basically they were happy with your actions, They didn’t say you hadn’t investigated or sorted.
LE: No
BC: no intimation they thought you should do more
LE: no
BC: MF replies to your email. Says she has added disclaimer
LE: Yes
BC: She doesn’t say she’d tweeted additionally. But nobody ever mentioned that to her thereafter.
BC: at this point nobody thought she had not done what was requested.
LE: Her response was problematic in many ways.
BC: On this one issue please. As far as you know nobody thought she had not done what asked re thse being her own views.
LE: yes AFAIK
BC: You say you took from all this, to me this was also indicative of the risk she posed in the workplace of misgendering humiliating transpeople.
BC: But we see her claimant saying she would respect in any professional or social context
BC: Is she lying?
LE: But she contradicts that, says she will continue to say stuff.
BC: But that is in debate. Not in work. Two very distinct things.
LE: she was trying to convince me of her views
BC: This is after the event. It is entirely clear 2 things. MF is is explaining what her views are, and why this is a legitimate debate.
OD: that’s 2 questions
LE: my response is no to both
BC: this theory of MF “proselytising” never came up at the time. Never discsussed
LE: But it’s what she’s doing here, it’s obvoius to me
BC: It is a misreprestenation to describe any explanation of beliefs as proselytising
LE: I disagree
BC: only if you bring your own prejudices to bear wd you be thinking “this bigoted woman is proselytising
LE: Disagree
BC: At no point does anyone say to MF stop tyring to convert us
LE: NO
BC: never comes up in communications between all of your discussing her
LE: No
BC: So looking the blog piece MF was proposing. COmmon CGD practice for people to circulate these widely.
LE: I had never had one in all years at CGD
BC: But you can see Owen Barder has said she should send to you
You can surely see that you have been writing to her about the issues, she’s proposing to write a blog about them, not pushing for CGD to publish just offering as option.
LE: She’s saying CGD would be first choice.
BC: So you’ve been writing to her about her views, she’s proposing to write, you can’t object to her copying you in?
LE: I thought it highly unusual, I’d told her they were offensive, idea we would want to amplify v unusual
BC: So you weren’t interested in the language she used. You are saying the views themselves are offensive and should be blanket banned
LE No I didn’t squash it, went to other people more used to dealing with blogs
BC: You say offensive and proselytising. There is NO other topic CGD take this stance on.
LE: It seemed like she wasn’t explaining, she was trying to convince she was right. Absolutist.
BC: You picked “absolutist” from earlier tribunal?
LE: Yes because fits
BC: You think any statement of the view is offensive and trying to convince you.
LE: She said anyone with other view delusional, not based in any reality
BC: She said in material reality
LE: Yes
BC: And it’s your prejudice distorting.
LE: Disagree
BC: There is NO other viewpoint CGD takes stance on. (Leave aside nazism/extermination – we’re not in that terrirtory). NO other viewpoint.
LE: We would always require respectful language. This was first time it came up
EJ: Has there been any similar situation at CGD in the past
LE: No
EJ: And Q could be asked hypothetically also.
BC: On hypothetically – you use example of pro-choice vs pro life. This is false I put to you. If a discussion re abortion rights or sexual health. If someone had pro-choice position there is no way anyone at CGD would object.
LE: If someone brought in leaflets or tried to persuade somone to vote on the issue we would.
BC: People in london brought in leaflets all the time
[Bit lost]
BC: Suppose a Christian employee said homosexual relationships were immoral would you object?
LE: Yes. Not appropriate at work
BC: Sort of convo happening all the time in London office
LE: Don’t know
BC: I’m a gay man and can imagine having such a conversation at work respectfully. Are you saying you’d object?
LE: I’m gay too, if someone brought in leaflet saying “vote against gay marriage” I’d object
BC: of course. But whould you stop them putting the argument? I’d expect to be able to argue in favour of same sex marriage?
LE: provided respectfully
BC: You are only objecting to the claimant becasue you disagree with here
LE: Disagree
BC: Here in statement. You note that MF says she’d had several informal chats with colleagues and that you were concerned she would upset them and was proselytising. This was your thought at the time
LE: yes
BC: So you would presumably have investigated whether a problem?
LE: I didn’t do that no
BC: If you were going to take it further wouldn’t you find out facts?
LE: No what MF said was enough
BC: Considering chronology. I sggest that on 2nd october, when MF responded, she had done all she was asked re tweets.
LE: No only 1 thing
BC: she had done enough
LE: disclaimer yes
BC: there had been no problems at all with funders
LE: no
BC: Complainants had been informed and were happy.
LE: Not sure they used that word
BC: we have covered it.
BC: Quantum Impact had said things were contained
LE: I didn’t think they were contained
BC: Problem was you had no policy
BC: the ONLY thing was MF had not agreed to stop talking about her protected belief
LE: She didn’t make it clear she meant externally
BC: She did, she made clear she would be respectful professionally and socially
LE: Not clear
BC: And nobody went back to MF and said more needed
BC: what made it still an issue after this was Ellen MacKenzie saying she didn’t want MF’s fellowship renewed.
LE: It was lots of discomfort not just EM
BC: EM said needed robust debate about renewal.
LE: Not as simple
BC: Perhaps good time to break before we disucss in detail
EH: Agrees, restart 11.40
We are restarting.
EJ: reminds everyone of reporting restrictions in place (4 individuals’ names & their email addresses must not be reported in Great Britain; it is a criminal offence to do so).
BC: This is email from Ellen Mackenzie that kicks off all the process over next few months.
LE: Disagree it kicked it off, would have happened anyway
BC: EM is from the outset oppose to renewal of MF position
LE: Disgree this email is saying that
BC: Clear EM’s disconcertedness related to content not tone of MF views. EM still at CGD? Senior role
LE: yes
BC: She is clearly against from the start
LE: No she’s asking for robust discussion
BC: she says what about backlash from staff. Either this is an assumption?
LE: yes possible
BC: Or she’s been discussing with staff already
LE: also possible
BC: You’ve intimated you wouldn’t think it appropriate to tell other staff that a fellowship or position up for renewal and for staff to discuss that
LE: Don’t recall saying so
BC: Have you ever said X is up for renewal, what you do think
LE: Wouldn’t probably
BC: EM is not here. Is there anything substantive in what EM is saying about staff backlash. All we know is what you and I have discussed re C1-C4
LE: yes
BC: Email from you about this. You say “we should be well prepared to discuss if we renew becasuse they will demand it”. “They” is other staff?
LE: yes
BC: Assumption is other staff will kick off. Will demand explanation
LE: yes
BC: But we have looked at your response to C1 and C2 already, saying re disclaimer etc, and they responded saying that was OK
LE: But they said they couldn’t work –
BC: that’s later. I am talking about at the time of this email. 4 October. Staff demand was untested assumption
LE: No, there was a growing body of staff very uncomfortble.
BC: “Growing”?
LE: yes
BC: THere was lots of discussion going on in the Washington office
BC; You say “growing”. We have only heard of 4 complainants.
LE: yes but there were lots of others
BC: I repeat, there was lots of talking in Washington.
LE: Yes C4 has said she wanted to talk to me. And there was the [missed] team, I know they were talking about it.
BC: We have not had clarity on timing of C4.
LE: It was about then.
BC: Attitude seems to be that you shouldn’t employ someone if it might upset others.
LE: It was an open Q at that time
BC: Do you understand that belief is a protected characteristic in UK law? Like sex and others?
[LE has to pause for tech problems]
BC: If a growing body of staff came and said we are offended by male colleague X kissing his male partner goodbye at the door, you would view complaint as unaceptable?
LE: Well people can complain about what they want but no it would not have escalated like this, of course not.
BC: Do we agree principle. CGD would not act on anything if a growing group of staff were complaining based on prejudice
LE yes agree
BC: So if you are going to act on complaints from staff, you should take the trouble to really understand claimant’s views.
LE: I thought we had
BC: You should also take care to work out who is complaining and what they relationship to claimant.
LE: Yes I appreciate I didn’t know everything at the time re |London staff.
BC: You say here “people express unpopular views all the time”. Unpopular things, controversial things, people get offended, happens all the time in the office.
LE: But people don’t often come to me about it.
BC you say here “inflammatory rhetoric”. You mean her saying TW is not a woman
LE: well that and other things
BC: You describe as “decision to hire” but say that in US that just means “engage”. I have looked at US disctionaries – all say it’s about employing for particular job
LE: no it’s much wider meaning
BC: But even if we say “engage” – you have tried to present fellowship as honorific. “Engage” doesn’t mean that.
LE: disagree
BC: MF then sent you the proposed blog post. She’s v clear she’s not pushing strongly for CGD to publish.
LE: Agrees
BC: She says its only “exclusionary” in that she will say female excludes male and vice versa.
BC: She is clearly responding to your email to her, about “exclusionary” language
LE: I read it as proselytising
BC: But we can see she is clearly setting out that this is a topic for legitimate debate~
LE: But there are mentions of predatory men. Offensive comparison. Nobody had ever sent me a blog before.
BC: It is clearly not a proselytising blog. Sets out issues, invites discussion.
LE: I disagree.
BC: And this thing about predatory – what did you say about it?
LE: [reads out a phrase including it]
BC: is this what you meant by “fearmongering”?
BC: I will raise further with other witnesses but I suggest this is revealing:
BC: Did you understand that there are two parts to the argument for single sex spaces. The first is that most acts of violence are committted by men and women need single sex spaces for that reason
LE: Understand that now yes
BC: And you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory – that would be an anti-feminist backlash –
LE: Don’t understand
BC: you understand that the argument is not that ALL men are predatory
LE: please re-ask
BC: Do you understand that saying “most crimes are committed by men” is not the same as saying “all men are predators”
LE: yes
BC: And you understand that some women have experienced serious sexual violence from men.
LE: of course
BC: and for example in rape refuges women need to feel safe and comfortable
LE: yes
BC: And you know many women expeirence many levels of harassment
LE yes
BC and that women therefore value and need those same sex spaces, and that saying that is not the same as saying TW are more threatening than other men
LE: But I read it as, presence of TW would make uncomfortable
BC: We have to break that down. A TW might feel harmed by being kept out.
LE: yes
BC: Do you know that most TW have male genitalis
LE: Don’t know proportion
BC: Do you accept that though people try to accept and respect identities, many people still percieve a TW as male
LE: don’t know what they see
BC: Most people see the material materiality.
LE: Don’t know what they see. Don’t know what other people see.
BC You are eager not to reject other people’s realities. Blog says some women happy with TW sharing space, others not becasue they experience as man. Do you understand
LE: I understand that is what is said
BC: Do you understand that is not the same as saying that any one TW inherently a danger any more than any one man?
LE: Not what blog says
BC: going to read it.
BC: Reads/explains: Some women may be quite happy and that’s all there is to it, but not all women are. Those latter women should have the right to single sex spaces.
BC: SHe says arguing this is not the same as saying that any individual man that identifies as a woman is any more of a threat than of any other man.
LE: but she talks about predatory men
BC: Yes,she says that predatory men would be able to take advantage. She says such men do dishonest things. Men not TW.
LE: Don’t know.
BC: you don’t know?!
LE: Nobody would dress up as a woman
BC: You are saying nobody would?
LE: It’s fearmongering
BC: Even if it was, it’s about men. Not transwomen. Please read the actual words.
LE: She goes on to say –
BC: And she has just said what I have read. Must read the whole thing. Her “however” introduces predatory men. Men.
BC: What you do when you frame as fearmongering is you are ignoring what MF and those with her views are actually saying, and are bringing your prejuduces to bear.

LE: No.
BC: You did not respond to blog post so won’t take you through the rest of its progress.

BC: So I think next we should look at SPG meeting 6/12/2018
BC: In run up to that there were ongoing discussions among the core group about renewal, though you were not particular central to them
LE: yes that’s right
BC: You email Ms McKenzie just before SPG meeting saying you ithink Mr Ahmed leaning to not renewing. You had info from conversing with him to get that impression. There were converstations not included in these emails
LE: Yes other conversations going on
BC: You understood MA was also talking to Ms Mckenzie Mr Plant etc about this
LE: Probably vaguely, would have assumed so, they are senior
BC: You knew EM was organistion opposition to renewal
LE: Not really
BC: Here EM emails you to encourage you to come to SPG meeting. She had been letting you know MF’s views were inherently bigoted and transphobic.
LE: Don’t recall those words
BC: Unacceptable? offensive?
LE: don’t recall words. It was more she thought it was all taking a lot of time and should be resolves quickly. DOn’t recall her saying offensive.
BC: there are no minutes of this 6/12 SPG meeting, that was standard practice?
LE: Yes at the time
BC: Your statement has description of your contribution but nobody else’s?
LE: I do sort of say a bit about them a bit later
BC: You mention that your impression is that there was a lot of opposition but no detail
LE: yes
BC: you say you said you would have prob supporting renewal bcs of your mandate as HR to secure safe and respectful working environment for all. And you mention risk of misgendering.
LE: yes
BC: This presupposes claimaints views would damage that
LE: More about actions
BC: Why mention misgendering, MF had told you she would not.
LE: Didn’t feel sure that was 100% sure
BC: But unless you are claiming she lied, you are saying that the “misgendering” consisted only of her view that TW are not women?
LE: there was risk
BC: I think we have understood as much as we can here
BC: You say no final decision taken at the meeting
LE: yes
BC 3 options on the table: a) renew fellowship b) don’t renew but retain as associate c) end relationship
LE: yes
BC: So all options being considered as a bunch – all options on table at all points.
LE: yes
BC: We see suggestion from MA – do factfinding as if investigation in line with DEI policy
LE: DEI = diversity equity inclusion
BC: This was an investigation effectively
LE: No wrong term.
BC: Agree “establish facts”?
LE: [ pause ] was about preserving evidence
BC: not trying to trip you up. Pulling together what you already have is not the same as establishing the facts. Was it about establishing the facts.
LE: Um yes
BC: Do you agree purpose was to enable SPG to proceed on informed basis
LE: yes
BC: do you agree that at least one purpose of enabling SPG to proceed on informed basis was in order to enable a decision about whether MF had done things that were inappropriate offensive & discrimnatory?
LE: yes agree
BC: As a matter of basic fairness the claiminant needed to be part of that process.
LE: She should have ability to respond yes
BC: She should see evidence of what complained of
LE: I felt she already had had it
LE: She had responded to my email, she had responded to QI report
BC: No. so far the only thing she had had chance to respond to was email for you, which she had done.
LE: yes.
LE [warns his computer is failing to load bundle, he will need to use paper version]
BC: Your first step was to email 5 members of staff asking for their views of MF’s tweets.
LE: yes
BC: Here is the email. You BCCd so none of the 5 could see names of other 4.
LE: yes
BC: you say you want broad perspective of view
LE: yes
BC: Laudable aim. You need broad range of views across Washington and London offices
LE: Yes
BC: but these 5 people are all known to you as having stated hostility to the claimant.
LE: But those were the people I knew had taken interest
BC: You could have asked claimant to say who had she talked to .
LE: I did not do that.
BC: Kendra White is included here, why
LE: I knew she was aware of the issues but had not said views.
BC: You were not interested in locating a range of voices that would support claimant. Only in views hostile to her.
LE: Could not canvass all staff.
BC: Did Ellen Mackenzie suggest this course to you.
LE: Don’t recall that happening. Think it was my idea.
BC: you got 1 response
LE: yes
BC: And that 1 response, C1, very clear she did not require confidentiality.
LE: Yes she says she’d be happy to share views internally and externally. Not sure exactly how confident.
BC: And C1 says she takes view it is inherently unacepttable and offensive to take view that TW are not women and that anyone that takes that view should not be allowed to do any work with or for the respondents.
LE: yes
BC: So the result of your factfinding was that one response, plus, a compilation of what you already had – the Quantum impact reivew, your email to MF and her response, and a timeline document of MF’s tweets and reactions to them
LE: Yes
BC: And here we see Ms Mackenzie asking you to add to timeline a discussion Mr Plant had had with MF re not employing her
LE: yes
BC: EM not here to say why she wanted it added but she was right, wasn’t she, part of timeline
BC: And you did add it to timelines
LE: yes
BC: So that timeline, C1 response, and a later contribution from Ms Huang, is what goes to Ms Szabo and Quantum Impact for their later report
LE: yes
BC: That is the fact-finding they based their report on.
LE: They looked at lots of tweets too.
BC: Sure. But the CGD material submitted was those things I have listed
LE: Yes
BC: At no point was the claimant asked to submit facts about what she had said or done.
LE: because –
BC: I am not asking why, I am asking WHAT happened.
LE: She got to comment on the report afterwards – –
LE: and her tweets were the facts, black and white.
BC: I’m not asking that. I will ask one last time. Before QI made report she was not asked to contribute.
LE: Disagree with your statement. But no she wasn’t asked.
BC: She had been asked about one single tweet, in correspondence with you, but that was it.
LE: yes
BC: And when she WAS asked to respond to the report, it was deliberately vague.
LE: Parts of the report were for GGD and part for claimaint.
BC: The version of report sent to the claimaint was deliberately vague.
LE: That shounds as if we where hiding something
EJ: Do you agree report was vague?
LE: yes
EJ do you agree it wsa delibeately vague?
LE: yes
BC: Email from Quantum Impact with report – identifies version for claimant – says “it’s vague, deliberately vague, because we shouldn’t get into discussion with claimant because she knows her stuff really well”
BC: the point was precisely to prevent MF defending herself. She had had only one chance, by email, to respond to CGD at that point.
LE: No she also wrote a blog post!
BC: MF described this report as “somewhat flawed” that’s fair isn’t it?
LE: she had the chance to express her views but yes perhaps should have happened differently
BC: Indeed. But since it didn’t, claimant quite justified in calling “somewhat flawed”? She’d been accused and found guilty without any details, without being heard.
BC: She had no idea what it was had been found offensive, which tweets.

LE: [starts discussing the FPFW leaflet]
BC: we can come back to that if necessary. Am asking if you understand that MF is complaining of having been found guilty of bad language, without being told what it wsa?
LE: Yes
BC: that she is complaining she is being judged on views not on language
LE: not sure about that
BC: you say report is admittedly somewhat flawed, flawed in some ways, you are acknowledgign that MF’s criticims are justified?
LE: No am acknowledging some sloppiness of language particularly around her title.
BC: Any fair reading of her response – impossible to reach view that she is proselytising and trying to persuade you of her views. What she is doing is arguing against claim the views are offensive. That ought to be possible –
OD : too complex Q
EJ agrees
BC: She is not proselytising?
LE: I thought she was trying to persuade us her views wehre right
BC: No, she is saying she has a right to hold /expresss them
LE: not how I read it
EJ intervenes, can we conclude you with LE before lunch?
BC: Yes I hope so
BC: I am pretty much there, but in fact would prefer break now.
EJ: We resume 2pm, remind Mr Easley not to speak to anyone. [BREAK]

BC: No more Qs for Mr Easley

EJ: Do panel members have Qs – I don’t.

Panel: No no Qs
OD: I have 8 areas of re-examination
OD: You were asked about integration between CGD and CGD(Europe). We have email from Ian Mitchell 25/7/18 – draft email starting “comrades”
OD: Says if trustees approve we will adopt same as DC for operations, fundraising and comms arlready are. Can you comment on what progress was on that at that time
LE: recollection is that it didn’t start until 2017 so only 6-8 months on. Can’t speak for comms and fundraising but re operations was very much in infancy stages
OD: you said ops = finance, HR and admin, are they now fully integrated
LE: No still on going. in fact Q4 2021 finance was still fully separate, and even now integrated system is not live
OD: We have heard term “material” a lot. We have looked at correspondence with it in. Did MF ever raise with you that this is phrase from Marxist phliospophy
LE: not that I’m aware
OD: You’ve been asked about other situations, what would happen, eg biblical teaching, pro-choice/pro-life beliefs. What if somebody said bible teaching was nonsense, couldn’t be true. What if it was being discussed on Slack …
OD what if it was being blogged and what if –

EJ: I am losing track

OD: Mr Easley what would your reaction be
LE: I would take the same approace
OD: You’ve been told a lot of topics were discussed in London office and whether you were aware. Did you ever get complaints about that
LE no I didn’t
OD: You were asked about tweets from Owen Barder and ? Pritchard and another person and said they were markedly different from claimaint’s. how different?
LE: Much less inflammatory, this was about “man-els”, overall less extreme
OD: You sent email after getting QI report. You write right of any staff person not under attack but cannot outweight right of others to fee comfortable at work
OD: you were asked, MF was found guilty of sending transphobic tweets with no chance to defend. Is it your understanding she had been found guilty of that

LE: No
EJ: Thanks LE for evidence. Says ban on discussing no longer applies

OD: Next Amanda Glassman, I understand is going to take over LE seat [LE camera turned off while this happens]

Witness Statement
[AG affirms following EJ re truth, whole truth, nothing but truth]
OD: Invites AG to state full name, AG: does
OD: asks have you read statement recently. Any corrections
AG: yes: Para 31 – please add “potential” before “funders”
OD: Any more? AG: No
OD: is you statement true to best of belief
AG: yes
OD: I have 4 supplementary questions

OD: Says CGD accounts are consoldated for audit. Are they combined
AG: CGDEurope produces own accounts but we do include in DC accounts also

OD: Around 2018 how was CGD(E) funded
AG: c20% from CGD c66% from Gates foundation remainder from bilateral government funders Europe/Australia £2.8M approx total
OD: Claimant says re a particular report she was asked to write that a contractor would not be asked. Is that so

AG: It was not infrequent that we ask contractors for input to such reports
OD: re streamlining of operations between DC/London. How far had that got when Mark Plant went to head up London.

AG: Started in earnest 2018. I think June 2018 we starting looking at the programme model
AG: I would say it was process of integration on the programme side. On funding side more recognition that we should approach funders in an integrated way.
AG: but we were still approaching funders separately. And we have just discussed finance side arrangements.
EJ: Typing – I am not criticising anybody. But, chatroom is only for court use.
BC: Greets AG. Don’t know if you watched me talking to LE
AG: yes I did
BC: Not going to labour all the same points with you. But can we agree that transparency and integrity important to CGD
BC: And that includes transparency towards individuals
AG: Yes. But. Different re staff and re contractors.
BC: I am not going to cover things that have already come up.
BC: Diversity also respondent’s value
AG: Yes
BC: includes diversity of belief
AG: yes
BC: incudes not restricting people internally
AG: Yes subject to expression per handbook
BC: But leaving aside the utterly unacceptable, and subject to tone, anything can be discussed.
AG: yes subject to handbook
BC: So if a Christian staff member told me I was immoral because I’m gay, that’s not OK becasuse attack on me.
AG: yes
But if they said they believed gay relationships immoral, that’s not an attack on me.
AG: could create unpleasantness for a colleague
BC: [Names 2 collegues, one strongly atheist one strongly Christian]
BC: These 2 have had robust exchanges on religion
AG: Had not heard of this
BC: you would object to this?
AG: It’s about the topics CGD works on and people’s private views not coming into work
BC: that’s not how London operated?
AG: not sure
BC: Difference between discussing views and attacking individual?
AG: Sure but some things better not discussed at work
BC: The only topic you do have explicit ban on is the view that TW are not women? If MF had stayed, she would not have been allowed to express her views at all?
AG: Not exactly, would have been discussion of whether relevant to CGD
BC: Not quite what I’m asking, I asked if she wouldhave been able to discuss internally.
AG: no prohibition
BC: Checking chronology. September 2018 and before, no prohibition. But thereafter developed that she should not discuss internally at all?
AG: No I disagree, see email from LE re CGD position
BC: This is time of discussion re renewal of her fellowship, re QI report. LE says MF should by now be clear we are not preparred to discuss nuance of her position, and have clear firewall around her discussing in workplace
AG: was not part of that discussion, I think the idea was about respect, and about people inviting discussing, also reputational risk of tweeting about what is a woman, but this is all speculation
BC: This is a 3-way DM between you, Michael Clements, Jonathan Glennie?
AG: No, 2 separate conversations, MC+JG and then me+JG, someone has screenshot without permission
BC: This is 5th May after MF left, re SUnday times article, your convo with JG, you are upset that MF is saying she lost her job.
AG: I felt JG had reported only what MF said and was not accurate
BC: You thought MF was lying when she said job offer withdrawn
AG: I thought it was not accurate
BC: MF had been offered associate position not renewal; she had said would not work, she was told go think about it, she had gone to do that. Accurate?
AG: It was a genuine offer of contracter position
BC: not my Q. Q was, MF went away to think about it.
AG: Yes
BC: No written offer re Gates project was ever made to MF. Agree?
AG: Yes
BC: No one from respondents ever said oral offer had been withdrawn
AG: Agree
BC: There is nothing from claimaint saying she rejected the contract offer
AG: Her leaving email suggests it was not a real offer
BC: Not the Q. You are saying you inferred from email. I asked: nowhere does the respondent say “we aren’t going to offer you work” and MF never said “I refuse your offer” does she.
AG: I think we should look at farewell email
BC: please answer the question
AG: we have to look at the email
BC: OK let’s look at the email
BC: Nowhere does she say I am not going to accept offer of work on Gates project.
AG: It says “offer was rescinded”. Not true
BC: this is the point. Nobody withdrew the offer and she did not refuse it. What happened is position became untenable. This is what tribunal has to decide.
BC: If we look at this email to her a little before – it does not explicitly say offer withdrawn, but claimant view is that it is very much implicit.
AG: I can see where she might read that, and email could have been clearer, but that was v much not intention
BC: You can see how she gets that understanding. Objectively. Likewise I accept that if objectively offer was not being implicitly withdrawn, MF email would torpedo the offer. She was not lying about it.
AG: that was not my understanding at the time.
BC: There is a disagreement about what the effect of the correspondence was.
BC: However you say claimant took down tweets about people’s genitals that were offensive. This wasn’t true was it.
AG: was an error on my part.
BC: You thought it OK to make that statment to someone in claimant’s network, without checking facts?
AG: I did look but could not find, did not intend to misrepresent, this is someone in my network too
AG: I was angry and should not have responded, lesson learned.
BC: Looking at DM from Mr Clemence. Says beyond this she was disseminating to whole office re gender of actual staff members. Not true?
AG: Don’t know where MC got that from
BC: not true
AG: I do know she was saying about not realitiy and was considered innappropraite by some ppl
BC: I repeat. It is not true that she disseminated re collegues; does your credibility no good to defend. Give you chaance to say it’s not true.

AG: That part is definitely not accurate.
BC: There had obviuosly been lots of discussion and comment about the claimant that led to her being misrepresented as bigot attacking collegues

AG: I didn’t see any of that. MC not a water cooler person. But yes there are inaccuracies here
BC: And we see a level of fury here at the claimant about the action she was bringing against you
AG: very unfortunate
BC: not CGD values?
AG: yes
BC: Letter to you and Mr Ahmed after last year’s EAT judgement from 85 staff members
AG: yes
BC: “As Amanda said in her statement we think first rullng was correct”
BC: letter urges you to appeal, to show support for trans colleagues and friends, CGD must take stand against all bigotry including transphobia
BC: 85 staff saying MF views not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Is that how you nderstand letter
AG: they are focussing on the belief yes
BC: Not what asked. Letter says belief not worthy of respect, because bigotry
AG: yes that’s what they are saying
BC: you & MR Ahmed responded in Pink News
AG: No
BC: Letter thanking them for letter, said “in best spirit of CGD culture”
AG: It was internal but yes that’s what it said
BC: So it is best spirit of CGD culture to treat gender critical belief as bigoted and transphobic
AG: it was about the first tribunal
BC: not sure I understand
BC: If we look here – first ET was about whether belieft, set out here, was worthy of respect in a democratic society. So that is the belief the employees’ letter is talking about?
AG: yes
BC: So am I to conclude that you personally also think that belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society?
AG: Yes I stand by public statment on this
BC: The core belief, wrritten here, not WORIADS?
AG: Yes
BC: Because bigotted?
AG: It’s about the expression
BC: I know you say that now. You had choice before to differentiate belief and expression. But in your grounds of resistance you said the belief is not worthy of respect, you said nothing about expresssion
BC: your position, personally and as organisation, is that the belief is not WORIADS, is against others dignity
AG: that is what we argued, but we lost at appeal, I’m not best person to ask
BC: Your personal position and the institutional position, is that the belief – not the expression – is NWORIADS and against others’ dignity
AG: yes
BC: You have not changed your view, always your view
AG: yes
BC: So we could argue about mode of expression as much as we like but that was not your objection at all. Your objection was not to niceties of language, there was no language she could have chosen, you wouild always have said bigoted and transphobic
AG: there are ways to have a discussion, to talk about transwomen and ciswomen, I don’t think my views colour, but that is true
BC: Judge at EA1 said claimant could have discussed without saying TW are not women, is that what you mean
AG: yes to talk about spaces etc like that
BC: So you are saying she can talk about issues around, but not about the fundamentals of her belief
AG: No its about how these things are conveyed in the workplace
BC: I asked, she could engage in discussion but without being able to express fundamentals of the belief. Is that so.
AG: this is hypothetical. MF was visiting fellow, we had no guidelines, email from LE re respectfully
BC: I’m not going to keep asking same question.

BC: Looking at organisation structure now
BC: Your statement describes what we’ve been calling the “One CGD” policy
AG: yes the programme model
BC: the two are not the same?
AG: they are more or less. Intimately related.
BC: Let’s look at that. This is CEO report for 2017 for CGDEurope. We can see that “one CGD” principle firmly established, it’s here at the bottom of the page
AG: Yes that’s accurate
BC: next page is missing. What we do have is clearly in present tense. Doesn’t talk of early stages or anything. Very clear.
AG: There’s a lot of details we could discuss but yup
BC: returning to principle of transparency. This goes to board. Is truthful and transparent.
AG: It’s, yes, it’s, yes it’s accurate
BC: You seem to trying to divert our attention elsewhere
BC is it the case that the one CGD principle was operating.
AG: yes it was operating but you can see in various places that it was also aprocess
BC: when Mr Ahmed took over, the management of the two organisations was integrated, they had always worked closely togehther,

AG: yes
BC: A visiting fellow could be based in Washington or London?
AG: yes or elsehwere
BC: no distinction drawn?
AG: no
BC: This is equivalent from following year March 2018. So before “programme model” discussion. “One CGD” clearly up an runnding?
AG: yes
BC: more about “one CGD” later on
BC: clear research will be done hwereever and funding raised wherever becsause this is one organisation
AG: yes but seprate organsiations all the same
BC: But in practice, one organisation
AG: separate legalities but yes
BC: only separation was as required by different jurisdiction but all operations as if single entity otherwise
AG: yes
BC: Visiting fellowship is one of the levels of engagement. And there were VFs who were employees.
AG: yes
BG: no one definition of VF – varied per person
AG: and by work undertaken yes
BC: You describe your udnerstanding of how MF’s VF came about and it is clear it is not unrelated to funding
AG: correct
BC: do you personally distinguish academic VFs from employed VFs and contracted VFs.
AG: yes many models inc some academics
BC: for some, was platform for their work for CGD. Like claimant
AG: yes
BC: and in cases like client, fundraising / profile raising involved.
AG: yes
BC: and CGD would then engage the VF as funding permitted. And no point in VF if no funding.
AG: Many models –
BC: If there was no work for a VF to do, likely VF would not be renewed.
AG: yes tho there is also cycle of renewal etc
BC: and a VF would leave if no work, no profile?
AG: you mean that if niether CGD nor a VF was happy it would not renew yes
EJ: is this convenient for break?
BC: yes
EJ: Reminds AG must not discuss. Restart in 10 minutes. [BREAK]
We are resuming.

EJ: note large number of people attending, can’t see other panel members. please speak to get up screen
EJ: reporting restrictions re names and email addresses of complainants 1-4
BC: in fundraising we have agreed claimant was to carry out she was under instructions from IA team
AG: that’s for staff, VFs, could have separate talk to funders
BC: when working with the IA team she was required to follow IA team instructions
AG: yes plus other people too
BC: Many VFs have wide networks including funders and potential ones
AG: yes
BC: Funders may contact them
AG: Yes
BC: including because they know them as being with CGD
AG: yes
BC: could lead to development of a programme etc
AG: yes with some other stages
BC: exactly as happened with MF
AG: Yes
BC: and this did not happen because of her personally only, was re being part of CGD
BC: advantage of being a VF is beign part of CGD infrasturcutre
AG: yes
BC: there is no sense in which work MF did for any IA programmes was different from any other researcher staff or otherwise
AG: Well there is Q of seniority and whether could work alone or with lead
BC: and this wsa a CGD programme she ws working on?
AG: yes development notes say so, but we know claimant and her lead had developed programme
BC: but that is normal – researchers encouraged to bring ideas
AG: yes but CGD only takes on the ones we want to
BC: So Gates grant proposal submitted Aug 2018.
BC: Email from Mark Plant to collegues enclosing proposal. Says will need more changes but likely to go through
BC: “expect to go thru” – this is nature of proposal. There is collaboration in development of programme.
AG: yes it’s collaborative but could still be rejected
BC: but you would not have got to this point and expect outright rejection. Even if some changes exxected
AG: yes
BC: This is part of CGD Grounds of Resistance. Mentions this proposal
AG: yes
BC: It denies strong expectation of funding. THat’s not true?
AG: I think the sentence is trying to say it’s never certain
BC: No one had said dead cert, claimant had said strong expectation, that was true, wasn’t it?
AG: yes
BC: you are sounding often as if you are trying to finess a lie
AG: No. I’m trying to be clear.
BC: do you deny that the statement “CGD denies strong expectation of funding” is not true?
AG: repeats about certainty
BC: Will give you one more chance.
AG: There was not a strong indication but there was an indication.
BC: This is part of the budget for the Gates proposal
AG: yes
BC: we can see the claimant is second name in table at the top. Which is headed “personnel”
AG: yes
BC: there is a later separate table of “consultants”
AG: yes
BC: This section is final narrative to go on propsosal
AG: yes
BC: this has a personnel and benefits section, under personnel names claimant.
AG: yes
BC: separate section on consultants later
AG: yes
BC: Section on benefits and some text. Eg pension etc, FTE = full time equivalent. Talks of retirement and payroll. CGD does not provide these to external consultants
AG: correct
BC: payroll taxes not to consulants
AG: correct
BC: in this, claimant is positioned as employee
AG: yes but she was VF, classifcation not correct, but yes that is what is said there
BC: Gates would not know significance of your job titles
AG: no
BC: practice was just to describe people’s current position
AG: yes
BC: eg Nancy Lee described as senior fellow here, visiting earlier. Because current
AG: yes
BC: purpose is to describe to Gates foundation the structure and personal
AG: yes. However this is not a hiring document this is a proposal
BC: I understand that.
BC: Says here claimant is called VF in document
AG: yes
BC: means in proposal
AG: yes
BC: says she will work as a consultant. That’s not true, in the proposal?
AG: it was an error
BC: Is it said anywhere “claimant was listed in proposal as employee but that was an error”
AG: Not that we have looked at. But it’s an error that she is in that section
BC: not true that it was an error
AG: yes true that it is an error
AG: she was not employed at that time
BC: BUt intention was that she would be when funding came
AG: that is not the same as an offer of employment
BC: I understand that. But. The discussions between MF and Mr Plant, Mr Barder and others were to the effect that she would be taken on as eomployee when gates funding came
AG: It says we can begin to discuss when funding.
BC: I will ofc discuss with Mr Plant. I am asking about your own understanding. MF had been told to effect of she would be employed when Gates funding came, and it was expected it would
AG: not my understanding. Process. Many discussions.
BC: did you know all that at the time or only later
AG: at the time
BC: you were aware of the discussions.
BC: Here you include MF in an email about activity report that goes to employee fellows
BC: she is included in team
AG: my error
BC: claimaint queried whether she was intended to be included
AG: you repllied oops not qujite yet, hopefully next year
BC: Q from Mr Clemence about including another fellow, you reply should not have included nor maya “in this round”.
AG: yes
BC: you say in statement you hoped MF would be a future candidate. Not true. Was an expections.
AG: No, there was a process
BC: Luke Easley has said it would have been a process of only 3-4 weeks usually
AG: It’s possible
BC: OK so claimant’s expression of belief, and reaactions. You first aware when C1 came to speak to you 28/9
AG: yes
BC: You say C1 perceived as transphobic and reputational risk
AG: yes
BC: C1 did not mention language, simply described belief as transphobic
AG: it was a brief conversation
BC: she must have given a fiar amount of details?
AG: I don’t recall
BC: you made no notes
AG: no
BC: When LE emailed you summarising concerns that viewpoints transphobic you didn’t say “that’s not what I’ve been told it’s moe about language”
AG: I did not
BC: You had same understanding – it ws about viewpoints
AG: it was about the tweets, characterised as transphobic
BC: About reputational risk. THere is not a shred of evidence of any blowback to CGD as a result of MF’s tweets
AG: Well on twitter you can see people in our network getting involved and voiceing concerns, disappointed, harm etc. Repuational within our network
BC: these are the ones you mention in your statement – will return to them. However: this is retrospective; thin evidence scrabbled later.
AG: I don’t agree.
BC: None of this is mentioned in any of the internal correspondence.
AG: No but they are my views and I had them by the December SPG.
BC: mentioned at SPG?
AG: no
BC: There is nothing from any funder complaining?
AG: no
BC: Nobody said they’d review funding
AG: no
BC: Nobody did review / remove funding
AG: not that I know of
BC: that is weaselly. NObody did, did they
AG: Well there have been funding changes.
BC: This is a reply from you to Mr Easley, says you have reviewed and you agree. That claimant was making nuanced argument.
AG. Yes. But I had not fully reviewed at the time
BC: it is striking that every senior person giving evidence had reviewed at this point, but had not managed to find any of the things you later claim are offensive and bigotted.
AG: there was much that was challenging but we had not read all, only headlines, top tweets etc
BC: So you did see tweet re man-els and Philip Bunce
AG: yes
BC: you didn’t regard as inapproriate, transphobic at the time
AG: inappropriate possibly, not really transphobic, no
BC: You didn’t see any misgendering
AG: not exactly. Didn’t look at all. Had not seen graphs.
BC: Mr Ahmed liked one of the graphs.
AG: that was an accident.
BC: But it meant they had been seen. We know QI say the graphs as very problematic
BC: and we know Mr Ahmed saw them. And we can see him saying he doesn’t know enough about debate even so.
AG: yes
BC: but you are saying the graphs hit between the eyes as problem
AG: Had not seen them at the time
BC: why are they a problem. Let’s look at whole picture
AG: OK So I see tweets re her being tax expert, then tweets about what is a woman, then tweets about humans beings as other primates being massively bimodal, I think it’s mocking.
OD: Can we check page
BC: AG was quoting words that don’t appear on that page.
BC: Someone intervenes on thread to post a view from another tweeter about is sex a spectrum like gender identity, whereas this thread is about the converse view.
EJ: has to intervene to make sure panel members are here
BC: we see part of the other thread linked. Then a graph with a blue and pink bimodal graphic. Perhaps joking.
BC: what you are objecting to is when MF responds to points made.
AG: She is tweeting about aspects of the sexes.
BC: She says “nonsense on stiilts”. Twitter is pretty direct?
AG: Not universally
BC: There is nothing about “nonsense on stilts” that is out of normal Twitter use
AG: Perhaps but it’s ridiculing the other view
BC: And rightly so because claimant then says “what are these axes supposed to represent?”
AG: yes
BC: you understand what a bimodal distribution is, mapping of two distinct categories that overlap a bit?
AG: but the tweet is making a joke
BC: The graphic is being used to “proved” spectrum.
BC: If you plot the length of cats and rabbits on a graph you will get a bimodal distribution
AG: Not sure. But not appropriate to have graphic of people’s genitals.
BC: Plot cats and rabbits: bimodal distribution.
AG: Perhaps yes
BC: First thing a statistician would ask is “is this 2 populations not 1”
AG: yes
BC: MF is mocking idea that a bimodal graph means a spectrum. It’s a bad argument
AG: yes that is what she is saying
BC: and it IS a bad argument
AG: I can’t judge
BC: She then later says here is a characteristic plotted, this is massively bimodal, it’s completely bimodal. This is completlely typical twitter debate
AG: it’s on Twitter yes
BC: And CGD does not say people must confine their tweeting to international development and must not make jokes
AG: there are a LOT of tweets here, not just occasional joke
BC: lots of people have lots of interests outside CGD, common for people to use same twitter account for everything
AG: yes
BC: and there was nothing at all said ever about what she could and could not tweet
AG: No and no intention to limite
BC: convenient to stop there
EJ: Yes. Restart 10 am tomorrow.

Day 8 – AM and PM – Amanda Glassman and Mark Plant

We begin. The clerk reminds the court the basic ground rules of connection issues and please mute yourselves. You must not record the hearing.
EJ reminds the court that there is a reporting restriction order in place and it’s criminal offence to publish names and email addresses of four individuals who are referred to as complainants 1-4.
EJ: a couple of things, one there’s been email exchanges between parties and tribunal about evidence in unrelated matters. We haven’t had a chance to take that on board and further correspondence likely to go on. Can I suggest we continue with AG evidence until anything else
BC: yes butni need to address you now to address someone of the markers and how you manage the hearing in regards to them
EJ: allright
BC: you should have an email enclosing a statement and 2 new docs and making application for permission for that to be introduced to evidence
BC: 1st headline is we will oppose that, no objection going into the bundle. 2nd headline you should deal with the application at the end of the evidence as one factor is it will impact on evidence and time. I do need do lay down these markers. 1. I will invite Respondent to
BC: think very carefully about those markers and how they’ll be managed. EJ: I’m concerned were getting I to a pre match running into the application
BC: this is an extraordinary application to be submitted but I do need to put markers down
EJ: I’m kt enthusiastic about markers
BC: I would normally not do and of your position but…this is going to have such a significant impact on the case , and I won’t take time
BC: first marker in the application email the explanation for late app is ‘has become clear the complaint of victimisation of Web profile is focussed on alumni pages.’. That is a false accusation.
BC: 3rd disclosure on 2 new doc this morning show a proper hold notice wasn’t placed on docs in accordance with parties and solicitors. We’ve not previously troubled you with long battles of disclosure but we will need to if App is pursued.
BC: The principle point that arrives from docs shows contrary what we had been told… the long battles of disclosure, the respondents said they would search mailboxes personally for relevant docs. The new email has not previously been disclosed.
BC: It shows that we have not had proper disclosure. This is a reply to an email we don’t have disclosed. I cannot expected and not willing to cross examine the witness without proper enclosure of material I am entitled to…
BC: 3rd marker is, the picture as to reasons given for removal of website remains murky and clear and gownit comes clearer with questions I ask. It may be necessary to recall claimant as to what she saw on website.
There are practical consequences.
4th observation…any view the app will take substantial amount of time…and secondly to hear evidence

(Missed)
OD: in my submission it’d be more appropriate to deal with it after AG. It won’t take as much time as BC seems to think
OD: I don’t have full instructions but I think there’s been an understanding…of course it’s entirely regrettable for late submission…I’d suggest it can be dealt with and not take time up
OD: you will have to discuss it with your colleague, BC seems to think it will take tome
EJ: what is beyond doubt is to complete AG evidence and then we’ll take a view on when App will be addressed.
EJ: the other thing discussed is that in terms of the hearing next week…we thought about time tabling in the following way.

(EJ is putting forward suggestions for timetabling next week)
EJ: let’s continue
BC: we had been looking at initial response from you to complaints that LE received.
BC: you tell us more members of fundraising team in Washington and London spoke directly of their concerns to you
AG: yes
BC: complainants 1-4m
AG: no 1-3
BC: and plenty discussion
AG: yes
BC: wider discussion in Washington fair to say?
AG: no
BC: did you make any notes?
AG: no
BC: what they said you now tell us they were hurt and offended by mF comments on twitter
AG: yes
BC: did you take thr trouble to check the claims were correct
AG: I saw it was about pip Bunce…they were talking with LE
BC: was it apparant to you Pio bynce didn’t identify as a woman
AG: I didn’t look carefully at pip bunces profile
BC: you thought it’sd be difficult to say she crossed any lines
AG: yes
BC: the exchanges here, LE proposes a first draft he was proposing a fairly interventionist approach and restrictions of tweets
AG: your response you said you were concerned and it’d get you into policing people. So you recognise you senior researchers who heavily use SM in a way that is robust and humorous, yes
AG: yes
BC: they use it to criticise
AG: they shouldn’t engage in ad hominom attacks against individuals
BC: complaint from Martin Kirk and he gives an example of what he describes as ‘aggressive in tactics and tone from MF’ and calls it ‘fake news’ yes?
AG: yes
BC: defence (reads email) that was the tone that was common (lists) isn’t it?
AG: I think the tweet ref reflects what you described
BC: but in general this was the tone…
I’ll ask again. Was it a common tone?
AG: yes
BC: and you recognise that in this email here
AG: yes
AG: if you took a different line with MF you’d be giving less favourable treatment
AG: yes
BC: we can see other ppl contribute to the email discussion reinforcing your point with telling examples,
BC: (reads emails) we can see MF participated and OB objected publically too. Both emails refer to the fact CGD policy was challenged at certain points
AG: yes but we (missed)
BC: where do we see that
AG: it was always provided as guidance
BC: but these emails suggest that that qualification wasn’t made
AG: we asked ppl to put in their bios it was their views not the org
BC: have a look again, iM says ‘is it our policy to let employees know they are against CGDs position?’ So he didn’t know that?
AG: I don’t think he means the twitter blog statement
BC: he doesn’t ‘generally’ know that’s the position
AG: I agree it’s not clear from his email
BC: this is an earlier email from LE about how to respond to claimant. He says maybe we ask everyone to add their own disclaimer’ which again suggests it’s not generally known
AG: we expect most people to do and most ppl do do. But you could interpret the way your describing
BC: it’s not interpreting though, that is it isn’t it
AG: not as my understanding
BC: you can’t point to anything that says that
AG: no not in this bundle now
BC: now LE originally sent email

(Missed with checking confidentiality matters)
BC: you say it was intention to cause offence with TW
AG: yes
BC: but she states
AG: again she says TW are men and I’ll continue to say them
BC: you didn’t disbelief her?
AG: she’s saying one thing at the beginning then different at the end

(Missed)
BC: at the end of the paragraph she is telling you how she would interact with trans ppl
AG: but the exchange is around a trans person pip bunce and calling him rude things
BC: she’s telling you she will respect people pronouns
AG: yes
BC: you didn’t think she was a liar did you?
AG: I don’t think of it that way
BC: So she has sustained her right to express her right that TW means men and women is AHF
AG: that’s how she understands it yes
BC: the real crux no that there must be a way of having respectful debate and not misgendering and crossing the line how do you think the claimant could have expressed the belief TW are men and BS is a biological reality that can’t be changed by identity without being offensive?
BC: sorry to interupt but I’m see can we just get to the crux. How could she have said her core beliefs in a way that you would not regard it as offensive as unacceptable?
AG: she could have used cis woman and teanswoman
BC: So she has to concede to those terms..you understand many women regard the term cis woman as offensive?
AG: I don’t understand that
BC: the bench book makes it clear
OD is accusing BC of improper
BC: do you understand the reason they find that offensive because they don’t believe they identify as a woman
AG: I don’t understand this part of the discussion
Bc: would you agree that some women see the Gender Identity category as one way women have been opposed over centuries
AG: I don’t have any knowledge so…
BC: you tell us in your statement you reviewed the claimants tweets in detail. Second tweet (reads). She’s making exactly the point you said you didn’t appreciate or understand.
BC: Gender identity to women is a tool of oppression?
BC: what your saying to the claimant is not only can you not talk bout your fundamental belief but must take on a other
AG: I disagree
BC: you’ve struggled with this because there is no way MF could have discussed without you finding it offensive
BC: your telling what the core belief is. The employment tribunal quotes sex is biological and immutable. Can MF say that without being offensive.
AG: my opinion isn’t relevant
BC: you don’t get to decide what’s relevant
BC: could she say that inoffensively?
EJ has intervened to say its relevant
EJ: could the claimant in your view say sex is immutable
AG: that’s her belief
EJ: the question is can she say it and express it in a way that isn’t offensive to you
AG: er…e..ur
AG: she is absolutist and she can say it
BC: with a colleague
AG: it’s not the right discussion to discuss at work
BC: we agreed that in london office it was common accepted practice to discuss personal beliefs
AG at that time it was
BC: if that is the culture then MF making statement is that something she could say unoffensively?
AG: she works in an org who has two parts and there are ppl who will interpret it differently
BC: another of her belief there are only two sexes, can she say that unoffensively?
AG: given London culture at rhe time yes
BC: that sex is a material reality and no overridden by gender identity. Can she say that on application platform
AG: she did it and it was offensive to a number of ppl
BC: In a democracy we don’t have to restrict statements noone else is offended by, certainly on SM
AG: no
BC: So whether what the claimant did was acceptable can’t be judged by ppl taking offence
AG: it’s about a work place, is it her right, of course
BC: it’s not a workplace because you were reacting to tweets
AG: yes
BC: So this isn’t about judging the workplace but her on Twitter
AG: repeat the question
BC: the principle issue is what the claimant said on twitter. When I put that to you, you said it was about the workplace? But that can’t be right can it?
AG: perhaps that the relevant metric but the context if this cinvo is the response to MF tweets. It’s states statement that generated feelings and responses and complaints. And she responded saying they’re not controversial or offensive
BC: stating that sex is a material reality on a social media platform is acceptable associated with CGd even if it causes offence
AG: it will and has happened
BC: can claimant say men are males and women are females?
AG: yes
BC: all of these questrions are whether you regard these statements as acceptable and uoffensive
EJ: I’m losing the thread slightly. Are you asking I’d AG or org finds it offensive?
BC: do you find people to be male or female to be offensive?
AG: I find it inaccurate
BC: do you agree with rules and culture it’s not unacceptable for MF to say on twitter
(Missed)
(Missed)

AG: it was her right, there’s no specific guidance on SM
BC: going back to LE, once objection is the claimant was unproperly presenting beliefs as facts you understand her belief is a matter of fact not gender identity which is internal feeling?
AG: yes
BC: and we get that everytime …you’re real objection us her stating her belief on any terms.
AG: I disagree…she likens TG to mental illness
BC: let’s deal with that.
BC: (reads MF’s position on sex)

EJ has interrupted saying its concerning someone with a Skype name may be streaming the hearing. They’ve now gone and is concerned
BC: I’ve just read MFs core beliefs and in the context of this email the claimant is responding to an assertion that she has published offensive and exclusionary statements on twitter.
AG: I think we should refer to the exact language, some people
BC: the clear intention and effect of LE email is to say that language is not acceptable because some or another of ppl find offensive
AG” msg says what it says and asking to be sensitive to ppl and their realities
BC: it’s talking about twitter statements
BC: are you saying it wasn’t the purpose of LE to say to claimant what you’re saying has been regarded as offensive and don’t say it on twitter?AG: it wasn’t say don’t say it, but put disclaimer on twitter
BC: it’s not surprising claimant feels she should respond
AG: yes
BC: one way would be to renounce all statements
AG: yes
BC: but if it was that she said she had important beliefs she is entitled to those. She is not trying to convert you is she
AG: no
BC: this is an important topic and she should be allowed to express…and shouldn’t be stopped from expressing
AG: I don’t see that.
BC (highlights part in email…including claimant saying she finds womanhood being stereotyped as offensive)
BC it is ot clear she has strong views and I should be allowed to say them
AG: that’s what she is proposing
BC: she’s not trying to convert you
AG: and she says they should be heard via CGD
BC: we’ve agreed that was the ulture in London offices at the time
AG: yes
BC: it’s not an issue that irrelevant to international development?
AG: it’s not relevant to our think-tank
BC: In any event she makes it clear while she’d like cGD to host event she’s not pushing
BC: do you agree she’s not strongly pushing it
AG: in this piece no
BC: having described her core beliefs the point she is making is that internal feelings are not their real feelings.
I’m aware you object to the analogy but the point emphasis is the dictionary between material reality and other forms, ie biological sex bit I’m ot saying someone gender identity are not real. Do you understand the distinction
AG: I see that’s what she has written. Most ppl on twitter don’t distinguish don’t distinguish between reality.

(EJ interjects about concept of material realityand witness should answer questions)
BC: my question was did you understand before we xome to the analogy that the point the claimant was making was between the material reality of sex and the internal feelings of someone gender ID which she accepts ad a different reality?you agree?
BC asks again
AG: no
BC: you read this and you didn’t understand that was the point she was making
BC: (referring to anorexic analogy) when ppl are making points they use analogies, what matters is to understand the point they’re illustrating
AG: yes
BC: a fair reading is not claimant saying trans ppl are mentally ill
BC: what I suggest again what’s happening, you are always very very ready to inform some form of offence or bigotry from what the cimant is saying
AG: I don’t agree
BC: in fact you never take the time to understand carefully what she is saying. …in fact your starting point is everything is offensive and bigoted.
AG: no
EJ interrupts and we will break until 11.40
We are back.
BC: let’s move on in chronology. You received an email saying there needed to be a robust discussion of claimant fellowship?
AG: yes
BC: you received MP reply saying he certainly wanted to renew
AG: yes
BC: you then received email and miss mckensize said to you can respond to mark?
AG: yes
BC: the implication is mckensie is opposed to continuing affiliation
AG: yes
BC: and you knew as you’d discussed it with her and others
AG: she sent me an email
BC: that you discussed with her and others
AG: I got an email…we got no explicit…I infer from emails she wouldn’t support it
AG:… in general terms it’s possible to have different relationships with ppl who contribute to a grant.
BC: the funders except the ppl to do the work and if you’re going to change that you need their permission
AG: were not required to inform them
BC: there’s an exchange here with MP reporting back where he had got clearance it was OK to reallocate the work the claimant had been doing
AG: its not a formal legal requirement biut good practice to consult yes
BC: you say ‘phew good news’

(Missed)

BC: if you don’t tell the funder this?
AG: it could be problematic
BC: first point yourself to understand what miss mckensie was driving at was not just grant was irrelevant but she’d also like claimant off grant. That fair?
AG; I don’t have that interpretation it it’s certainly possible
BC: substitute work arrangements doesn’t mean change totle. You’re the person who write this so I’m asking you to explain

EJ interupts:
EJ: what did you mean when you said substitute
AG: you could bring in a new person or change organisation of work
BC: So I’m right it does mean take her out of project entirely
AG: I’m saying MP can do that
BC: you said she could also consult to produce a selective piece
AG: I can see that interpretation.
BC: can you see she wanted the claimant off the roster
AG: I’m asking you did it because miss mckensie wanted claimant off the project
BC: I’m going good suggest you understood that be ause of convos outside emails we see
AG: not that I recall
BC: In the knowledge of shed been talking to ppl in London office bit you didn’t seem to know who she’s talked to or what she’d said?
AG: at this time yes
BC: you weren’t saying you can’t have her carry on because she’s obstructive
AG: no
BC: and noone else did
AG: no
BC: LE intersects in opposition to renewal of fellowship and misquoted the claimants about part time cross dressers, yes?
AG: yes it’s a broad statement
AG: you comment on that, and say LE flagged rhe claimant referred to comeone as gender fluid as a part time cross dresser on SM? That’s not true
AG: your right I inferred
BC: it’s different to referring to part time cross dresser to TW
AG: that’s would be one I terpretation
BC: you understood accuracy and truthfulness and you could correct correct things jn the statement. Why didn’t you correct this?
AG: I..I.. I would apologise, I thoughts that what he meant
BC: you’ve now seen how Phillip bunce describes himself
AG: yes
BC: and its an accurate description?
AG: I don’t agree. it’s offensive to him…or her
BC: you criticise advancing messaging because it’s one sided and could be discriminatory did you regard the blog post as offensive and derogatory
AG: parts not the whole thing
BC: let’s look at blog post. Do you agree the central msg of blog post is there’s an important debate to be had in which the view that sex is material reality and different from gender ID…that’s the central argument isn’t it?
AG: it one key element yes
BC: you never replied to rhe claimant to say that you found it offensive did you
AG: no because I felt my own views weren’t relevant…and the yes of evidence in blogpost
BC: you could have commented on relevance
AG: I did in the phone call
BC: and someone else did and she changed it yes?
AG: yes
BC: the claimant wasn’t ejected because of the quality of citations was she?
AG: …it was a factor
BC: claimant is identifying that cis women may be harmed if trans women are admitted to women’s spaces?
AG: yes
BC: Then identifying different views on this, yes
AG: yes
BC: one harm that may arise is to because women need to feel comfortable and have appropriate privacy and comfort you agree?
AG: absolutely
BC: she explicitly says any man who identifies as a woman does so with ill intent
BC: if people identify as women but are men then that would infringe. That’s not an offensive point to make. She explicitly says there are predatory men who will exploit a new imposed norm of men
AG: it’s the whole argument is problematic but your not asking me that (laughs)
BC: the whole argument claimant makes poses risks for women and you regard that an illegitimate and offensive discriminatory argument? Do you believe that the idea men nay exploit this is offensive?
AG: yes that there are specific harms that men are assaultory
AG: the sex education that’s utterly without any evidence
BC: I suggest your just wrong or willfully misreafing
BC: It says there are MEN that will exploit
BC: do you think that’s offensive and discriminatory
AG: that’s not the way I read it
BC: it’s not is it
AG: there are elements that are problematic
BC: if that what the claimant was saying about men it’s discriminatory is it
AG: I’m not qualified to discuss the legal aspects
BC: I’m not asking that. It’s not offensive
AG: yes but its hypothetical…anyhow…yes…
BC: next point you referred to in summary is tha5 women and girls won’t be able to assume ppl in positions of authority will be able to go to a person they percieve as male you need to leave that’s not hypothetical, thats the heart of the question
AG: this is a statement. It not based…on.. and er… and
BC: it wasn’t offensive or discriminatory?
AG: I just don’t know what you’d have to assume this for self ID
BC: this blog is calling for a debate yes
AG: actions yes
(Missed connection issue)

AG: talking about the blog arguing that CGD should talk about this issue and it doesn’t make any sense
BC: I’m ot asking you about CGD I’m asking is your statement the blog is offensive and discriminatory
BC: I’m not asking about hosting the blog, about your statement the blog is offensive. Is alarmist the key word in your answer
AG: it’s an element
BC: the blog is arguing there’s policy issues
AG: yes
BC: did you know ow there was a public consultation
AG: yes
BC: and asked women’s group from responses yes
AG: yes
BC: did you know ow the EA in UK allows for single sex spaces excluding transppl.
AG: yes
BC: if you knew the act allows for single spaces and has them you must have understood that in establishing there’s reasons
AG: yes
BC: grounded in risks to women
AG: there’s some discussion..yes
BC: direct risk of men assaulting the other compromising safety dignity and security. You understood all of that how is it alarmist to say there are these risks and they may be compromised if we create new culture where we can’t object?
BC: most TW are intact males did you know that?
AG: I the abstract yes
BC: if women can’t say this is a male please leave this may I pallet which already exist and are acknowledged for having single sex spaces?
AG: that’s her argument
BC: Karen White is a relevant case.
BC: what’s alarmist is that
AG : you don’t have to bring up a TG person to discuss it
BC: do you understand the important thing to safeguard children is to name things truthfully and xonfidentally talk of their experiences
AG is laughing
BC: children are taught to name things truthfully aren’t they
AG: yes
BC: do you understand claimant and others say if you can’t do this it undermines safeguarding
AG: I don’t know how self id prevents thar
BC: if a new norm is some women have penises its harder for them to describe
AG: I don’t think saying TW says they have penisis. I have a great deal of discomfort discussing this. (Exhales loudly)
BC: these points have direct bearing and relevance which were live policy issues in UK at the time. Now I’ve taken you through why the blog is offensive do you now agree its no
AG: no I do not
BC: it’s the same point as the leaflet in the office did you look at the leaflet?
AG: yes
BC: the first time wad here
AG: oh your talking about the leaflet
BC: did you look at it
AG: not until flagged by quantum
BC: when
AG: I.. I.. I’m confusing…I saw the leaflet but I did the video by fair play for women and saw leaflet later
BC: by after when the claimant had left
AG: yes
BC: General point in a democracy campaigning documents use the tools of advertising yes
AG: yes
BC: they’re allowed to yes
AG: yes
BC: nothing in the video went beyond normal tools of political campaigning
AG: I found it pretty difficult to read. It has red evil hand of TW getting women.
BC: you see that a red evil hand of a TW?
AG: it’s a self id person with GRA coming to take women’s rights. That how I see it. It seems quite sinister
BC: it’s using striking imagery in a campaigning tone
AG: that’s correct it’s very similar to blog post
BC: it’s clear points being emphasised are privacy safety dignity fairness in the rights women have for safe spaces?
AG: yes
BC: the hands off my rights is a perfectly normal graphic image opposing the removal of rights. Its not an evil TW hand that’s your prejudice isn’t it
AG: no that your description of my views
It says TW are going to do that
BC: that’s this issue. Will self id impact on women?
AG: I don’t know
BC: you don’t respond to any of those points with claimant
AG: no
BC: noone ever said to her before QI report that was anything in a video she’d tweeted which was offensive
AG: no
BC: she accepted your decision not to host blog
AG: yes…there was other moments she asked for space to debate
BC: when you told her you wouldn’t publish blog you said ‘is this the Hill you want to die on’
AG: I don’t remember using that term
BC: So it meant if she kept going she would die on that hill as far as respondents were concerned
AG: this set of topics is NOT a good fit with CGd
BC: there’s a long transcript of interview with someone called page and hasn’t as a child felt trans and grown as teans and then experienced periodic switches and came to be happy as a woman?
AG: yes
BC: you didn’t send this as a neutral act
BC: claimant has always said there’s been different views
AG: yes…I thought she…anyhow…I had hoped she would nuance her messaging about her beliefs
BC: you were stopping her current vleiefs
AG: no I would be be in no such role to do so
BC: am I right when the claimant engages with you and your colleagues that prostletising when you do you’re just giving another perspective?
AG: we had a respectful conversation and was sharing what I thought was relevant
AG: you sent an article from new york post explicitly trying to persuade the claimants position on biological se as wrong
AG: no I sent it with no comment
BC: that’s ot right. (Reads email)
AG: NYT automatically write that…its an opinion piece yes
BC: you sent it because you want the claimant to get the message about biological reality
AG: I wouldn’t put it like that. i shared links of other views.
BC: there’s a double standard.
AG: I don’t agree I was prothletisimg but I understand your point
BC: you jump to December there were discussions happening about claimants future
AG: there may have been I wasn’t in the office then
BC: miss mckensie sends you a msg and discusses organising ‘wr want to try the amplification technique’. This means everyone repeats the same thing and so ppl can’t ignore.
BC: we can see mckensie was organising opposition to the claimant
BC: secondly she seems to think you’re on board with the opposition
AG: she implies and is wrong
BC: it’s a northern bit of evidence that is contrary to what you tell us
BC: is it really your case you didn’t speak to miss mckensie at all…you’re going to say its inappropriate to talk about…
AG: yes
BC: you didn’t tell her to stop or say not to be inappropriate
AG: no
AG: you didn’t say that mckensie was organising opposition and would be suitable to be on the panel…this email is t significant
BC: she talks about the video
AG: yes
BC: which was influential with you
AG: yes
BC: and became influential with others
AG: yes
BC: that email is referred to as one of the claimants tweets
AG: I don’t recall
BC: the Panel included this person because they assumed she was neutral?
AG: we’d have to look at exact reference
BC: I’m certainly right that you don’t chip in about the person on the panel since she was organising opposition to claimant
AG: no I was trying not to participate in this whole process. (Exhales loudly)
BC: was it standard practice not to take meetings
AG: no
BC: you didn’t record
AG: no
BC: you expressed them at the meeting itself?
AG: no
BC: So you’re describing things affected you but not part of general view and decision making, fair
AG: yes
BC: realistically this is a retrospective reconstruction view isn’t it?
AG: my role was to listen not talk
BC: you made no record of these thoughts, you didn’t voice them but you wrote your statement 3 years later you could recall with this level of specificity
AG: yes we were emerged in this for a long time
BC: that’s not correct
AG: it’s reality
BC: (reads point 1) claimant wasn’t commenting on it from an employer perspective
AG: I took it as the implication
AG: what is the point for us which was feedback on tweets, I see blog talks of
BC interrupts to ask to answer questions. ..
BC: you are explaining the things you thought were objectionable about claimant tweets
AG: yes
BC: she’s ot tweeting about single sex spaces and employer
Bc did you infer the aimant wasn’t making a general point but talking about toilets at CGD.
AG: both points
BC: she was NOT saying this would be enforced by demonstrating their sex for a toilet at work
AG: on panels she said employers should count females as women
BC: in the end if you’re going to have single sex spaces and awards for women not TW you have to ask people don’t you
AG: yes it’s inherent in making that argument
BC: you knew law in UK
AG: yes
BC: bit you say it’s totally unacceptable and violating of a person identity to ask them if they’re male or female to get access to a space or service
AG: that’s not what I’m saying. I recognise single sex spaces
BC: how did she cross the line
AG: it’s not an appropriate argument to make

BC: I’d hoped to finish before but this seems an appropriate time to finish for lunch.

EJ: we resume at 2pm

BC: we had almost finished with some of things you regard and offensive and deiscr8minatory in claimants tweets, yes
AG: yes
BC: and you say it’s totally unacceptable to argue, eg manels, to ask ‘birth sex
BC: I use your words. This is an updated blog when you were reviewing tweets. You can see a new bit which reflects what the claimant had done. (Reads) you must have been aware claimant was listening to feedback to reflect diversity of views
AG: wed already taken decision ot to post
BC: the heart of this debate revolves around balancing harms
AG: I would hope
BC: to say its totally unacceptable to argue, eg manels the balance tips in favour to ask to protect women, it can’t be unacceptably unless tour absolutist
AG: it’s unacceptable to interrogate someone self ID
BC: I’ve with manels MF view would tip in balance as keeping them all women not including TW. You say you read that the claimant was totally unacceptable
AG: anyone can have a view but suggestion is we ask sex and that’s not acceptable
BC: were exploring this because you say you reviewed tweets and I asked if you were setting out your view it was offensive and inappropriate. Unless I’m misuntanding the convo we’ve just had.
AG: I’m or sure how to respond because we’ve spoke about a lot of the element. I respect that’s her view
BC: do you ow agree the view is ot offensive or discriminatory
AG: the upstream view of balancing harms isn’t offensive.
BC: that wasnt what it was about
AG: we’d have to look at specific tweet
BC: look at points you make…you identify 4 individuals comments to as evidence of reputation risk, right?
AG: it’s an example of ppl in our network who had hurt feelings and frustration and had risk yes
BC: is it reputational risk
AG: partly its also about CGD as a partner
BC: I’m not looking at detail of this individual but stay with me.. the fact ppl disagree on twitter doesn’t mean either party has been offed, agree
AG, yes not necessarily
BC: even disagree strongly
AG: yes not necessarily
BC: in terms of the 4 ppl it is your inference not your knowledge they were upset
AG: yes
BC: you didn’t speak or contact them
AG: not formally
BC: It was a clear Q can I have a clear answer
Ag: no
BC: none if them had said they were upset
AG: it’s not part of the bundle
BC: and there’s no evidence at all
AG: it was only oral yes
BC: let’s go through matt Colin, statistics tweet. That’s the same point he makes interesting tweet you rely on
AG: yes
BC: …So MF has made clear the risk on a manel but this is a test case to explore underlying issues
AG: that’s what she says…but there’s more tweets
AG: that shows its not a brief experiment
BC: I didn’t say that, if they weren’t important we wouldn’t be here
AG: I agree they are interesting Qs
BC: important and serious
AG: yes
BC: this is the tweet you relied on. The tone is serious and respectful isn’t it
AG: errrr…on the part of matt Collins certainly
Bc: your agreeing with claimant too
AG: yes
BC: and Collins and claimant are disagreeing but doesn’t say he’s offended
BC: you agree
AG: yes
BC: and in no way regards as a reputation also blow for CGD?
AG: no
BC: two tweets here prior to the one you rely on. The claimant makes the point her belief is bad experiences happen women and girls because of their sex
AG: yes
BC: and that TW get discrimination because they are TW, yes
AG: that’s what she says
BC: it’s a rational position to hold
AG:… it’s hard to speak for TW what motivates attackers
BC: the claimant expressly agreeing that sex diversity, in manel, is not the only thing we care about…if you read in context the claimant are entirely serious and respectful
AG: er..er.. which parts
BC: the ones I’ve just taken you through
BC: any of these bits offensive
AG: it’s OK yes
BC: she’s expressly saying she recognises TW are also a group experiences discrimination and both groups need protection. That’s the argument
AG: yes but what is the practical implication of that
BC: …expresses a different view about the manels pledge yes
AG: yes
BC: but not a view …and that anything offensive or transphobic.
AG: she’s saying it’s hurtful and won’t participate
BC: she’s not saying it’s hurtful for her but for TW
BC: claimant says there’s no need to collapse categories together. You had rhe blog and the central argument was balancing rights
AG: yes
BC: you can’t say she’s said anything offensive in respect to that
AG: er are, manels, what’s the question
BC: there’s nothing offensive it it
AG: i think it’s what the person is expressing in their tweet.
BC: next tweet from Alice Evans and your reliance on it
BC: you saw DMs from Alice sympathising with the claimant hadn’t you
AG: yes can you show me…the date is..yes ok
BC: a series of DMs between MF and Alice Evans (AE) and AE is sympathising and if you’d wanted to know about the points, you could have started with AE couldn’t you?
BC: this tweet is an exchange between claimant and Racel…diametrically opposed a d AE offering a third way, which claimant doesn’t agree. “The definition of female is unhelpful’ not that it’s offensive
BC: you’re objecting to the claiments view sex is real and the reductionist view
AG is interrupted to answer the Q by BC
BC: there’s othing to suggest she’s being reductionist or that’s she’s upset
AG: ‘doomed to failure’ is not positive
BC: you categorise BR is reductionist
AG: these ppl in the network strongly disagreed with her views
BC: I’ve heard that a number of times now
BC: you’ve cited them as reputational risk haven’t you
AG: there’s were lots of ppl with negative responses
BC: this one with Rachel meagre, you presumably read though this
AG: yes
BC: Rachel describes claimants belief as pernicious…now if MF described TW as pernicious that’d be another example of transphobia as you’re concerned?
AG: can you repeat.
BC repeating
AG: I’m not sure
AG speaks too fast.

BC: I’ve been through that discussion at length with LE. You’re right Rachel leaves the debate and says there’s discrimination against TW but claimant acknowledges that? The fact that Rachel takes a different view is simply a sign of disagreement ot offence
AG: I still see it as problematic
BC: all of your responses you’reobjecting to claimant expressing her belief
AG: I disagree
BC: it’s fair to say you had made up your mind by SPG meeting she wouldn’t be returning ad a fellow?
AG: yes but but my view wasn’t relevant
BC: are you saying through the whole process you had no effect on the outcome
Ag: and that’s because mckensie was fully against MF?
BC: absolutely not
BC: there’s a discussion here with you all, LE and MA…those discussions you had the opportunity to influence MA?
AG: I could speak to him
BC: you said your position didn’t affect the outcome are you saying you didn’t try to?
AG: there was other processes going on
BC: in terms of the claimant’s response to QI report, both you and claimant saw, yes
AG: yes
BC: you tell us other ppl deal with final decision…and unless I get pinged in next 15 seconds I’ll finish with AG.
EJ: I’ll ask tribunal members any Qs
Panel: no
EJ: re-examination Miss dobbie?
OD: I will need a quick phone call
OD is making the phonecall. We are waiting to resume.
OD: a few Qs. How often were you I London office?
AG: I’d have to look at my calender but probs twice in 2nd half of 2017 and once in 2019
OD: how long jn office
AG: about a week
OD: this doc we see a defence by OB (reads email). Can I ask would you consider it unusual to use ‘fake news’ when talking about a PC, eg. race, gender
AG: yes and I wouldn’t expect to see that
(Missed)
OD: you were taken to this and this is the employment appeal judgement. .can u aks you if you had a core grasp of the claimnats beliefs as stated here.
AG: yes.. sex is immutable, biological reality, after this it was unclear
OD is finished with Qs. EJ releases AG.
EJ: we go on to Mark Plant’s evidence next. We’ll return at 3.10 please.
Next giving their evidence is Mark Plant (MP) Director of development, Finance, Senior Policy Fellow (CGD), COO of CGD Europe (DC/ London from Sept 18)

Mark Plant

Witness Statement

EJ asks MP to affirm or take the oath, MP chooses affirm and is sworn in. OD: I understand you have corrections you want to make to your witness statement. Have you seen email EJ?
EJ: we haven’t had time (gets up email)
OD: MP are you working off a paper statement? If you go through then and just change those dates. Do you have a pen?
MP: no
OD: I don’t want him to get confused so shall we get him a pen
MP: I’m sure they’re on their way now
OD is going through the corrections to witness statement with MP. They include dates and when emails were sent. You say ‘as this is standard paractice’…you corrected to “you wrongly believed this was standard practice”
MP: one more…in the line above…’I was not aware details had BEEN removed’
OD: on the issue of website piece, I’ll ask supplementary Qs. I’ll ask MP what he now knows. This will prevent a slip on timetable
EJ: BC were you aware of this?
BC: no
EJ: we need to know BCs stance before that.
OD: I’d hope it wasn’t opposed as we may need to bring in another witness
BC: there isn’t a license to ask supplementary Qs, they can be asked in matters arising…or where not anticipated…there’s leeway and depends. I’m at a disadvantage without knowing what the questions are…I will oppose if like the other suggestion for the witness
EJ: I think OD BC needs to know what your wanting to ask
AG: how it understanding has evolved and it has during this process
EJ: are you planning to ask about ghos BC
BC: yes but in light of development then ot sure he can add much
BC: if he thought you removed things via the website and in the last week he’s changed his evidence… if he’s saying he had a different understanding at the time then I don’t know what the evidence is.
BC: Is the evidence OD seeking is direct knowledge or a way of getting other evidence in hearsay
OD: (missed) Yes it is hearsay and the only objection can be that it’s late in the day. I appreciate its unsatisfactory and often happens in trials
EJ: sounds like this evidence would be best coming from Shulman…it seems we continue with MP as expected…and address additional evidence when we evidence is completes.
OD: thank you sir
OD: when you moved to London office what stage was streamlining programmes at
MP: a work in progress, programs were being established…things weren’t smooth. I was sent to ensure work progressed
OD: was the claimant required or obliged to attend Wednesday and Thursday
MP: it was highly encouraged but not required
OD: did AG ever express she thought sex is immutable and can’t change sex is a belief that us bigoted or transphobic
MP: she never expressed that to me
BC: you just gave evidence which weren’t addressed but I’ll deal with now. Attendance on lunches, you weren’t party with discussions with the claimant about this?
MP: no
BC: you didn’t need to have a convo about expectations because she knew
BC: are you able to comment whether she either always attended or provided a reason she wouldn’t
MP: regularly but not always and I don’t know if she provided reasons
BC: when asked about the program structure, both entities of CGD and CGDE were integrated
MP: y..yes.. (missed)
Bc: the Ceo of CGDE reported to CGD and the president of Washington was chair of that board.
BC: the president was in charge
MP: yes and no
BC: function of SPG was to strongly advise and determine the strategy for organisation
MP: yes
BC: and always a huge amount of flexibility, convenient locations?
MP: a certain flexibility,
BC: a visiting fellow, the affiliation was always with the overall organisation
MP: for visiting fellow yes
BC: let’s look at culture. You took over CGD from 2018
It’s correct to say there was a lot of banter of work topics and non working topics.
MP: there was a lot of discussion as we worked..same when we ate…same when we moved to premises but then we were in separate rooms and banter was less.
BC: there were no real boundaries to the level of controversy of things that could be discussed
MP: there weren’t and I was uncomfortable with that
BC: brevity discussed
MP : yes
BC: trump:
MP: yes
BC: Racism:
MP: I don’t recall
BC: Religion
MP: I don’t recall
BC: Feminism
MP: yes
BC: do you recall Mr border expressing infant circumcision is child abuse
MP: I dont
BC: he expressed those views strongly
MP: yes
BC: and (missed) is a practicing Christian
MP: I don’t know that

BC: was it a statement or argument to that effect
MP: I don’t know
BC: people attended protests didn’t they
MP: yes
BC: and there was a library and people brought in pamphlets
MP: for related work topics
BC: ppl expressed their views candidly and strongly didn’t they
MP: yes
BC: this is a think tank and ppl don’t shy away from debate
MO: when people have something to say they say it
BC: and its in the nature of debate to argue and test out arguments
MP: yes
BC: It may be they try to persuade people they’re wrong?
MP: Possibly based on evidence and reasoning not ad hominom
BC: this is a response you sent to LE notifying the issue had been raised
MP : yes
BC: and there was discussion and you were present when claimant discussed her views
MP: yes
BC: there were several discussions
MP: yes more than one
BC: you describe them as general discussions ‘good natured intellectual debate’. Your impression of layman’s discussions?
MP: that’s correct
BC: you said claimant argued the views forcefully but didn’t think out of culture of that office
MP: Yes
BC: and Mark disagreed and sought to persuade her to change her views
MP: it was a debate yes
BC: and on his part good natured?
MP: yes
BC: So you understood it at the time CGD did not have an institutional position between sex and gender or the nature of those concepts
MP: they’ve never had that
BC: they didn’t have a position on how you apply it know policy areas
MP: no
BC: they didn’t have a position on those topics
MP: the discussion be respectful and not harassment and based on evidence
BC: as you understand it was because they were offensive
MO: no
BC: are you saying it’s part of CGDs position that ppl couldn’t discuss issues they cited evidence?
Mp: no
BC: this is an email you wrote in Feb 2019, its written will full sequence of events and at the point the decision should be taken that claimant isn’t renewed. …this reflects the overall Qs you’d been debating among yourselves?
MP: claimant expressing strongly held belief and some ppl found it offensive and could impede work processes and that erm it would be appropriate um that belief wasn’t central to the operations we asked the belief not come jnto workplace because it was offensive.
MP: it’s best it wasn’t brought in to workplace
BC at rhe time the email was written it reflects the central Q you and colleagues had been debating for some months?
MP: that’s fair.
MP: that’s my summary of the reports and it Central to the discussions we were having
BC: when you refer to ‘abhorrent positions’, there are some people who had made those
MP: no…in the workplace you will have a wide spectrum of beliefs among staff and what can be constructively expressed.. we would say a no to racial extinction…but there are beliefs that excite great passion and we need to know which can aired with respect for colleagues
BC: and the position of those on the other side of the debate, you were supportive of claimant, was her beliefs were in that category,
MP: the beliefs could be expressed but had to be very careful how they were expressed
BC: what you just described was your position. You supported aiming because her work was good
Mp: yes
BC: you thought beliefs were in the middle category yes
MP: yes
BC: my question was about people on other side of the debate and they say the beliefs were so inherently wrong they shouldn’t be touched upon
MP: they said her expression of her beliefs was often disrespectful and could alienate staff and other pol
BC: you knew her from gates grant
MP: yes
BC: did you understand she was a paid visiting fellow?
MP: yes
BC: did you know that had been found for her pending securing funding
AP: I didn’t know the source at the time
BC: this is an email from Mr border who at that point was the claimants contact point.
MP: yes
BC: he’s been describing finding funding for MF because it was controversial in the sector?
MP: yes it’s broadly correct
BC: (reads MP email) that was the indication Barder was giving to the claimant
MP: I can’t say at that time.
BC: we have here a CGDE 2019 budget from 2018 and it says if funding permits we propose to take on MF on tax and transparency, recommendation we go ahead of these, incurring staff costs in short run…its clear to take on MF as a staff member, not just to retain her
MP: no er..it was for her to take on work…er.. in contrast to (names others) he doesn’t give Maya any title, it could be anything
BC: except the fact you have to substitute a phrase proves my point she was already a contractor and visiting fellow
MP: she was but no title
BC: take I means to take on in a new capacity
MP: I don’t agree
BC: and talking about risk and staff contribution, its always a risk taking on staff…
MP: yes
BC: the claimant is being jncluded in a group of recommended people to be taken on
MP: I don’t agree
BC: your email to MF discussing expectation you will get 50% of her time from gates grant. Then say with 50% we can discuss bringing you on a staff member not a visiting fellow
MO: yes
BC: I accept discussed doesn’t mean binding
MP: that’s correct
BC: do we agree as a matter of practice that the recommendations made that could happen quickly
MP: no there’s a process… we would have to show funding for her and be convincing of the senior fellows
BC: that’s senior fellow not research fellow
MP: same process and get approval.
BC: your phrase ‘my understanding’ reflect you have been led to believe.
MP: yes Owen approached me and was going to make case for MF on staff. This is a vague recollection
BC: you say you had a subsequent convo with MA when he told you he’d already considered MF as employee and established 2 conditions. OD said she was going to ask a Q but that didn’t happen. when was that
MP: september October er…(too fast) before November
BC: can I suggest if that convo happened it probs happened when you were discussing MF future in October
MP: (missed) I don’t know when he honed in on that
BC: can I suggest when he zoned in was when you and your colleagues were discussing that fact as a factor relevant to her fellowship?
MP: you’d have to ask him
BC: you knew by early to mid Aug that MF had been led to believe when the gates grant came in shed be put into this process with the full with of you and Mr. Barder?
MP: no that doesn’t mean that she would be though
BC: She’d been told you’d make a push to bring her on as a staff member.
MP: I…I don’t…I don’t know what she had been told
BC: the clear msg you’re giving her once funding we start the process
MP: it would be a process
Bc: I agreed with you on that
MP: we could discuss the process. I stick to those words
BC: I had to do this with AG about certain words
BC: it made it clear that was as an employee didn’t it
MP: the inference drawn on that was erm up, benefit costs
BC: I wondered if we could cut it short but we obviously cant
BC takes MP through table
BC: my Q again is not if intentional, this document on its face describes her ad a personnel staff member with benefits.
MP: that’s what AG was a mistake
BC: and this went though rounds and rounds scrutiny
MP: yes I didn’t focus on the table
BC: the idea this was a mistake with that level of scrutiny and only provided I oral evidence is not credible
MP: I believe it is
BC: how on earth did it come to this
BC: I’ll repeat
OD: it’d be fair to ask if they had involvement in docs
BC: are you able to explain how the legal pleading in this case came to falsely describe the doc you just looked at
MP: I was not involved in the drafting of this doc
BC: you say to the claimant if we get funding we take you kn yes
MP: yes
BC: in carefully drafted proposal to major funder and claimant copied in, its fair says she is going to be an employee
MP: she’s listed under personal and benefits yes
BC: that’s a different proposal…it reflect MF hoped she would be an employee
MO: it was a mistake to describe benefits to her before she was an employee
MP: the intention was to have her work on gates work in whatever capacity
BC: So this isn’t a mistake…
MP that was the mistake We assigned her as employee and she wasnt
MP: I’m lost now

BC: it’s not a mistake because employees are more expensive than consultants so as far as gates concerned it’s right to put her in as employee yes
MP: again we should have put her in as consultant
BC: the pleading ha e included as untrue statement you can’t explain
MP: I don’t know if it’s untrue or not
BC: you do, come
MO: she’s not listed know the consultancy line
EJ: we can see… maybe it’s over the expression untrue
BC: that was my last question
EJ: maybe that’s a convenient time to stop. Well reconvene at 10am tomorrow.

Day 9: AM & PM – Mark Plant Evidence

BC: We were exploring the message claimaint had been given about being taken on as employee if Gates funding came through.
BC: We have email from to 4/10 to Ellen Mackenzie EM saying need robust discussion about appointment. You say MF features prominently in [Gates] grant.
BC: This is when Mr Ahmed became aware?
MP: yes
BC: You say we have talked of her being made Senior Fellow when grant comes through
MP: It had only been talked about, not guaranteed
BC: I am looking at strength of message given to claimant
BC: She had heard that senior staff including you would throw weight behind that process?

MP: Yes
BC: You say “I realise there will be backlash” you meant that as reply to EM?
MP: that is correct
BC: So when we look at why MF was NOT made senior fellow, it is what happens after this email we need to look at.
MP: yes but also at earlier discussions leading up
BC: I understand but the actual discussions about whether to appoint as senior fellow took place after this
MP: Correct
BC: Email from you 19/11 just before meeting claimant 21/11/2018
MP: correct
BC: to AG & Mr Ahmed saying “need to get messages straight”
MP: yes
BC: I will say will continue with visiting fellow but that we do not see able to make her employed staff.
BC: You say “this is a difference from message given earlier” – you mean, from what she was told re Gates grant coming through
MP: yes subject to processes
BC: We will look at how positions evolved.
BC: 1/10/2018 Luke Easley emails AG and EM re complaints and you are later copied in
MP: yes
BC: Here is your response to that CC
BC: You say “I don’t think her argument, have not had patience to read all, is transphobic”
BC: You say you recognise language is sensitive but her argument not inherently transphobic
MP: correct
BC: Looking at your witness statement, you say, you understood her view to be difference between sex and gender, sex = biology at birth gender = social construct, you understood argument
MP: yes I did
BC: Later you say Mr Ahmed also expressed intial view that had not looked in detail at tweets and felt discussion should be broader social media policy
MP: correct
BC: at this point senior staff were saying discussion not problematic, broader social media policy needed
MP: It was what I was saying
BC: If things had stopped there we wouldn’t be here
MP: But we couldn’t stop there, staff complaining, things were moving on
BC: You were not closely involved in the QI report matters
MP: No
BC: Your next involvement – you see draft from LE to MF and you suggest changes, you are disagreeing that MF tweets inflammatory and exclusionary
MP: Wanted to say “problematic”
BC: Do you agree that “a man’s internal feelings don’t change material” is not inflammatory
MP: With ‘material’ in it becomes more [bit lost]
BC: you say “I do feel she needs to be held to task about others feelings” do you agree MF always clear to differentiate feelings and sex
MP: Tweets v complex, some people can take offence
MP: that was v shortly after I first saw tweets but I think that now I might agree more
BC: Do you agree that fact that some people might take offence is not good reason not to take part in argument
MP: Yes but care must be taken with language and should be clear that S/O’s belief does not harm others’ – it’s a dicussion
BC: Do you agree that CGD people took part in discussions with offence and disagreement all the time?
MP: yes but that was within CGD and it’s complex – has certainly taken me a long time to understand
BC: But MF had not been told when and where to discuss stuff
MP: COrrect
BC: Many CGD staff took place in lots of debates using same twitter ac as for CGD stuff
MP: Yes indeed. But complaints we recieved did matter. We needed to make MF aware of sensititivies, ask for disclaimer etc
BC: If you are making this an issue internally, claimant can’t be criticised for trying to make you all aware what argument is
MP: I agree
BC: Email from Mr Easley here and MF reply.
MP: She copied me in a little later
BC: But around that time
MP: yes
BC: She is doing exactly what you just said was OK _ helping people understand her argument
MP: Yes correct she is trying to
BC: She’s also saying she has done what you wanted, disclaimer
MP yes
BC and she is making clear that in professional/social context she would respect anyone’s gender identity
BC: when you saw this you saw no problem
MP: I was still struggling with distinction material reality / identity
BC: Fact that it’s complex argument doesn’t mean she shouldn’t take part in it
MP yes
BC: Other people’s reactions shouldn’t mean she shouldn’t?
MP: other people’s sensitivities do matter
BC: let’s break down. Did you know then belief is protected in UK law
MP: Did not then, do now
BC: Basic principles of tolerance – means tolerating things we might not otherwise. Does not mean only tolerating what we are already happy with
MP: agree
BC: If we have someone Christian who believes gay relationships are wrong, they still have to tolerate working with gay people?
MP: yes
BC: if someone objected to gay person kissing their partner and complained to CGD, you would say “must put up with it”
MP: context does matter
BC: You might say NOBODY should kiss at office door, but not just gay people couldn’t?
MP: Depends how people have found out, why they are complaining
BC: I’m trying to explore principles. Not discriminating and being tolerant means you would tell the complainer they cannot object to gay kisses?
MP: correct
BC: It means you cannot single out that characteristic –
MP:- ?
BC: Can’t single out gay people from others for kissing regs
MP: correct
BC: So you, re belief, say “no discussion other that work stuff” and apply to everybody. But that’s not what CGD did.
MP: certainly there was other discussion of belief yes
BC: once you single out a belief (leaving aside those not worthy of respect in democratic society) you are not being tolerant and undisriminatory
MP: about method of expression –
BC: Not about that
MP: There are some beliefs that it is going to take time and effort to get discussed properly. Some so complex that it takes away from function of workplace. We can be OK with holding beliefs and say don’t discuss
BC: But either you have a rule for all beliefs, or you are saying we discriminate about some beliefs
MP: We weren’t discriminating about holding belief
BC: but you are saying you would discriminate the expression of some beliefs but not others
MP: rule about how expressed
BC: But differently from others. Complexity or whatever. You have no example of any other belief where this was done.
MP: [pause] I did find that the atmosphere in London was too permissive, and staff had mentioned discomfort to me, about others
MP: So yes other beliefs that made people uncomfortable, where I felt statement-of OK but not discussion about

EJ: intervenes:
EJ: Not clear if you are saying other beliefs treated the same?
MP: No, but there were others that were causing discomfort at the time.
BC: Neither in Washington or London any other beliefs ringfenced for discussion?
MP: Correct
BC: It was the offence caused to other people that caused treatment of claimant?
MP: Correct
BC: You did not speak directly to any complainant?
MP: No
BC: You explicitly asked not to know their names?
MP: Correct
BC: So you were acting from what we have all seen here, tweets etc?
MP: Correct
BC: Next thing to look at. Email from Ellen Mackenzie.
BC: EM was firmly opposed to fellowship for MF from the outset.
MP: EM was unhappy about expansion of London office for financial considerations. Dim view of expanding London
BC: EM was firmly opposed to renewal of fellowship for MF from the outset.
MP: EM says we need robust discussion, staff backlash.
BC: You knew EM was opposed
MP: She says need robust discussion
BC: Nothing to do with finance. EM doesn’t mention it.
MP: Yes
BC: Nothing to do with finance.
MP: No
BC: When EM says backlash she is talking about claimant beliefs

MP: EM is always very succinct and …
BC: Was going to say. EM always very careful about wehat she puts in writing
MP: Yes
BC: Here we have discussion about what to say to staff re MF’s farewell email.

BC: We see Ms Glassman saying EM’s view is nothing in writing to staff beyond platitude. EM very careful
MP: EM had said she thought we might be heading to litigation so to put nothing down
BC: Email here from EM – following up bcs something does need to be said, she suggests saying to say: advice from HR, re complaints, we never said Maya couldn’t say stuff, we were unsuccessful in finding way forward
BC: You say here, disagree with EM, Maya did all we asked, management decided not to renew, for transparency we should say why
BC: Here you are clear that EM is not only short and cryptic, but that when she does to commit to writing she is capable of being less than transparent.
MP: What EM, what she says, was her viewpoint at that time. We had had not being able to find way forward
BC: But at the time you said EM was not being transparent
MP: correct
MP:. There wasn’t. She felt. We hadn’t. EM felt that we hadn’t found way forward – I thought we had.
BC: Not so. You say “there was no negotiation to find a way forward”. You are saying to EM: what you are proposing to send to staff is not transparent
MP: I disagreed with her interpretation yes
BC: Another thing we see is EM not saying things herself but instead getting other people to say them
MP: We can explore as we go
BC: this is ahead of the 6/12 SPG meeting we see EM organising opposition with CH and HS.
MP: yes that is what she says.
BC: We see her saying claimaints beliefs unacceptable.
MP: we would have to look at detail
BC: “amplification technique” means getting lots of peo-ple to say stuff so it’s harder to ignore
MP: My understanding yes
BC: So when Ms Szabo says “my nderstanding is” it means from yo
MP: yes
BC: You told claimant she had antagonised key people.
MP: don’t recall
BC: did you say strong voices in washington opposed to her
MP: don’t believe I did
BC: This is written briefing from you to Ms Szabo
MP: Yes to see if she was interested in doing report for us
BC: You say this is a live debate in UK but has visceral reactions
BC: You didn’t talk to C1-C4
MP: no
BC: so “visceral” must mean your senior colleagues including EM
MP: No was more general comment, that discussion very heated, strong reactions
BC: But you’ve said you didn’t look in any real detail at clamant’s tweets etc. Can only mean your senior colleagues
MP: disagree
BC: You got the reaction at the SPG meeting
MP: there was opposition yes
BC: Visceral?
MP: yes
BC: EM said things like transphobic, bigoted
MP: Don’t remember EM. Do remember a senior colleague saying that.
MP: Was why we involved Ms Szabo.
BC: OK back to how discussion developed, after EM email saying need robust discussion.
BC: After that you say you want to renew and need to think both re renewing visiting and appointing senior
MP: yes
BC: You ask will there be backlash – no actual response to that but one did develop
MP: Don’t know
BC: Here [missed something re EM and AG]
BC: Here email from Mr Easley saying people fall out over unpopular views all the time
MP: yes
BC: Discussion here re proposed blog post, she’d sent to you, you never said to her anything wrong with it
MP: i did not
BC: Your view at this point was that claimant could discuss the beliefs she holds freely and openly
MP: that’s what I’m saying there yes
BC: you also say these matters could have some impact on development policy
MP: Some yes
BC: Global education programme by CGD: says focussed on girls schooling and women’s empowerment
MP: yes
BC: repeated later in programme text
MP: yes
BC: Claimant’s arguments bear for example on statistic gathering re that
MP: to be discussed but yes
BC: relevant to provision of single sex opportunities re those aims
MP: could be yes
BC: Nobody is saying CGD had to publish the blog but you couldn’t ever this debate has no relevance to international sector
MP: Subject to discussion yes
BC: blog submission v common
MP: yes
BC: normally feedback would be provided to improve a blog
MP: yes
BC: Here we see Ms Shulman, again common CGD practice, saying not suitable for us as is, this could be done to make it so, or, we can help place it elsewhere
MP: yes
BC: Email from you: saying you’d do that, try to help MF get it to work for CGD platform
MP: yes
BC: We now see EM saying her sense is it would never be OK for CGD and suggesting you don’t waste your time
BC: message to you from EM is don’t do what we normally do, this can never be acceptable
[MP responds but not v clear what meant]
BC: You send an article criticising Trump police re transppl. Am not saying you should not have.
MP: Wanted to show her what being said in US
BC: She replies discussing, makes point that part of problem is everything top-down and misses lots. THoughtful engagement
MP: yes
BC: makes clear problem is reconciling sex-based protections with protections for transppl
MP: yes
BC: You never thought she was saying transppl should not have protections
MP: correct
BC: She says “much more discussion needed” – her main message
MP: She certainly wanted more debate
BC: you reply you agree there needs to be more discussion
MP: yes
BC: you agree with her about executive actions instead of consultative legislation – “social dictatorhip”
MP: yes
BC: Means not to assume one side of a discussion correct and shut down.
MP: NB phrase was not mine. But yes, say not to shut down discussions.
BC: just before her current visiting fellowship expires. Email you & AG copying in others. You say let’s do nothing for now and that was message you gave to claimant – that just waiting
MP: correct
BC: VF would continue until decision taken?
MP: formally it expired but we kept her on the website
BC: If both parties agree it continues it continues. No?
MP: She continued to use title and we allowed her to
BC: she continued to work under the contract terms. Working and paid
MP: that depends on the contract terms.
BC: January 2019 MF continuing to work on this contract?
MP: yes
BC: and in Feb 2019 working on that contract? Week before left?
MP: correct
BC: Ms Mackenzie is saying msg should be her contract and fellowship ending December, this is another example of EM being preparted to be untransparent?
MP: technically they ended
BC: CGD grounds of resistance: says VF lapsed in November 2018 contract in Dec 2018 thereafter no relationship. Not true is it
MP: I don’t know
BC: we have seen she stayed on website, used title, worked. You can’t say “no contract or affiliation” after Dec 2018. Not true
MP: there was no formal contract in play. Don’t know about legalistics
BC “affiliation” is not a legalistic term. It’s not true is it
MP: She continued to do some work
BC suggests break
EJ agrees
Resume 11.40 [BREAK]
We resume. EJ reminds of reporting restrictions – names and email addresses of Complainants 1-4 cannot be published in Great Britain, it’s a criminal offence to do so.
BC: Mid october 2018 SPG meeting, to discuss social meeting policy
MP: not sure if formally SPG but yes group of senior employees
BC: You write to Mr Ahmed afterwards, does appear to be SPG.
MP: yes
BC: Mr Ahmed at meeting
MP yes
BC: you say to Mr Ahmed that you had been uncomfortable that it had concentrated on Maya. This is because of the same strong reactions we already discussed
MP: I felt it had been too much about MF tweets
BC: You say discussion had included the substance and form of her remarks, and what we should do about fellowship
MP: yes it did
BC: This means things like we’ave already said – “transphobic”
MP: can’t rember words used but ws about her tweets.
BC: objecting to MF saying things like TW are not women. People saying “you can’t say things like that”.
MP: Can’t remember exact words, Discussion was about way she was saying
BC: aslo about what. Substance as well as form
MP: I believe that’s correct
BC: People expressing those strong and visceral reactions included Ms Mackenzei
MP I don’t recall
BC: There is no doubt you found this unique. You talk of MF singled out
MP: That’s right, there, it, I will stop there
BC: Another thread we can pick up is that as well as Gates grant there was by August fundraising with DFiD to make up the funding claimant was looking for
MP: correct
BC: And 19/10/2018 that effort was all set to proceed, you say in draft to Gates that other funding sought and had had interest, DFiD particularly keen on MF’s tax work
MP: yes correct
BC: preliminary findings where DFiD particularly keen, your phrase
MP: yes
BC: all set to go full steam ahead with funding effort
MP: Full steam not our phrase but yes, we’d got the interest from DFiD
BC: Do you agree 19/10 CGD intention as you understood was to actively proceed urgently with DFiD fundraising?
MP: Actively.
BC: Email from EMackenzie to Mr Ahmed. Clearly another example of EM asking someone else to say something
MP: yes
BC: I infer there had been discussion between EM and MA about claimant’s position because she is clearly referring to ?
MP: don’t know
BC: we know EM careful about what she puts in writing
MP: yes
BC: the substantive discussion she had had must have been had orally

EJ: not sure it follows but anyway MP can’t answer
BC: Were you involved in any such discussions
MP: don’t recall
BC: Email here says give Mark a heads up re DFiD funding bcs Maya. Did Mr Ahmed give you a headsup to halt DFiD for now
MP: no I was not
BC: Here we see exchange re bringing another senior fellow on and we see EM taking you off the thread and then continuing that if MF taken off, funds could be diverted. Were you aware?
MP: no
BC: were you told around this time EM wanted to remove MF from Gates grant
MP: I was not
BC: Email from Mr Easley. Were you party to discussions at this time in which MA is reported to have said that he was leaning to not renewing MF
MP: dont’ believe so no
BC: email from you. You’ve at last had convo with MA about these issues
MP yes november
BC: We see said that MA hesitant to push for funding for MF post, please convey to C1-C3. Going to break it down.
BC: you were certainly told at this point that DFiD push should be stopped?
MP: correct. MA had a conversation, he had realised MF was figuring prominently in Gates, he said that didn’t want to invest heavility in that line of work, not want to invest goodwill etc re DFiD in it.
BC: MA purported that he thought this kind of work should not to be central to CGD
MP: yes he was not sure tax flows work had legs beyound what already done, nto sure to spend scarce resources on that
BC: Gates proposal was re moving from deconstructive to constructive discussions on topic
MP: [think tank theorising – sorry I missed]
BC: But Gates very interested
MP: yes MA OK with doing the part already got
BC: but DFiD wouldn’t have given money for justy anyway.
MP: yes
BC: you were deliberately seeking to reduce funding to block MF work
MP: No would have redirected
BC: No you are being told to stop asking for DFiD money. Not to redirect it.
MP: No MA wanted to redirect away from one aspect
BC: Here policy areas discussion re CGD. 2014. Talks about illicit tax flows a core area
MP: Not “core”. meaningful contribution not core.
BC: do you agree 2014 illicit tax flows important to CGD
MP Don’t agree
BC: 2016 trustee report list strategic areas “transparency and illicit flows” will be pursued in 2017
MP Yes
BC: board meeting papers April 2017. Says CGD will focus on strategic areas. Includes transparency and illicit flows
MP yes that’s what it says
BC: do you agree true
BC: was not present
MP: not present [sorry]
BC: Papers from March lists topics – includes illicit flows and tax, important area of work for 2018
MP: in 2018 yes
BC: Report to trustees for y/e Dec 2018 – says topics covered. Includes illicit financial flows and tax
MP: yes that was for that year
BC: Jan 2018 report on Ford grant. says CGD has reorganised to 4 areas, one is finance, explicit tax included and that will be done in Europe via Owen Barder.
MP: correct
BC: consistently until MF tweets – her area of expertise was core to CGD interests
MP: It was in London partly because she wsa there
BC: All thru until EM and MA intervene late 2018 there was active push for fundiing for this area
MP: yes
MP: It’s MA not EM sets focus
BC: You say you need to discuss re making her employee re Gates grant
MP: yes
BC: then suddenly you say that this area you’ve been working on and fundraising for for years, you’re not doing to do it any more
MP: MA’s point was that focus and so on should be changes
BC: A Condition for MF employment = funding
BC: So you decide to stop fundraising
MP: disagrees
BC: Also existence of work to be done
MP: [This is too fast. I think, saying change of focus meant no work]
BC: But Mr Kenny was keen to work with her
BC: MF had diversified her work as required
MP: yes but was that into our CGD focus areas
BC: Into confidentiality she had. Another CGD area
MP [v fast discussion of grants including one being late]
BC: This is Mr Conrey replied to you “will be meeting C2 and C3 and will mention you will see C3 when back in London”.
BC: If all of this was really about client’s work and funding, there would not be all this clandestine stuff. You would have MF involved.
MP: not necessarily
BC: You are saying that this is how you treat consultants. MA changes his mind re priorities. and everyone discusses it secretly. THis would not happen. You would be open about it
MP: I did eventually discuss with MF
BC: If you stopped fundraising you would speak instantly to person involved.
MP: not necessarily immediately
BC: you would not normally brief fundraisers secretly, instead of telling the person involved. Claimant closely involved with the fundraisers but not told.
MP: In immediate moment yes but these were ongoing discussions. I discussed with MF when I was next available.
BC: you would not normally secretly tell fundraisers but not the other person involved.
MP: I might.
BC: do you have any other example where you have secretly briefed fundraisers and not individual
MP: This was my first grant so I don’t klnow
BC: Says C2 and C3 informed and understand the sensitivity of it. –
[there is a sudden bleep – has to be tracked – it’s EJ]
BC: It is clear this is about claimants tweets
MP: yes
BC: when Mr Conrey says “sensitivity” that is about tweets.
MP: No opposite – it’s about her work not her tweets
BC: To say again. You say the decision to stop fundraising was about priorities, and not claimant’s tweets at all
MP: correct
[pause while BC appears to be looking for next page to discuss and the panel members locate each other on screen]
BC: if we look at Mr Ahmed’s statement. He says: he felt that since we were still working out re claimant’s social media, and re policy, would be safer to pause fundraising. This means he was not honest with you?
MP: I understood it to be about priorisation of work
BC: Exchange between you and MA 6/11 re convo MA had had with Gates. He says Gates had said they only included tax stuff bcs they thought CGD were keen. That’s because CGD had been keen yes?
MP: more that we had slotted it into something else
BC: MA says Gates happy to divert funds. MA says: what is best way to phrase this from Gates for our internal purposes?
BC: you say: using Gates for our internal purposes not maybe a good idea. You mention legalities
BC: you are in the unfortunate position of advocating transparency which your collegaues are not keen on.

BC: MA is saying he wanted Gates to be cover, pretext, for his decistion to stop fundraising for MF work

MP: I don’t know what he meant but that’s a reasonable conclusion
BC: that is what you undnerstood
MP that is correct
BC: What I said before is true. CGD would not normally be doing this behind an invidual’s back.
MP: we would tell at appropriate moment.
BC: which wsa then
MP: discussions were ongoing
BC: you knew MF had had strong indication re Gates funding, to extent (you are saying) may even be legally binding.
MP: I am saying we do need to tell MF soon so she can plan.
BC: What is being discussed here is not just not renewing her VF, it is about trying to get her off the grant and not working for you at all
MP: It is about not continuing with that line of work
BC: You were being told it was about prioritisation but we see from MA’s email you were not being told full story. It was about the tweets.
MP: More complicated than that, he says about reprioritinbg
BC: You were not told that anyof the pauses and reprioritisations were in any way influenced by tweets and what resulting from them
MP: not to my recollection
BC: You then met MF on 21/11
MP: correct
BC: we agree that you told her then she was not going to be taken on as staff
MP: correct
BC: and you needed to tell her because that was her expectation
MP: that had been option on the table yes
BC: there were 2 decisions, renewing fellowship and taking on as staff
MP: both pending yes
BC: you did not say MA had had set 2 conditions, and that they had not been met.
MP: I don’t think I framed it that way, I don’t recall
BC: you didn’t refer to conditions at all
MP: I believe I only said reprioritisation of work
BC: you didn’t say reprioritisation of work
MP: I did
BC: You said it was becasue of her tweeting about sex and gender and relationsships with key ppl in DC broken
MP: I did not
BC: This is DM convo MF had with Alice Evans about 5 days later.
MP: appears yes
BC: MF says no staff, but VF going to be renewed and work on Gates grant
MP: yes that’s what I told her
BC: MF alludes to sex/gender discussions and says she understands part of reason not hired. You did say that didn’t you
MP: Don’t recall
BC: MF says, this is what Mark Plant told me.
MP: I don’t recall
EJ intervenes
EJ: You have said “don’t recall” several times. Can mean I honestly can’t remember and can mean I am not saying I did.
MP: it’s the former
BC: Email to Professor Stock re the blog and consequences. Says offer downgraded from employment to part time consultancy, is you answer you can’t remember
MP: correct
BC: Another email MF to KS. MF says VF not staff, that she’d been fundraising that if grant came in wd be staff, grant came, complaints from US, downgrade to VF, this week saying pushback from senior staff even re VF bcs of tweets.
BC: you don’t remember that you heard about tweets being a factor.

MP I don’t recall one way or the other
BC: Mr Easkey compiling info for SPG after factfinding, Ms Mackenzie says to add discussion 21/11

MP: yes that was a piece of the timeline we are putting together
BC: a piece relevant to reaction to tweets.

MP: SPG mtg decided to put all timeline together and this was clearly an important date in chronology
BC: just before meeting claimant you emailed AG and MA saying MF had asked to see you presumably re grant and her position, need to get messages straight. If this was simple prioritising, you wouldn’t need a ‘message’
MP: wanted to know we were all on same page, in same place
MP: that we were going to retain re work on Gates grants, but not fundraise.
BC: when did the pressure from EM come in
MP: It had always been clear EM not keen but I wanted to all be same page.

BC: Thank you for confirming from outset
BC: you speak of substantial pressure from EM
MP: wanted to be sure of being same page AG/MA
BC: you understood EM “substantial pressure” was to end working with MF altogether
MP: was about being on same page about everything
BC: talk of corporate resources. we see from MA’s statement that it was not only about reprioritisation.
MP: I had understood reprioritisation
BC: did you know it was about tweets and priorities was a pretext.
MP: no
BC: You note a shift in message, about corporate priorities. You did not mention to MF. You said she’d antagonised ppl in DC.
MP: don’t recall saying that
BC: you report back to MA, AG, EM after meeting
MP COrrect
BC you say you had had good talk and MF enthusiastic re Gates work tho obviously disappointed re staff.
BC [reads] you are clearly saying the whole thing is related to the sex/gender debate.

MP: no I’m noting that some staff would object but that that should be explained to them
BC: EM says this is not what she had expected, she had expected consult only not visiting fellow.
MP: yes
BC had you discussed with EM
MP no
BC: Is Ms Mackanzie effectively responsible for all this
MP: no
BC: that was what EM was advocating for, no fellowship
MP: yes
BC: next day from MA has realised MF fellowship is allowed another year and saying OK let’s go with that
BC: renewal of VF normally straightfowards, up to 3 year max
MP: has to be discussed SPG but normally short yes
BC: Put it to you all the complexities are re tweets
MP Not sure I understand. I wanted to renew VF, not sure what other disucssions were going on
BC suggests lunch. EJ agrees. Resume at 2 pm
EJ reminds Mr Plant not to discuss

[LUNCH]

BC: Before 6/12 SPG meeting you email MA, EM, LE, AG – you are seeking to ensure you understand the consensus as far as it exists – fellowship and/or contract re Gates grant
BC: you say you understand EM does not want to renew
MP: yes
BC you say MF has done everything asked of her, has done diversity training
MP: yes
BC: Claimant not being intransigent
MP: no
BC: your statement says you remember EM and LE speaking against claimant
MP: correct
BC: you are careful to take what has become party line – re EM/LE you say they talk of offensive nature of MF choice messaging
BC: and behaviour but it wasn’t was it. Was EM’s visceral reaction
MP: No I recall objectsions to behaviour and messaging
BC: You have given no examples of behaviour and offensive messaging
MP: no I have not
BC: upshot of SPG meeting – that no final decision taken
MP: correct
BC: but a process was to happen, 3 poss outcomes. Is this correct
MP: yes
BC: Process not limited to considering fellowship
MP it was not
BC: it was looking at relationship in round and was bascially should we have relationship at all and if so what
MP: correct
BC: decision to start investigation was certainly bcs of opposition of those who spoke against at SPG
MP: take issue with “investigation”. Was clear at SPG that not everyone had full knowledge of tweets etc so we should assemble full brief especially for MA benefit
BC: Purpose of this was to establish facts surrounding claimant’s expression of belief yes?
MP: yes and around her relationship iwith CGD
BC: to ensure SPG proceeded on infromed basis
MP: yes
BC: to establish whether what claimant was improper?
MP: whether what she had done would in any way prevent her working with CGD. Would not say “improper”
BC: not hung up on terms, but, you were going to reach a view on propriety of her actions yes?
MP: whether CGD wanted to be associated with that conversation even as distantly as …
BC: I think you are agreeing with me.
MP agrees
BC: When you are undertaking such an exercise – wehther someone will hvae relationship with CGD – transparency demands the person in question can be involved
MP: yes
BC: for fairness, must know what matters are being raised?
MP: it should be yes
BC: we can quibble over word “investigation” but we see from LE’s email it is a factfinding at the least
MP yes
BC: Mr Ahmeds’ term
MP yes
BC: LE describes is at as analagous to an investigation re diversity/inclusion policies
MP: not sure what analogy he makes
BC: part of process should have included understanding UK debate
MP: yes
BC: part should have been what was office culture in which she was engaging
MP: yes
BC: another – re whether CGD can engage bcs workplace sensitivities – should be to get broad views from that workplace
MP: not necessarily no
BC: Do you mean that if 1 person objected but 99% found interesting/important, only that 1 person’s view would matter? 99% unimportant?
MP: not unimportant but the 1 person couuld matter a lot
BC: I meant, you have to understand opinion in the round, not just the views of 1 or a few people?
MP: yes
BC even if you didn’t want to send out questionnaires you could at least have asked claimant who she had spoken to?
MP: yes
BC: give her the chance to suggest witnesses in other words
MP: You are talking as if it was an invesigation
BC: I am not sure I understand the discticntion but leave terminology aside. It is a matter of basic fairness. If you are going to go fact-finding and making decisions, fairness requires you give someone chance to respond, present case, know what it claimed
MP: We did involve claimant but perhaps not at right time, was in due course, that is why LE spoke to the people he did
BC did MF have chance to comment on process
MP: no
BC: chance to scrutinise matters on informed basis
MP: I believe so yes
BC: Will give you opportunity to reconisder before we look at materials
MP: I believe she was but we can explore
BC: We know LE only asked feedback from peplpe who had made negative comments
MP yes
BC wwere you involved in that decision
MP was not
BC: Emails MP/MA/EM/LE.
BC: You suggest contacting Sue Owen, non-CGD trustee, you say MF is employee CGDEurope so process should come out of London office. (Not suggesting you say employee in legal sense)
MP: Loose sense yes
BC: Significant I say nevertheless – indicates claimant’s status and position in CGD in London
MP NOt necessarily
BC: Your statement. You say you thought important to understand issues of dealing with MF through lens of UK employment law. You understand this as an employment question
MP: She was contracted and paid but loose sense of word
BC: You understood process you were watching was about how to treat someone as an employee.

MP: Someone on contract. Employment in broad sense
BC: But importantce of proper process
MP: yes
BC: Here we see EM pressing importance of initial Quantum Impact report which had been negative re MF tweets
MP: Yes
BC: At this point Miss Huang makes first contribution. CH is one of those organising with EM opposition. – you didn’t know at time but do now
MP: did not at the time
BC: CH not here, will not ask you what going on in her mind. You were copied into the conversation a little after it began
MP: OK
BC: CH says she agrees issue is whether any conduct breached harassment policy. This is an investigation into that
MP: not only that
BC: CH says she hadn’t jumped in at SPG, wanted to take another look at policy. She’s agreeing with upshot of SPG meeting?
MP would infer that yes
BC: LE says akin to investgation under harassment policy
MP yes
BC: CH says should consider wider than tweets – conversations, pamphlets
MP: yes
BC: Is this the “amplification technique”?
MP: No …
BC: but it did all end up wider than just tweets?
MP: yes it did
BC: So people involved in the conversations and pamphlet thing need to be asked about it?
MP: I guess so
BC: I have not been able to find any reference anywhere before this to pamphlets. Can you?
MP: Don’t think so
BC: Do you know where CH got the pamphlets thing from?
MP: COuld only speculate
BC: Did you look at time at the pamphlet?
MP: No
BC: Was not considered by Ms Szabo?
MP: Don’t think so
BC: By Quantum Impact?
MP: I think it was?
BC: I think you are wrong, we will look later
BC: No pamphlet in disucssion with MA?
MP: No
BC [lists a number of people, MP says no to all]
BC: Here we see CH mentioning a video, did you watch it at time?
MP: no
BC: before 5/3?
MP yes when I got QI report
BC on 5/3 did you tell MF video was part of the problem? People had said like Nazis? Was it the red and black?
MP: yes
BC: who did it remind?
MP: It reminded me
BC: “People” means you?
MP: yes
BC: CH last point says claimant has responded helpfully – accurate?
MP: yes
BC: Discussion on 10/12 on how to take process forward, upshot here email from Sara Godfrey says, “CH very helpful email – we should bring her on to process” yes?
MP: yes
BC: which ultimately happened?
MP: Yes I think CH was seen as a champion of DC office and fair arbiter within it. Trusted inc by me
BC: email with LE and the ombudsperson. He asks advice and says to OB – can’t be you, that might be percieved as investigatory. But it WAS investigatory was it not
MP: I did not think of it as investigatory.
BC But we saw proposal to bring CH as impartial. But we know now she wasn’t.
MP: We don’t know what EM/CH were saying
BC: and they are not being called as witnessese are they
[no response]
BC: We see antiharrassment policy being circulated. Says chance to discuss at all-staff DEI workshop January. Claimant treated as staff yes?
MP: She asked should she, not sure if staff? I said she should
BC: there was to be a discussion of the policies
MP: yes
BC: Standard CGD culture for that disucssion to be challenging and serious
MP: yes
BC: MF wrote some comments on the policy, made 3 points. Criticised / raised examples of how prohibited conduct was described. She points out sex & gender reassignment separate in UK law collapsed to one, “gender”
MP: yes she does
BC: fair point – to say policy out of line with UK law?
MP: yes
BC: she makes same point in different context later?
MP: yes
BC: She then looks at point about sending or receiveing any graphic anything to do with any protected group. She says too broad?
MP: yes
BC: fair criticism?
MP: yes can be discussed
BC: because policy makes not distinction on the reasonableness of anything
MP: would have to consider that sorry
BC: It also makes “offence” the criterion for policy breach. That’s not enough in a democratic society is it?
MP: would have to think about that
BC: Makes my point – these things she raises merit serious thoughjt
MP yes
BC: for example she gives as example that saying males identifying as women. She says that is UK law – but policy would make saying that offensive. On face of it, circulating a copy of the law would be breach. She says.
MP: yes. Not sure she is right re law
BC: We do – EAT decision
MP: As I understand that decision yes
BC: She is showing you potential problems with the policy?
MP: yes
BC: and you should allow discussion of those issues?
MP: debate should be had yes but point is where, when, ground rules
BC: You replied to MF saying thanks for comments, look forward to the session on 15th Jan and discussing. You don’t say she’d said anyting inappropriate?
MP: no
BC: she hadn’t?
MP: no
BC: now email to MA/EM/LE from you. You ask for clarity re MF’s comments before the workshop happens. You say “1 legitimate others not” but you don’t say which. But you now agree with me, all legitimate?
MP: yes I agree with you
BC: The workshop was by Quantum Impact consultants. They ended up using 1 of the things she said that day as a criticism in their report
MP: I think she said it afterwards –

[WE PAUSE because OD counsel for responsdnets has lost her connection to the hearing]
OD: – connection restored. Mr Plant had just said yes debate but what ground rules.
EJ: [summarises what has been said since, including giving all page references]
BC: The workshop was by Quantum Impact consultants. They ended up using 1 of the things she said that day as a criticism in their report
MP: I think she said it afterwards – was not part of formal training
BC: But they used it
MP: yes
BC: Is fair for consultants to use stuff during a break in a training day in their report
MP: it is if typical of someone’s conduct
BC: Fair to have informal conversation with someone investigated?
MP: not sure they had been commissioned then?
BC: I think you are mistaken re chronology – we see here –
MP: yes – it was 14th
BC: Is it fair for someone invesigating to rely on an informal conversation in a break only a day later?
MP: It is valid information
BC: Is it fair that if you are going to rely on somthing someone says, they should be able to respond?
MP: She had opportunity to repsond in due course
BC let’s look at version of QI report that was NOT sent to claimant. Here is criticism of claimant in respect of that conversation
MP: correct
BC: they say object is mention of genitals, they say CGD policy is no such discussion. But Mr Barder talked a lot about his vasectomy.
MP: He may have
BC: You can’t discuss FGM without.
MP: that’s different
BC: Now we look at what MF says about that conversation. You didn’t know this because MF had not been sent that report and did not know it was complained of
MP: No hadn’t seen it
BC:Nobody ever told her that converstation was basis for complaints made about her re genitals and sex lives
MP: yes
BC: MF says she introduced herself on the day because she thought they’d be interviewing her at some point,. you’d told her that.
MP: yes
BC: She asked how aware of the UK context/debate they undersood.
MP: yes
BC: They responded by telling her everyone should be able to self-identify. THat’s not open and impartial is it?
MP: If claimant account accurate yes
BC: No evidence MF account incorrect
MP: no
BC: QI also said all objection to self-id = prejudice. Not impartial. Not right people to investiage
MP: don’t know
BC: QI introduced gay rights. MF observed that in UK many objectors to self-id are gay/lesbian. Fine to mention sexuality in that context?
MP: yes
BC: MF mentioned one problem being lesbians pressured to accept intact male transwomen as sexual partners. OK to raise in that context? You are aware of this?
MP: aware yes
BC: So ok to raise?
MP: in that context yes
BC:Legitimate to say lesbians should be able to say no without being called bigots?
MP: yes
BC: MF says one consultant said yes but then they couldn’t call themselves lesbians becsause that must include transwomen. Isnt’ that denying people’s identity?
MP: Don’t know
BC: When you got claimant’s statement, did you investigate QI consultants for saying things that challenge other people’s reality and identity?

MP: No we did not
BC: 17/12 MF emails to ask you for update, you reply there’s a bit of language you want to eplain. This is 10 days after SPG mtg and nobody has said anytnig to MF
MP: no
BC: You did speak to MF later that day. Did you say there had been strong opposition
MP yes
BC: Did you say because of tweets
MP: I think I said factfinding in process and yes that tweets part of it
BC: MF says she wouldlike to make case, because this is policy issue throughout world and should be discussed. COnsistent position that argument not offensive per se
MP Yes
BC: She mentions re UK law. Right about that?
MP: I know that now
BC: She’s not insisting you agree with her – she’s saying her position is important and should be disucssesd
MP: yes
BC: She sent blog. You didn’t reply saying it wsa offensive or anything
MP: No, but, not sure how much I read
BC: Section here on “what is a woman” – paragraph about it. Ends “men are not women”.
BC: QI report says she’s saying there have never been transppl. It doesn’t does it
MP: No
MP: I think point QI making is that there are such things as intersex people and that has been recognised a long time
BC: MF in blog addresses this. And that’s NOT the point QI making
BC: [reads bit of QI report] this is not what MF blog says is it.
MP: they are saying “what is a woman” is not so unambiguous as that.
BC: OK that is your answer.
BC: suggest break
EJ: resume 3.35. On return can we check on timetable.
[BREAK]
[We resume]

Timetabling:
BC: I am still hoping to finish at the end of tomorrow. I had Ms Glassman longer than I had expected but I hope to make up re Mr Ahmed tomorrow. But might run over to Monday
BC: Monday we should use for any run-over, plus if it is made OD’s application. And then closing submission Tuesday and Weds.
EJ: Let us review at end of tomorrow
EJ: reitierates reporting restrictions, see near top of thread
BC: We have MF emails you 19/12, she says “it feels like not in my interests to be so outside process”. She is asking to contribute.
MP: correct
BC: She says she understands this is disciplinary process, re tweets, but she’s not sure whether tone or content. She states impotance of debate. You have let her understand this is disciplinary re tweets
MP: Disciplinary is her word
BC: you don’t write back and correct
MP: no
BC: She says, not sure if tone or content of tweets.
BC: You do not write back and say “it’s tone Ms Forstater and these are the examples”
MP: Process was still ongoing, we were still factfinding, developing strategy for going forward
BC: She has asked about process, asked to be involved, This process is not fair is it Mr Plant
MP: Disagree
BC: This is because of your collegaues pressures.
MP: Can’t say what colleagues thought
BC: You didn’t want to tell her
MP: Was afraid that anything from her the situation would get even more inflamed
BC: You wanted some rules/procedures to be given to you
MP: not at this point no
BC: Ms Szabo has said if you don’t have clear rules, you can’t say if someone has stepped over a line
BC: Ms S had said you had to have clear policy applying to everyone, not just claimant
BC: And the trouble with the QI report is that instead it says, claimant’s belief must not be spoken.
MP: Disagree it says that
BC: you were in impossible solution, because of your colleague’s opionions, of looking for a solution that was not there
MP: very complex situation, was trying to find my way throuigh
BC 20/12 you give MF a bit of an update. You say things clear this side of Atlantic and you will be involving CH and Ms Szabo. You advise MF not to make respresentations.
MP: yes but could not tell her not to
BC: And advised not to becasue colleague pressure
MP Yes thought would inflame
BC: Back to email that talks of visceral reactions. You note controversial debate in UK. You say must find solution that protects MF rights but also recognises outrage of other colleagues. You are not drawing tone/substance distinction
MP: “positon” cd cover both tone & content
BC: But here [other doc] you distinguish “position” from “expression”
MP yes but both were at issue
BC: You knew it as position not language your colleagues objected to
MP it was both
BC: MF got no chance to input to Ms Szabo’s terms of reference
MP: No
BC: Ms Szabo was to review docs provided by you
MP: yes
BC: You provided them all as a briefing note
MP: correct
BC: Ms S to have convo with you and CH. Happened 5/1
MP: yes
BC: there are no minutes or notes of that convo
MP: no
BC: Ms S is to meet MF either in person or videolink to discuss tweets with her. You say instatemetn up to Ms S how to conduct investigation. You say “investigation”
MP: yes
BC: That is what this was
MP: yes
BC But NOT up to Ms S. THere were terms of reference
MP yes
BS: Meeting MF not optional
MP: no
BC: But you didn’t raise to Ms S when report produced
MP: Did not feel meetingMF would have added.
BC: MF had no chance to do [LONG LIST OF THINGS MF not chance to do] MP to all: She did not
BC: You comment on Ms Szabo’s draft report, you were keen to ensure insertion of “business reasons” re not employing MF. No wait – it’s in fact CH wanting the insertion.
MP: yes
BC: No mention of any particular business need. Just generic
MP: yes
BC: was that becasue you knew MF would challenge any specific thing you tried to cite
MP: No
BC: MF had no chance to respond to this business needs comment.
MP: CH’s comment, but no MF not given chance
BC: MF had emailed you over CHristmas to say how distressing she was finding the whole process.
MP: correct
BC: She says hanging over her head making anxoius re year ahead. You sympathised
MP: yes
BC: She says don’t know what they are saying about her in Washington. She didn’t know did she
MP: no
BC: She says she doesn’t know what process is
MP:correct
BC: She says she doesn’t know when it will finish
MP: nor did I know
BC: She says she doesn’t know what being investigated about
MP: I thought I had mentioned tweets to her
BC: She says she is left in situation of stress, isolation, uncertainty
MP: yes
BC: YOu reply saying you understand and are pushing ASAP, and to talk tomorrow. You in fact didn’t speak until 14/1
MP: there were shecduling difficulties
BC: you at no point actually answered her Qs
MP: no
BC: Ms Szabo report comes 13/1
MP: yes
BC: Ms S says has NOT done any independent investigation. So factfinding = only what you had given her, and your convo with her
MP: correct
BC: Ms S concludes re “is MF in breach anti-harassment policy?” that there is insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion
MP: Yes she says this and explains it
BC: Ms S notes this is based on the written briefing and verbal briefing you had given her. That no policy existed re external debates that MF should have known about
MP: correct
BC: Ms S says re “is MF conduct reputational risk?” – opinions cd be associated with CGD, are they damaging, Ms S says CGD has no stance on it so no. Says there are differing opionions on the debate and nothing in employee handbook would damange.
BC: does this mean your briefings had informed Ms S to reach that conclusion. That there are different opinsions as to whether reputational damage.
MP: yes
BC: So therefore no basis for finding reputational risk
MP: correct
BC: We are in Feb 2019. You acknowledge risk could exist but that in the UK it could run the other way. This is the differences of position you told to Ms Szabo.
MP: yes
BC: Ms S very explicit no decision should be taken by CGD before MF has had opportunity to read and comment on report
MP: yes she is
BC [invites MP to read a section of bundle]
BC: My understanding of that is that per Ms Szabo, one function of the later QI report would be to inform MF in clear terms what concerns are.
MP: yes – QI report to be shared with her.
BC: Ms Szabo v clear that this should not be a one-sided exercise. She thinks it equally important that those complaining about MF should understand MF’s views, and understand UK context.
MP: yes
BC: You had in person conversations with Ms Szabo too. Can I infer that while Ms Szabo’s report is measured/reserved, she did make clear to you that she saw fault on both sides?
MP: yes this is email from me to MA –
BC: you refer to Ms S saying outside the report that X needed. You had additional and more detailed conversations with Ms S
MP: yes
BC: And one thing she said was that MF views v much not uncountenancable, and more understanding needed on all sides./
MP: don’t reacall detail
BC: Ms S v clear you must not hold MF to standards not imposed on others
MP: don’t remember the convo, other than what I wrote about it afterwards
BC: Here you email the core group who are deciding how to proceed, re next steps
MP yes
BC: based on Szabo report
MP yes
BC: at this point is introduced idea that CGD must not let it be seen as disciplinary process. Ms S had said that CGD has no stance on the issue, and no bar on anyone discussing those.
MP: Yes and Ms S says that’s a problem for us
BC: Ms S clear that there must be policy if it’s needed for claimant AND everyone else. Must decide whether to tolerate heterodox views.
MP: and to what extent
BC: Q is whether you would tolerate gender critical beliefs
MP: yes
BC: So about the QI report. Ms S says MF should contribute to it. That means, to its writing
MP: yes
BC: and read it when done
MP yes
BC and comment on it
MP yes
BC: And you say looking for practical route to continue MF in employment (in loose sense)
MP: yes
BC: 14/1 you told MF QI are doing report, but that not disciplinary
MP: Let me check
BC: I am going from claimant’s account
MP: I think I didn’t have a record of that meeting
BC: I will ask about what she says and ask you if you remember and if not whether it could have been
MP OK
BC: You said QI report coming
MP: probably
BC: you said it was about general policy
MP: don’t know
BC: and that they would talk to her
MP: dont know
BC: You didn’t say Ms Szabo had already reported, or what it said
MP: don’t know
BC: So here are your instructions to QI. You explicitly brief that CGD does not have explicit policy stance and colleagues are free to comment as they wish. QI should have understood CGD has no instutional position
MP: Externally yes tho we do internally
BC: You say MF should be allowed to contribute, read when done, comment
MP yes
BC: One author, Farah?
MP: I think joint but mainly
BC: They did not speak to MF
MP: no
BC: Here they send you drafts, pretty finalised. They talk of conferring with colleagues with more legal expertise with HR & trans issues to make sure nothing missed. They mean non QI people?
MP yes
BC: No notes of those conversations made, or given to anyone, other than actual report content
MP they didn’t to me.
BC: LE asks if they have record of materials reviewed, and Farah says not a lot, just notes nobody will manage to read
MP: yes correct
EJ: Intervenes – shall we break for the day?
BC: yes
EJ: reminds MP not to speak to anyone re case.
[END]

Day 10: AM & PM – Mark Plant and Masood Ahmed

EJ: received email application to call Ms Shulman withdrawn – but want to add docs to bundle
BC: Become apparent not received full disclosure re victimisation claim. We asking for further searches to be carried out.
BC: No objection to add’l docs in principle provided we get search and new docs today. Lets leave this matter to later
OD: request has gone to respondents IT dept. American time expect to hear later this pm
BC: Covering email from Ms Mahesri(?) She had taken decision to do 2 reports. Not something agreed in advance?
MP: agree
BC: ‘my honest assessment and convo MP needs to have with Maya.’ You agree with me that report contains analysis of tweets etc. ‘I also did a more public facing doc, really vague, dont get into discussion with Maya’
BC: The report deliberately didn’t contain details of offensive comms?
MP: No detail but some indication why offensive
BA: ?Report says claimants comms either did cross the line or almost crossed the line that we recommend action
BC: Certain post that were disrespectful or borderline disrespectful yes?
MP: yes
BC secret report addressed this yes?
MP: yes
BC: 3 other independent reviews of social media
MP: referring to reviews already take place
BC: But relied on those in this vague report. No. 1 QI own first review, which wouldn’t be entirely clear to reader
MP: could confuse yes
BC: earlier review Oct 2018 never shared with MF
No.2 external legal Ms Sabo. But she had not concluded on tweets had she?
BC: I think she looked at same info as QI
BC: QI say all 3 concurred on key finding. 1. several post offensive/disrecptful. that is not what Ms S concluded?
MP I dont recall
BC: Third item is review by internal fellow? Ms Cindy Huang?
MP: yes
BC: Not shared with MF was it?
MP: No
BC: So if Ms Sabo had not concluded and Ms Huang email… this is leading by QI on three reports isn’t it?
BC: Do you agree astonishing approach by QI?
MP: No they had read , the y didn’t need to hear from MF
BC: But you sent to MF ‘we find you guilty’ but you dont discuss the specific comms? How can that be fair?
MP: we asked her to respond and I did speak to her afterwards
BC: But there must be the proposition that there is nothing MF can say in her own defence?
MP: No its that the body of work speaks for itself
BC: But you were accepting at the time that the work speaks for itself
MP: I would give her opportunity to respond, I did.
BC: The other reason is Ms M email – MF knows the whole context really well be cautious about getting pulled in to the debate. That is the ‘no debate’ line isn’t? There is a view those who take self ID position say no debate?
MP: Thats not how I read it. Its how we manage the workplace and not get drawn in
BC: there are not talking about general debates, they are saying not this debate. Consider not legitimate yes?
MP: No they are saying dont get drawn in to this debate when discussing how to take care of MF views in the workplace and those other staff. They were pushing me to sort this w/o going into debate content
BC:Focus the discussion on language and behaviour not her views yes?
MP: yes
BC: Let her know the topic you want her to be clear on her is her language/behaviour. Even accepting what you say re how to proceed.. just explain to me how you can tell MF where the line is between
language that is offensive or not w/o talking about specifics?
MP: there was a conflict on workplace and she needed to refrain from the topic generally. she could express but couldn’t go further
BC: You are struggling because you are trying to hold a difficult line. If you are going to tell someone this isn’t a ban on expression but about language and behaviour you have to be able to define that line?
MP: yes
BC: The only way of defining that line is by identifying the language and behaviour the crosses it?
MP: yes
BC: QI approach was ridiculous. Tell her its offensive but dont tell her which language. Im right aren’t I?
MP: I tried to explain the line but I agree we would have had to articulate more clearly. Agree not tenable in long term to say dont express you view.
BC: Ultimate position was a firewall around the beliefs yes?
MP: I think correct yes
BC: The only belief where you have ever done this?
MP: To the best of my knowledge.
BC: You collectively accepted and sought to apply the QI report and recommendations yes?
MP: I can only speak for me, I tried to do that s best as I could
BC: You described their analysis as compelling?
MP: Yes
BC: Do you want to retract that word compelling? V poor quality work indeed. We can see Ms M describe the main finding that Maya fully knows what is offensive. She knows what is problematic in what she is saying
BC: You took trouble to understand basis for the main finding?
MP: yes I read letter and report.
BC: They give specific examples but most tellingly is that Maya retweeted open letter penned to an online news source. Its all the points QI would have used to say what is offensive
BC: Did you look at the news source referred here?
MP: yes I did
BC: this was the article Maya uses in first response to LE – did you note it was K Stock, academic author?
MP: yes
BC: Did you read response to letter?
MP: yes
BC: they say that Prof Stock article has claims that are inherently transphobic eg TW are not W.
BC: You told us that you understood MF beliefs yes?
MP: Yes
BC: You got the main issue is whether it is true that sex is indistinguishable from GI and a spectrum
MP: yes but its what follows in the article. More concerned with the academic argument as to why that was then a concern
BC: this is not your field is it?
MP: No
BC: did you look at academic writings on both side?
MP: No.
BC: did you take it at face value letter correct?
NO.
BC Prof Stock is a philosopher with expertise. Article she wrote attempts to provide academic views in a way that is understood by ordinary reader?
MP: yes. Critique here is incorrect or misleading because didn’t correspond to statistics and the bothered me
BC: Did you look at authors of the letter?
MP: [not sure here]
BC: [The other letters wasn’t ppl with relevant expertise] KS has the expertise why didn’t you think so?
MP : misuse of statistics to stoke fear. risk for trans people is high and this wasn’t balanced in her argument.
MF understood the controversies
BC: when they accused Stock of saying TW are predators did you understand that is unfair?
MP: er its an inference ..
BC: Ive explored with other witnesses… its not about stats is it? there is no doubt that men are responsible for sexual violence is there?
MP: correct
BC: so its not a misuse of stats? its a basis for SS spaces. we have SS spaces because men present a risk to women, men as a group
MP: its a small %
BC: ‘the old mans rights debate’..’not all men’
BC: do you not agree this is reason for SS spaces? Part 1 keep men out to stop violence, Part 2 keep men out for comfort and safety and dignity yes?
MP: yes
BC: Prof Stock encapsulates – that women only spaces eg hostels etc should be sex based. TW are male and most retain male genitals – that’s true isn’t it?
MP yes take your word
BC: a small number of bad men- not a misuse of stats is it?
MP: small number yes
BC these reasons dont cease when males identify as women. Agree there is scope for debate but its not fair to say that argument is a misuse of stats or fear mongering is it?
MP: Difficulty with implication then drawn that TW … allowing self ID increases uh.. um predatoriness
BC: Where does Stock say that?
MP: she doesnt
BC: where does Maya say that?
MP: its implied in red and black video
BC: No its not. Its very clear standing up for existing rights of women
MP: But presents stats in red and black that say 99% of sex predators are male
BC: Which is true and the reason …
OD: please take MP to the document…
BC: it accurately says any man can get a birth cert saying F yes?
MP: yes
BC: its explaining consequence will be same sex spaces will be much more diff to enforce
MP: yes
BC: places where that is already happeneing
MP: it does w/p saying impact
BC: yes but this is a campaign video you are not saying it has to cite academic sources?
MP: well shouldn’t be used in environ like CGD
BC: she didn’t she tweeted it. this is saying reforms to GRA will impact Dom violence, hospital words …
OD: be careful it says women + girls will have no places
BC: [reads out] you may disagree but you weren’t looking at nuance of debate of reform to GRA
MP: but bit that says 99% of sex offenders are male that’s the problem… because of implications
BC: that’s your inference its not untrue. its also true that TW have same patterns of male offending?
MP: 99% of sex offenders are male misleads reader to males are sex offenders its very small % of males that’s the problem
BC: so your objection is the male rights objection we discussed earlier?
MP: its the balance…
BC: yes this is putting one side its campaigning its not purporting to present both sides is it?
MP: Agree
BC: CGD does not stop fellows in political campaigning does it?
MP: no but we have to make person aware if trouble in office, ppl offended
BC: We are here because you rely on this as being example of fear mongering. The stats are used to make same point as Prof Stock and same as points MF makes in nuanced way. This is why SS spaces yes?
MP: yes
BC: and also for dignity privacy and safety? and fairness?
MP: yes
BC: the language is different to Prof Stock article because campaigning. But not saying anything different?
MP: its propaganda and misleading stats
BC: no we’ve been over this its not misleading. Lets go to QI report. 4 bits from open letter relied on. Assertion that TW are not W is phobic. you disagreed?
[missed] MP: Stock is more careful yes
BC: None of you take the trouble to understand the points in support of SS spaces. You too readily assume attack on TW?
MP: I disagree
BC: Letter says we think substandard scholarship. You did not check standard of Prof Stock did you?
MP: No.
BC: Letter says trans people not up for debate. Stock does not deny T peoples humanity does she? Neither does MF ever does she?
MP: point Im trying to make is she knows
complexity and that people will be offended. that’s the point of the QI report
BC: MF never has said she doesn’t know about ppl being offended. She said that to LE yes?
MP: Take your word for it
OD: take him to document please
EJ: we dont need to go back do w…
MP: no I recall it
BC: offense is not a good reason to silence debate?
MP: A reason for parameters in workplace
BC: You said QI report was compelling. I.e. MF crossed the line. You endorsed that. Are you no longer endorsing? If we agree she was not disrespectful and QI report not compelling in that part then we might be able to move on…
MP: no some comms were [offensive]
BC: QI report goes further then there needs to be parameters. Main finding is she is aware her language and arguments are offensive. QI conclusion is, MF has retweeted open letter… so she understand the critiques in that letter
MP: Agree
BC: QI Stage 2 is we agree with that letter?
MP: yes.
BC: so Stock and MF are wrong. their views made are phobic, fear mongering….
MP: it says Maya aware of offense
BC: so we ignore rationale for why?
MP: Maya is aware of impact.
BC: lets ignore your spin. QI report is clear. Problem with MF tweeting things that cause offence is not that she knows they cause offense
BC: its that the views are wrong.
MP: that’s not what I took from QI report
BC: QI report … TW are not W is at baseline offensive… Maya knows ppl recognise that comments are offensive. So this shows core beliefs are the problem for QI?
MP: yes
BC: so do you agree report is not compelling?
MP: parameters of debate and MF role were
BC: QI report says TW are not W is offensive but you agree its not?
MP: yes but its the passions it excites… [missed] I dont need to reopen debate is point.
BC: Parameters would be MF cannot say TW are not W.
MP: I never said that
BC: Then we agree no parameters from the report for the debate?
MP: but for my chat with MF
BC: how do I know from QI reports what MF could and could not say?
MP: [long pause] would be difficult to know that
BC: Uniquely on these beliefs, MF should not be able to say them internally?
MP: she should limit it to statement of her belief
BC: Even though QI says she’s understands TW are not W is offensive, you think she still was going to be allowed to say TW are not W?
MP: it gave me parameters…
BC: You and LE even removed the only recommendation in the vague GI report?
MP: I need to look to be sure…
BC: you can see you reply wondering if recommendation hived off eg rec 3
MP : yes
BC taking MP through amended recommendation
BC: exchange between you and LE. Your initial view is the one you have reverted to in your statement (ie compelling report). when you sub’d trans for gay you felt compelling.
BC: But we know not the same. MP: I didn’t understood why Washington office so excited about this til I did that. Material reality phrase I had heard in gay rights but agree not a perfect analogy
BC: incorrect understanding that this is an attack on trans people as opposed to women’s rights?
MP: No that that’s what people thought but I knew it was a defence on women’s rights
BC: QI reveals misunderstanding of MF view ?
MP: yes
BC Fuss in Washington was based on same misunderstanding?
MP: yes
BC: In practice MF is subject to scrutiny because of a misunderstanding of her beliefs by some in Washington
MP: yes
Stopping for 10 minute break. BC confirms he will need Monday morning for evidence. EJ: are we moving on from QI report? BC: yes. Back in 10.
We’re back
BC: You send MF the vague QI report. She never saw secret one?
MP: No
BC: You also forward it to Ahmed et al
MP: yes
BC: the email from Ms M at QI sends you final version of vague report. there’s no email or other doc that they got longer report?
MP: longer report just for me and LE
BC: MF responded to vague report. Her central point
was that it said she was guilty of offensive language but dont quote what?
MP: yes
BC: so then how can she move forward. Her 2nd central concern is she suspects its not language but pressure to shut down debate. she was correct there?
MP: there was diff of opinion not pressure to shut down debate
BC: We show QI report has views on that… MF 1st point in cover email is she agrees with next steps to discuss and seek constructive way forward. She’s not being difficult agree?
MP: yes
BC: given her central points were well-founded its no ok to criticise her is it?
MP: No
BC: Her central point is that the arguments and beliefs she makes are ones that she ought to be allowed to make?
MP: yes
BC: she’s not trying to persuade you to agree?
MP: no
BC: She says language issue could rectified by editing, deleting and apologising for any poor language
BC: So clear opening for you to tell her what crossed line? She was open to that ?
MP: yes
BC: but you didn’t give her any particular things to change?
MP: LE did before
BC: LE did not say [specifically] here is a thing I want you to edit delete or apologise for?
MP: he did not
BC: [EM and Ms Glassman want to put end to this] Do you agree if there was any intransigence at this point it was not from MF. It was Ms McKenzie?
MP: EM wanted to end our affiliation with her
BC: You met with MF to discuss on 13 Feb
MP: yes
BC: You say you acknowledged the QI report had some issues
MP: yes
BC: MF said you both agreed to set report aside
BC: She told you she had a way forward.
MP: yes
BC: she thought of more of a separation from her job and her writing on sex and gender. she would tweet less on her main account re this
MP: yes
BC: no hard and fast parameters on how much less to be discussed?
MP: yes
BC: she agreed she should not have left campaign leaflet on desk as clear desk policy?
MP yes
BC: But at end of meeting you said no renewal of fellowship will be taken to SPG. she would stay as consultant?
MP: yes
BC: she then became very upset
MP: yes
BC: because regardless how constructive MF was, Ms McKenzie would not agree to it?
MP: [it was more just how diff topic]
BC: You have given just 2 examples of offence. the red / black video and her reference to sex as a material reality.
MP: yes
BC: you recount conversation that she seems to understand needs to be kept out of workplace. So its fair to say MF was prepared to limit what she said?
MP:[ agrees]
BC: Ms McKenzie’s response is to disbelieve she would be constructive?
MP: yes:
BC: but QI report didn’t give her enough understanding of this?
MP ; true
BC : same standard apply to contractors and visitors?
MP: not sure what standards she means?
BC: not being transphobic?
MP : behaviour in office?
BC: and tweeting
MP yes:
BC she would not support claimant as visiting fellow.
MP agree
MP: you meet with MF again later in Feb. you wrote to core group about those discussions and setting out your views and future start of MF. You told her that if she wished to still seek renewal of fellowship (hopeless) but she should put in doc why?
MP: yes
BC: CGD had promoted a culture that no corporate line on policy issues
MP: so MF had not done anything out of line
BC: yes
BC: Discussion her position was so extreme as to merit dissociation
PM: I thought no as noted UK debate
BC: QI hadn’t got to grips with that?
MP: no.
BC: Contrary to Ms Sabo recommendations…
BC: Quotes MP ” I dont know where to draw the line as to what merits disassociation , we need to have a corporate position… but I cant identify where she stepped over”
MP: that’s fair
BC: you said on weak grounds if its on her behaviour and she has taken all remedial measures asked of her. So MF had inadvertently offended some with an issue that she didn’t know in advance would cause offence?
MP; it did cause offence
BC: you mean offended as misunderstood beliefs yes?
MP: yes
BC: you were clear that she had been constructive in response to concerns?
MP: yes
BC: we saw you mention double edged PR risk?
MP: yes
BC: but others disagreed with you eg Ms McKenzie
MP: Yes EM did.
BC: MF began by outlining her work now and in future. why remaining a member was important to her. she noted she had been recruited for saying unpopular things on twitter and on blogs
MP: yes
BC: and feared this was same thing going to cause the end of her career at CGD
MP: yes
BC: if in her note to SPG she had ignored sex and gender that would have been avoiding the elephant in the room?
MP agree
BC: she referred to concerns of QI report and her central concern. I.e. its the view rather than language or tone. She is right isn’t she? It was the objections in QI and from Washington?
MP: central issue is how belief is expressed and terms of debate yes
BC: No its that they think its offensive to say women are bio f … She makes clear she will use preferred pronouns in most social situations. You colleagues have unfairly said this means she would misgender?
MP: I dont know what most means in that context
BC: if concern was she was reserving the right to confront TW in toilet you could set that out as forbidden?
MP: dont think that was the concern
BC: eg changing room, swimming pool and person with penis exposes then she might [say its a male] that was what she explained
BC: you could have clarified what most meant?
MP: we could have yes
BC: She says language prohibitions prevent the debate happens and its important to be allowed to make arguments in clear language, she wasn’t trying to convert you to agreeing wit her?
MP: she was not
BC: She cites a number of people to show her arguments are respectable?
MP: yes
BC: respectable body of academic thought not crazy mad arguments and includes citing a TW who approves of her posts?
MP: yes
BC: [she’s not seen all the analysis about her at this point] she’s says any other issue would be discussed by CGD and she’s right?
MP: would need to be relevant to CGD work
BC: In addressing SPG, MF thought necessary to explain the judgement in report not correct
MP yes
BC: not fair to criticise her for that?
MP: {agrees not fair]
BC: she recognises this issue doesn’t relate directly to tax, and she goes on to reiterate the measures she is taking eg less tweeting on main account, disclaimer in bio, no debate in office
But she will continue to debate outside etc
MP: yes
BC: She’s anything but intransigent? She’s effectively agreed to be silenced at work and you thought she was genuine about that?
MP: yes I did
BC: MF thought this note would go to SPG [to decide her future] but a different approach was agreed. If you and Mr Ahmed thought she should be renewed it would go to SPG but if you both didn’t it wouldn’t?
MP : I cant quite remember , email to that effect but dont recall exactly
BC: [discusses reference for this with MP]
MP: ultimately MA decision
BC: yes but in practice it was you EM, LE, AG & MA { I think!] discussing this
MP: there was no meeting where we did this
BC: We can see in docs ,MA email for you and MF to set up call. Please give MA talking points. That is how MF learns it hasn’t gone to SPG?
MP: yes unfortunatey. BC: you come clean at page 1846, MF writes again at least this mistake has given me an honest view of decision process
BC: this was clearly a collective decision driven by EM opposition?
MP you need to ask MA
BC: if it was MA decision he wouldn’t need you to give him talking points?
MP : TP is standard practice for meetings
BC: if you didn’t know reasons for decision how can you write talking points?
MP: it was what I would say if in his shoes… what I thought from discussions
BC: you said you weren’t party to any discussion
MP: uh.. chain of events…
BC: have you looked at the transcripts?
MP: er
BC: [comparing how talking points compare]
MP: I said no single discussion among the 5 of us… He was is in London the Friday before all of this I think .. and erm we did discuss but he hadn’t seen MF response at that point I dont think. I think he told me general reasoning
MP: I checked in and then reconstructed.
BC: You didn’t check in with him (MA) and ask him to explain so you can write it down for him? Absurd
MP: We had talked about it before so I knew roughly but he hadn’t made a final decision
BC: So you say its the issue that is against CGD and its not language. You are saying we dont to be associated with MF in this debate. And real issue is upset amongst staff cause of their interpretation
MP: yes
BC: the position you are taking is not the sex/gender issue is borderline but that is is just not tolerable
MP: its not central to our work…. given that its borderline…
BC: so you are saying therefore we won’t associate with anyone who holds these views
MP: that we will not give a visiting fellowship yes
BC: the absence of a consensus was because MF was known to hold these contentious views
MP: and/or express them offensively
BC: that’s not what you are saying to MA
BC: End of that call (MA/MF) you understood that MF had agreed to go and think about consultancy contract?
MP: yes
BC: MA had given a verbal indication?
MP yes:
BC: Email from EM is that there needs to be a formal offer made
MP: yes
BC: you agree to write contract yes?
MP: yes
BC: But MA recognised that any relationship for consultancy would be untenable having told MF you dont want her as VF?
MP: I think he was content with Gates work but no more
BC: EM recognised that reduction in status as a consultant means would be better to cut ties… And what Washington thinks
MP: I disagree, I was willing to take her on as a consultant
But clearly EM didn’t think that way
BC: MF writes to MA with a summary of the convo to be confirmed. She asked for confirmation of consultancy over 2 years?
MP: yes
BC : contrary to emails around writing contract you never did, did you?
MP: I never did, she was thinking over weekend. Then we got this response on 1 March
BC: and what this response prompted .. you say we wanted get legal advice.. the sequence is this .. after MF call you accept you need to formalise offer?
MP: yes
BC: you then get her email which you think sounds litigious yes?
MP: yes
BC: Because she’s says she wants confirmation that her decision was viewed as a hiring decision and the reason is some object to her views on sex and GI. Thats why you dont write contract
Because you respond in a different way
MP: we respond with legal advice yes.
BC: upshot of legal advice was a draft email and decision is send it and see what happens
MP: it was send that short email, period.
BC: that email very clearly brings an end to overall relationship doesn’t it? thanks etc – you dont say that if she is going to carry on as consultant
MP : its silent on the contract
BC: its silent on the contract but it clearly ends the whole relationship?
MP: not the intention
BC: then you would have emailed her afterwards to say please be reassured we still want you on Gates as a consultant?
MP: I think she then closes off possibility
BC: not an answer to my question , there was time for you to follow up to make clear at the same time or minutes/hours after to reassure the contract is still on the table.
MP: Disagree
BC: Reality is send this and see what happens. Everyone knew this would make future work impossible
MP: I was open, she precluded with her response next day
BC: I agree by then but [it was actually when MA emailed that ended things]
OD : how many times are you going to put this question
BC: [moves on] … colleagues in London on MF side?
MP: yes they wanted to know why she wasn’t coming back
BC: they were upset and thought it unfair?
MP: they were asking if it was cos of her views and what did it mean 4 them
BC: Im right – it was problematic for them to engage in democratic discourse in UK?
MP: [they wanted to understand why..]
BC: they were worried because it was now dangerous for them to discuss democratic questions in UK
MP: Some wanted to know what lines were there that were crossed and what it meant for their comms
BC: Debate with EM around whether it was because she wouldn’t find a constructive way forward. But you made clear it was the issue
MP: can we look at reference
BC: [ takes through references] AG amends it to clarify what has and hasn’t been offered to MF. EM favours saying nothing save that her contract and VF ended at same time. I say not accurate. You agreed not accurate and you say to EM it was a dodge- there were complaints ppl know
MP: agrees EM was trying to dodge the question
BC: AG amends, EM then says don’t say anything on her views on sex/gender as this is what she wants us to do?
MP: yes
BC: [reads out further drafting] You reply and say she did what she was asked and there was no negotiation
MP: yes
BC: Management should say why – the bit EM deleted – MF’s positions
EJ: judge asks for pause for lunch
We will resume at 2pm.

BC: The only thing MF was intransigent on was her views? yes?
MP: agreed
BC: EM and MA correspondence. EM says I know you have delegated to MP but his statement is concerning. You need to have a private conversation with Mark. Did MA have this with you?
MP: no
BC: Email from MA asking if he should send email to staff with the EM line?
MP: yes
BC: you think email needs to go to staff because ppl with think we’re afraid of honesty if its not mentioned. You disagreed with line
MP: yes
BC: CGD made no attempt to set guidelines?
MP: correct
BC: “she moderated her posts on twitter without our asking” there are no posts that get relied on as disrespectful after 24 Nov yes?
MP: said what I said
BC: she saw what was problematic and agreed to desist?
MP: yes
BC: therein was the basis for some agreement. The intransigence was management and CGD
MP: management had strong views
BC: the only thing not agreed was to denounce her beliefs?
MP: yes
BC: her strong personality was one of the things that got her the job?
MP: ppl have strong personalities at CGD
BC: its the substance of the issue that crossed some ill-defined line? MP: that’s what im putting forward there. BC: You are saying there it was MAs call in the end. I think mysterious ‘we’ in doc reflects that it was a collective decision with EM. MP: I cant agree or disagree
BC: The views and the manner articulated was added to the draft in particular you added ‘manner’
MP: yes
BC: but mainly her views as the reason?
MP: yes
BC: HR person in London agrees with you?
MP: yes
BC: thanks end of my questions
No questions from the Panel. OD to re-examine MP.
OD: MF said in live evidence that V was main point of contact. And she spoke to V on 4 March. When Gates proposal developed did you speak to V about importance of MF work to the grant?
MP: She didn’t indicate to me that Gates saw it is the central part of the grant. He thought it was our proposition.
OD: what information made you think it was important then?
MP: I thought package as a whole had to stand, it was part of it.
OD: Someone at Gates took the view that it wasn’t
MP: There was a conversation that V and MF had and MF told me Gates really liked it
OD: that was before Gates then narrowed it?
MP: yes
OD: London Office. If you have a contractor who has a twitter who makes comments like ‘ homosexuality is a sin’ how would that have been treated by you?
MP: er.. I would have told contractor to make clear his views
Um tell him .. discourage him from this but I couldn’t forbid
OD: and if that person posted campaigning materials against same sex marriage and a similar video what then?
MP: again tell them to make clear not CGD view. We could disassociate ourselves perhaps. Make it clear on post these it not the view of CGD
OD: Did the funding for diffid? contract get secured?
MP: No
OD: Did the Omidiya? contract get extended?
MP: no he didn’t want to extend it
OD: [Takes MP to pamphlet.] You said you didn’t get objection from DC. Do you think this pamphlet is something that could offend?
BC: Witness told us he didn’t read it at the time
OD: Im asking him now
MP: I think if someone objected to it that would be reasonable. Like the video its a campaign document that has particular lines of reasoning.
OD: so you regard the video as problematic as well?
MP: yes
OD: MF describing someone as a part-time cross dresser. Offensive?
MP: I find it so. Its a complicated identity that Philip Bunce has. Its one line from his biography. He explains the struggle.
MP: that phrase doesn’t describe the victory PB has come to in coming out
BC: I dont recall asking MP about this – please understand we are getting evidence-in-chief now
OD: Im asking about specific comms in response to line of questioning about fuss in Washington
EJ: You can follow up. But MP not saying fuss about nothing he just didn’t understand. You can ask about what he had in mind which is relevant rather than his opinions
OD: Ok you understood PB has used that phrase himself but in fact that wasn’t the case. MF couldn’t take us to a document where he used ‘part-time cross dresser’
MP: that’s even worse
OD: had you seen these at the time?
MP: Not the pamphlet
OD: No more questions.
EJ: Next witness
This is Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD
Chair of the Board of CGDE and one of the respondents.

Masood Ahmed

Masood Ahmed Witness Statement

MA affirms the oath
OD: Do you have your witness statement?
MA: yes
OD discusses corrections to statement with MA. MA adds starred bit : ‘normal practice to cancel email and as I erroneously believed at the time any website affiliation with a VF
OD: initial question about recruitment
MA: answers about job talks[?]
OD: how many people have been recruited to a research position where the highest qual is undergrad degree ie no post grad?
MA answers to effect very unusual mentions [David Roodman]
OD: Did AG say that its bigoted to say that a man can be a woman and vice versa
MA: never said that to me
[Missed] MA: Confident he would have got to same position due to risks
OD: At time of forming you decision, can you say what you based your understanding of MF belief on?
MA: Various writings, tweets, seen the video that she had retweeted. Also seen the pamphlet that she forwarded with her response to QI report.
OD: Thanks no further questions
BC: Did I understand from your answer to OD that you took your understanding from, in particular, the video and pamphlet she didn’t write?
MA: and tweets etc
BC: Ok but you put focus on those. Documents MF didn’t author
MA: But I assumed as she shared them
BC: You are a respondent here and also would review involvement of CGD , CGD Europe in your role as president
MA: yes
BC discusses a document MA has reviewed.
BC: you say you approved position of respondents. that not WORIADS didn’t you?
MA: I did
BC: Here it says MF alleged belief is not compatible with human dignity and conflicts with rights of others and not WORIADS. Thats what you agreed yes?
MA: we understood that her set of beliefs was broader than those set out in that paragraph
BC: [not what it says though, you would have expanded]
Please focus on my questions to get through this, don’t spin
BC: Is it right that you understood and approved of the pleading that her belief was not WORIADS?
MA: We accepted outcome of the Appeals Tribunal
BC: Not an answer to my question. One more time. Did you understand and approve the pleading?
MA: The set of the beliefs that we believed at the time were the totality of her beliefs, included beliefs that were not WORIADS
BC: Was it respondents view that the belief that sex should not be conflated is not WORIADS?
MA: Accept that view is WORIADS
BC: You have been taken to pleaded beliefs. Do you recall the respondents adopting the position that the belief that being female is immutable fact is not
WORIADS.
MA: It is my position that this set of beliefs, if this is all they are, then they are WORIADS. At first stage pleading we weren’t convinced these were the only beliefs
BC: You understand that Employment Judge Taylor found those beliefs not WORIADS?
MA: My understanding is he ruled by taking other bits into the definition of the core beliefs. That was the error
BC: So you personally always meant to say that saying bio sex is immutable is a view that is WORIADS
MA: I accept the beliefs in the paragraph but without implying I need to share those beliefs
BC: You personally have always meant to accept
that saying a TW is male is WORIADS?
MA: I accepts its WORIADS. I dont share it. Secondly it quickly gets into how those beliefs manifest
BC: OK this is not a general discussion between us. Stick to my questions.
BC: My question is did you and the respondents always mean to accept that that belief is WORIADS?
MA: that has been my understanding yes
BC: Thats not credible. It was clear all the way through prelim hearing and the appeal that this view was not WORIADS
MA: that’s my understanding
BC: Im giving you an opportunity to come clean. This is revealing of tendency to spin and obfuscate.
BC: Did you really mean to accept these beliefs?
MA: that’s my understanding and no reason to change it
EJ: You seem to be saying that you personally have always thought these beliefs are WORIADS. So it follows that when the argument was put forward on respondents behalf that not
WORIADS you personally disagreed?
MA: It was MF expression etc that we thought there was more going on that wasn’t WORIADS.
BC: [Goes on to recorded nature of discussions in SPG.] Says SPG never discussed beliefs. Thats not true is it?
MA: Different views on managing the risk. No discussion on whether TW are or are not W etc.
BC: But people did express views about MF stated belief?
MA: I try to recollect whether there was discussion about the acceptability of the belief. There was explanation as to what the tweets say but not a discussion on beliefs being acceptable.
BC: Thats not true, discussed with MP
MA: I was at the same meeting as MP and dont remember discussion that cant say TW are not W
BC: ‘visceral’ reaction to beliefs?
MA: I remember talking about it being risky etc
BC: it is a rewriting of history to seek to draw this fine distinction that you now do. Does not reflect discussion
MA: its best of my recollection.
BC: Lets go back. You were not closely involved in getting the QI or Szabo reports
MA: No
BC: Did you read Szabo report?
MA: Skimmed when it came. Read QI and MF response altogether in Feb.
BC: You did carefully read Ms S report?
MA: yes I did, read in Feb
BC: Shorter QI report came, but you did not receive the longer QI report did you?
MA: not that I recall
BC: Did you understand that MF was saying explicitly that she would seek a constructive way forward?
MA: Yes I did understand that’s what she was saying
BC: Did you understand that one of her central concerns was QI report found her guilty with no examples?
MA: I did
BC: Did you read the report and see she was right?
MA: Trying to remember which order I read
BC: But when you read her response you thought about it and whether it was well-judged?
MA: At the time I read it all and didn’t go back and compare. I stepped back from a management pov. Its been going on for 3 months. How do we bring closure.
BC: so the answer to my question is no. You did not examine whether MF response was right or wrong?
MA: I did not. I figured MP and others were going to do the detailed assessment as to how reasonable.
BC: Does it follow its pointless to ask you whether MF response is justified?
Because you never formed a view.
MA: I took away certain conclusions. Im happy to share those.
BC: You say that from the QI report you single out MF tweets in relation to Comic Relief. But there’s no reference to CR tweets in the QI report you saw at the time?
Im going to suggest you are not aware of these because there is no doc that refers to them [but you say you knew about them in your witness statement]
MA: talks about correspondence with AG
BC: There is no correspondence with AG that talks about CR tweets. That is only in the
long QI report. MP told us only he and LE saw that long report.
MA: its an error there [in the statement]
BC: You are not a details man are you. I suggest this slip is not you making a mistake – its you rewriting history.
MA: No I disagree.
BC: MP reported back after his meeting with MF on 13 Feb to core group didn’t he?
MA: yes
BC: It was clear from his report that MF was being constructive and suggesting a sensible solution yes?
MA: yes
BC: The intransigence came from Ms McKenzie didn’t it?
MA: She was certainly transigent, yes.
BC: It didn’t matter what she might say, she plainly sets out the constructive steps she will take. But it didn’t matter, it was clear that EM had an implacable view opposed to V. Fellowship or retention in any capacity?
MA: Thats not true. I decided I needed to make a decision as it had been going on. I looked at balance of risks and benefits of retaining her as a VF. I came to the view that the risks were too great. More instances would happen where we would need to deal with internal fall-out
I had a growing, fractious management team. If anything reoccured it would put MP (who had been sent to London to lead) in a position that would weaken his credibility …
EJ: Thats more than we need to explain this. BC back to you.
BC: Your assistant asked MP to supply talking points to explain the decision for your call with MF yes?
MA: yes
BA: MP told us that this reflected him talking to you and then writing it up. Is that right?
MA: I said to him we need to bring an end to this and not move forward with the renewal, he said,…
BC: let me rephrase. Do these reflect MP repeating back to you things you have said to him? Or are these MP’s ideas?
MA: we had a general chat..
EJ: Can we pause please. 10 minute break.
BC: You then had a call with MF on 28 Feb 2019. In the transcript the explanation you gave her was truthful?
MA: Yes
BC: We have no other contemporaneous record of the rationale do we?
MA: Not that I am aware of
BC: See respondents grounds of resistance. The decision not to renew VF is addressed here? No explanation for it for you agree?
MA: Not there no.
BC: The only other written explanation we have is in your witness statement.
MA: Thats not what I said to her on the call though
BC: I understand that. We have 2 documents from the time and your witness statement nearly 3 years later. I think your statement is an ex post facto
justification do you agree?
MA: no
BC: Your attempts to spin
MA: no I dont agree.
BC: you stuck to the talking points in your call with MF?
MA: I dont recall talking about policy positions but think I stuck to main points.
BC: You didn’t give any additional reasons that aren’t in the TPs?
MA: No.
BC: MF was right when she saw the request for TPs that it meant it couldn’t really be your decision?
MA: No. That was her feeling but it was because I had discussed with MP and as a general matter my assistant would get TPs.
BC: You had talked about it with the 5 people? Eg EM had had conversations with you hadn’t she?
MA: EM did not know what decision I had made until I came into office on Monday, so she came over to ask me what I would do. I hadn’t seen or spoken to her for 2 weeks as Id been away
BC: You had spoken to her in the run up
MA: [ not really I was away for 2 weeks] but her position on this was well established. Asking MP for notes was standard
BC: Ms McKenzie prompted your assistant to ask for these talking points didn’t she?
MA: Yes she must have asked my assistant after talking to me on her way out on Monday
BC: It was because you made the decision after talking to her on Monday
MA: No I already had made the decision. It was my decision in the end.
BC: Goes to call transcript. You cite to MF the first and last 2 bullet points. There is a ‘We’ which suggests it is a collective decision.
MA: I used ‘we’ in a general sense. Not specific
BC: MF talks about how she wouldn’t be able to publish blogs on website as a consultant.
MA: She could if working with a VF…
BC: But EM says she wouldn’t be able to blog as a consultant. She was wrong about that?
MA: A consultant could do a blog if approved by a senior fellow involved in relevant project.
BC: Policy is clear that its only staff that can write for the blog. Rare for less experienced staff to post under own name, generally a fellow or a senior would publish it under their name
[missed]
BC: refers to another ‘we’
MA: I just used ‘we’ often to refer to CGD in general. I was not aware the call was being recorded o’wise I would have been more precise
BC: Thats revealing. You would have taken care to spin and finesse things rather than speak candidly.
MA: No to avoid ums and ahs and get my pronouns correct.
BC: “Its become an issue when your position has caused distress” Shows that you were looking at first 2 bullets of the TPs?
MA: I agree with that. Except second one where I mentioned [issue with?] first sentence.
BC: So its MF position on sex and gender.
MA: And the expression of it and the stress and harm caused by
BC: the stress and harm the position has caused not the expression?
What MP means by position is substantive position.
MA: Thats what he meant but not what I meant.
BC: You say you wanted to achieve a consensus on decision re MF. Not good to move forward w/o consensus among senior fellows. Now you are looking at 3rd bullet point aren’t you?
MA: [finds reference] same message
BC: Then you say that it wasn’t a decision taken lightly and that we ended up where we did.
MA: I wanted to take responsibility. I had no idea exact words would be a problem, I said we often.
BC: But clear no evidence of independent thought from you? You stuck with what MP said?
MA: Reflects the discussion we had on Fri when we were both in London.
BC: MF says PC of sex is set out in UK law… seems perverse to decide its unacceptable to talk about
MA: yes
BC: how could CGD justify going against UK law?
MA: I read it more as not being something that fell foul UK law.
BC: She says she cant see a reason for the decision other than expediency. You say we are trying to make a hiring decision?
MA: Yes
BC: Core point you go back to is absence of consensus among SFs?
MA: yes
BC: Then you say you to need to check the legal framework?
MA: Yes I wanted to double check
BC: MF makes more points about what she has been told about lack of consensus. You say it was the views you expressed and the impact and lack of consensus.
The points you are making dont go beyond the TPs from MP. Secondly you were making a decision based on particulars of this case and not extrapolating to general principles?
MA: Yes
BC: So it was the particular views she expressed?
MA: Yes
BC: That tells us what you mean by the term positions. You understood positions and views to be the same thing. And it was the substantive views MF had that was the problem?
MA: My focus was on the reactions and stress this caused
BC: You weren’t setting out the views and the expressions of them at all were you? No distinction here.
MA: At that stage I didn’t really have a clear understanding of core beliefs vs social media expressions.
BC: You now seek to draw the distinction to wriggle out of liability to MF.
MA: No Im explaining.
BC: At the time you told us you were not distinguishing between views and expression.
MA: I was talking based on what I had and could determine from the views.
BC: Included the statement that at TW is not a W, belief that bio sex is immutable and not changed by GI et al
MA: Correct
BC: You were not drawing a distinction between the core beliefs which QI said were phobic and anything else were you?
MA: They also included ‘part-time cross dresser’, people who thought TW are W were delusional. The extent of her beliefs wasn’t clear to me
BC: But in your evidence now you seek to draw that distinction. So you are not giving a truthful account?
MA: I wasn’t getting into at that stage.
BC: Are you now drawing an extinction you didn’t have at that time?
MA: I wasn’t sure which bits at the time were her core belief
BC: Any expression on this subject was offensive, that was your view then?
MA: No
BC: You told her that her views caused offence and that was why you were not renewing the VF.
You reiterate, that you still have the same lack of consensus. So its the lack of consensus that is the essential factor?
MA: yes
BC: There were clearly sufficient conversations going on for you to form the view that lack of consensus?
MA: Lack of consensus wouldn’t be an issue alone.
BC: Where do we find anything by you that the lack of consensus wasn’t an issue?
MA: No I said wasn’t the only reason.
BC: But with MF you focus on the lack of consensus.
MA: By this point I had the view that the risks were greater that the benefits. If Id had a consensus 2 months earlier, might have been different.
BC: You’ve never said that before?
MA:[missed]
BC: you then spoke with MF about consultancy on Gates
MA: yes
BC: MF expressed doubt about that being viable. You could see she was upset and said she should think about it. She agreed.
MA: Yes.
EJ suggests ending for today. BC estimates a further 1.5 hrs to examine MA is needed. Thats it until Monday!

Day 11: AM: More questions with Masood Ahmed

BC is questioning Masood Ahmed chair of CGD
BC: [questioning about the history of reasons developed in CGD for ending relationship with MF]
BC: You first endorsed the reason you gave in phone call with MF – that it was her position on sex and gender? THis is the true reason
MA: Read email quickly. Read “positioning” not “position. When Ellen Mackenzie pointed out “position” could be misinterpreted, I agreed.
BC: Where does EM say it could be misinterppretd
MA: the first sentence made me realise there could be different interpretations
BC: THis spin – that it was how MF was speaking not what she was saying – was not in your mind at the time was it
MA: I thought it should be clarified

BC: What EM is saying is “don’t mention positions”. It was not true that no way forward had been agreed. Mr Plant’s email is clear that MF had been agreeing to suggestions
BC: What we see here is you MA taking up a explanation because you think it will help you not becasue it’s true
MA: no
BC: 6 reasons here. “reputional risk”. You didn’t mention in phone call to MF
MA: no
BC: nor in MP’s talking points list
MA: no
BC: This is only based on Comic Relief tweets
MA: Not the only thing in my mind
BC: But you had not even seen them then
MA: I think I knew about them, AG had mentioned them
BC: But AG had only seen the shorter QI report which doesn’t mention them
MA: But AG had mentioned reputational risk and I think had mention comic relief, pretty sure
BC: But you said Friday that Comic Relief had leaped out from QI report. Not true is it.
MA: Can’t be no but I think I transposed my knowledge ontto the report
BC: You are now transposing your “knowledge” onto AG.
MA: She was person most closely following re stakeholders

BC: I suggest not true. Your statement talks of things that were not in your mind at the time
MA: Not true
BC: This is the problem with proceeding on basis of inadequate investigation. If MF had been asked re Comic Relief she would have been able to tell you she had had later private correspondence with Comic Relief
MA: Did not know that

BC: We see [senior person] at CR thanking her for her thoughtful contributions
MA: yes
BC: We see a CR blog acknowledging the criticism and its importance – re nominating a TW as a famous woman. CR say they encourage all to have their own views. Important continuing conversation say CR
BC: If MF had been told CR was the problem she could have shown you all this
MA: Yes certainly
BC: Reality re reputational risk (which not mentioned to MF at time) is that there had been no adverse reaction at all
MA: I was concerned about the future
BC: No evidence of reputational harm at all, at this point.

[MA’s connection has frozen it appears]

EJ: [suggests someone contact MA by phone or something]
OD: [suggests removing MA so he has to rejoin – points out MA probably doesn’t have phone on him]
EJ: where is MA physically?
OD: not sure. Will try to message
EJ: MA does appear to have left –

[we all wait]
OD: notes msg in chat saying they are trying to reconnect MA
OD = Olivia Dobbie, counsel for the respondents Centre for Global Development CGD, CGD(Europe) & Masood Ahmed
EJ = Employment judge
[MA rejoins – laptop problem required move to a different room]
BC: There are no tweets on which respondents rely after the Comic Relief ones
MA: no
BC: Mr Plant had notice this and it was why he said MF had modified tweeting behaviour
MA: yes
Please pick up our tweeting here from now on. Apologies for any confusion this morning.
Unroll available on Thread Reader

BC: [now talking about the suggestion of “proselytising”]
MA [describes how he had looked over MF tweets while in Australia]
BC: what device
MA: ipad
BC: And where did you see the pamphlet MF had brought it
MA: on iPad I think
BC: where from
MA: I think … if I can remember … I think I went to the fair play for women website to which claimant response had linked
BC: this is the claimant response: [everyone finds the page]
BC: This was on your iPad screen?
MA: I do
BC: At the time you had it on iPad screen?
MA: as far as I remember
BC: Do you see MF saying there had been wide attempts to shut down debate on this issue?
MA: Yes I noted that
BC: Did you click on the link she put there for evidence of that?
MA: don’t recall

BC: Did you click on the links in footnotes, to national and international HR law definitions of “woman”? As a sex?
MA: I did not, I took her word for it
BC: You see she refered to importance of statistics and again gave a link, to UN website, did you click that?
MA: No, not what I was focussed on
BC: Did you click on links to CGD’s own site re importance of statistics on sex?
MA: I did not no
BC: Did you click on link to EHRC website on sex/gender reassignment in UK law?
MA: don’t recall doing that no
BC: How many did you click on from this document?
MA: two or three I think?
BC: And you just happened to pick the 17th footnote on the 4th page to click on?
MA: It was because of the text in her response – describing what she had been doing, so yes I did click on that, and by then I was aware of FPFW as organisation bcs associated with the video that Cindy Huang had brought to SPG meeting
BC: You said Friday you read this respnose from MF after the QI report and were not trying to understand her points at that time. Not credible in that light that you just happened to click footnote 17
MA: It was already in my mind because of the vidoeo, which was disturbing
BC: Here is the pamphlet. You didn’t take the trouble, nobody did, to find outwhether bringing material like this into the London office was common
MA: Not at the time and my understanding now that it wsa not
BC: Did you understand it was campaignign materail re a live debate in UK
MA: yes but did not change my view
BC: was your objection just that you don’t think campaign materials should be brought in?
MA: I didn’t think a leaflet of this nature should be brought in. In street I could say “go away leave me alone” but in the office would put me in a more difficult position
BC: Leaflet goes through a government consultation and (in campaigning fashion) suggests answers.
MA: yes
BC: No suggestions are transphobic or stupid?
MA: Depends how you read them. Offensive. Not appropriate for workplace
BC: What’s offensive?
MA: Page by page?
BC: Just tell me most offensive thing
MA: would have to re-read
BC: there are 2 questions. One is, whether offensive and the other is, whether normal to bring to office. You didn’t investigate the latter?
MA: Can’t say on that no but I think other people may have indicated otherwise

BC: I asked you what was most offensive and you chose this page? [re predatory men]
MA: That is not how I approached it at the time, it was the whole thing was offensive
BC: Leaflet suggests there could be harms from making single sex spaces open to TW
MA: yes
BC: you can see at top of page the point is made this is a Q the government consultation is asking?
MA: yes
BC: And it says govt is not proposing removing the single sex spaces and will keep possibility of excluding TW?
MA: yes
BC: You didn’t read the leaflet that carefully did you Mr Ahmed?
MA; I was reading from PoV suitability for work etc
BC: Did you understand that point is being made that if self-ID introduced it makes managing of single sex spaces harder?
MA: I understood that yes
BC: And in the remainder of the pamphlet, what is offensive? [ Pause while MA reads the transcript]

MA: These 2 pages I find offensive. Here is implication that single sex service providers would find hard to do job – fearmongering.
MA: And here – implication is that somehow will lead to more instances of women and girls born into their bodies exposed to trans people, it’s offensive
BC: Why is it offensive for women campaigning on this matter to say that they feel their privacy and dignity is impacted if they have to share their spaces with male bodied people?
MA: Offensive is that arguing allowing people to self-identify would increase discomfort and threat for ciswomen. I find it offensive. Would have been OK outside but not OK in the office among colleagues, puts them in awkward situation
BC: You say it’s not offensive for women and girls to be feeling under pressure about sharing spaces with male bodied people, but not OK to campaign about that.
EJ: I understood the response to be that it was the suggestion of increased risk/discomfort was offensive
BC: I’ll rephrase. You acknowledged that women and girls might feel that discomfort, but seem to be saying it’s not OK to campaign about that?
MA: It’s offensive to suggest that self-id for TW would increase that.
BC: Do you understand that one risk being identified is not of TW attacking anyone? It’s of undermining privacy and dignity of itslef?
MA: yes one risk mentioned was that
BC: You might find them offensive, but they are perfectly legitimate campaigning material? And legitimate in context of London office?
MA: I had not seen anything in terms of campaigning as polarising as this. I can’t speak for London office very much as had not spent much time there
BC: The polarising is the real reason wasn’t it
MA: I had to get senior staff attention back to their work and repair relationships.
BC: You refer (re VF renewal possibility) in your statement that it would have been an act of commission. (You don’t quite say ‘sin’).
BC: You mean that would be the act and default should be not to renew,
MA: Yes, as it had already lapsed
BC: So you are saying the active decision – renewal – needs consensus. You are making it a collective decision not your?
MA: Don’t agree but carry on
BC: and you are handing a veto to those opposing the renewal, because relying on consensus
MA: No, I have made many decisions without consensus.
BC: not interested in other decisions, only this one
BC: In this instance your approach was that there must be consensus and therefore you are offering veto to her opponents
MA: No that is not what it means. Often aim for consensus but can override

BC: Friday you said decision would have been the same regardless of consensus because of risk of repeat.
MA: Think I said, even if there was reluctant consensus, at that point I would still have paused and probably come to same decision.
BC: It’s about your view of risk of the issue cropping up again.
BC: For which you had no evidence. No factual basis.
MA: Had to make judgment on balance of risks. Right that no factual evidence of it happening. My role to look ahead. Risks to organisation.
BC: You can’t point to evidence because it wasn’t really a factor in your mind.
MA: I didn’t mention to claimant at the time because I wanted to stick to just a couple of points and discuss way forward
BC: EM and others at this point had told you they would not change their minds, and this was a group decision driven by the opposition of those people
MA: Certainly the lack of consensus and degree of fractured relationships was in my mind. But wd not have been enough on own.
BC: MF emailed you asking to confirm her understanding of conversation. She is alleging she had been turned down for VF because she thinks sex and gender identify different. You understood this?
MA: yes
BC: You suspect she is feeling litigious? and EM suggests lawyers take over?
MA: yes
BC: upshot is you sent this email?
MA: yes
BC: Attitude behind sending this was “send it, see what happens”, Mr Plant mentions this?
MA: That’s what Mr Plant says yes
BC: Clear understanding among you and colleagues that this email makes any future relationship impossible?
MA: disagree. Was considering consultancy. No way was this telling MP not to continue conversations on that and he had said earlier he was.
BC: You would not have thanked MF for contributions to CGD and CGDE. You would have said “thank you for yourpast contributions and looking forward to future consultancy”.
MA: COuld have said that but, legal advice, felt it best to send as did.
BC: report to CGDEurope directors, this is about 2016
MA: yes
BC: says board of trustees delegates management to SPG. Always the case that managment structures integrated in your time with organisation
MA: Less structured than that, hence ongoing process, AG not appointed to joint role until 2019. Wasn’t until lat 2017 I understood set-up, 2018 we were working on it, didn’t get to current integrated state until well into 2019
BC: November 2017, CCDEurope board, presumably true?
MA: am sure
BC: says CGDE operates “one CGD” – that was the actual position?
MA: Was basic principle but not applied completely consistently yet
BC: Principle was, one single international think tank
MA: Yes
BC: Full integration of management structures already in place
MA: Not completely. eg 2017 a funder told me they had clashing proposals from CGD and CGDE. I took seriously
BC: So mistakes happen sure. But, by Nov 2017 you had been pushing for unifieid managment structure
MA: was aware
BC: CGDE reported to SPG
MA: to president
BC: SPG included London and DC members
MA: yes
BC: strategic decisions taken globally as far as possilble
MA: yes
BC: by Nov 2017 unified operations very much advanced
MA: disagree. It was less integrated than I wanted and than it is now
EJ: intervenes to ask about timing
BC: 3 topics left, none long
EJ: in minutes?
BC: around 20
EJ: THen we will take 10 minute break. Remind MA not to communicate about case during the break

[There is suddenly a lot of communication problems}
EJ: reiterates – 20 minute break
[BREAK]
[Sorry – typo, it’s a 10 minute break not 20, and the court will be resuming shortly]
[We resume]
EJ [checks presence of the other 2 panel members]
EJ: please mute and turn off cameras, if you have to rejoin plese remember again
EJ: reporting restrictions re comlainants 1-4
BC: Board meeting minutes – true and accuracte?
MA: yes
BC: We see “one CGD” described as in operation and later we see bullets: says one CGD has worked well – some glitches but that CGDE overall has seamlessly remained part of the global operation
BC: You are putting a different spin on things now bcs youi think it will help your case now
MA: disagree
BC: look at CGD grounds of resistance, you read and approved, says CGD and CGDE operate as separate organisations. THis is incomplete and misleading on any view, because of one CGD principle?
MA: separate boards of trustees, separate legal structures
BC: I am talking about operations. So is the grounds of resistance. Not accurate, not complete
MA: Accurate. We could have gone on to talk about one CGD
BC: Would have been accurate if it had said “one CGD” with a few variations.
MA: Disagree, different structures
BC: you are spinning
MA: disagree
BC: not aware of the fundraising around MF’s tax and flows work until late in process?
MA: Correct re Gates grant but had been aware of some earlier
BC: Feb 2018 discussion re MF being staff member. You see it talks about fundraising for the tax & illicit flows work and you approve of this in that context?
MA: Yes I agreed she should stay as VF and we should look for funding
BC: You knew tax & illicit flows had been strategic for CGD for some years?
MA: yes
BC: this was a positive conversation from you re revising staff position in the future
MA: yes I was positive about MF’s work on it, but saying that after looking at her resume she needs to broaden work but yes positive re her existing work
BC: and she broadened her work, did stuff on commecial confidnetiality
MA: yes a few more years she would have been credible candidate
BC: 3 March email from Mr Barder. He says he wd like to bring claimant on to CGD staff
MA: yes
BC: a couple of weeks after the discussion we looked at before. Based on positives from you?
MA: No. Not on this email. Not aware. Didn’t discuss with Mr Barder
BC: THis is your email to Mr Barder. Yes you talk of limits to engagment timewise, but that is in context of funding coming.
MA: yes
BC: Then you & OB talk of releasing funds for work for MF meanwhile
MA: [details of projects]
BC: engagement of claimant was depending on funding and work available
MA: this was just a conversation about London budgetting and it came up
BC: October 2018. EM emails you after discussion of claimant tweets saying you might want to heads-up Mark Plant, there has been discussion of DFiD funding. THere had been convo with EM re claimaint’s future
MA: I had talked to Mr Plant but don’t recall with EM, perhaps they spoke to each other
BC: EM is talking about removing MF from Gates grants
MA: no only about DFiD
BC: Email here (not to you) EM urging removal from Gates grant. Reflects what you had discussed with EM
MA: no. We had discussion about a different person and different funding
MA: Thing about MF coming off grant is related to the other thing EM and I had been talking about
BC: email from Mr Easley in October saying you are leaning towards not renewing. You had been discussing with him too.
MA: No. I am saying that I’m not ready to renew because of lots of discussions going on. Was not going to be rushed just because VF expiring that day
BC: Mr Plant emails after convo with you, you had said you didn’t want to push for DFiD funding etc because you didn’t think claimant should be working on that.
MA: No. In convo I said he needed to pause so that we wouldn’t aggravate things if we didn’t renew, and he said OK
MA: And we had also discussed there not being a long term future in that area of topic. But I can see how he is presenting it.
BC: He was being truthful, and at the time you fed him a line not the real reason. MF beliefs were your real reason.
MA: I disagree
MA: Subsequently talked to Mr Plant along the same lines, in my statement, I say I thought he and I were on same page
BC: You and Mr Plant email. You are trying to get Gates to give you pretext for your message, your internal purposes. You are not saying you want to reposition, and will discuss with Gates. Other way round: want to get rid of MF and will seek to get Gates to back up
MA: not at all. When EM objected re consultant I said I was happy with MF as consultant. That’s why we went to SPG
BC: Mr Plant says the possibility of redirecting the grant had not happened, so plan was abandoned. But up to that point it is what you were trying to do.
MA: No I was quite happy for her to continue to work
BC: Reality is that because of MFs expression of her belief and the reaction of EM and others, you had sought with them to redirect funding and take MF off grant
MA: not the case
BC: You knew MF had been giving impression would be taken on as employee and had been fundraising for that, and you had previously supported
MA: No was supportive of project
BC: Email from EM (not to you) she says as of 17/12 terminating MF’s email and VF until resolved
MA: yes
BC: You then CCd in and you say while it’s being addressed should not be action prejudicing issue
MA: yes
BC: You well understood there had been a decision not to terminate the VF
MA: yes until we decided 1 way or the other
BC: Grounds of resistance, you approved, says MF did not have any affiliation or relationship then – misleading spin, even flatly untrue
MA: No, accurate, in formal sense contract had expired, I just did not want to act either way or make it harder to either continue or terminate
BC: My final Q and last chance to come clean. You said from 1/1/2019 MF had no affiliation or relationship with CGD or CGDE. [Lists email, website etc]
BC: not true is it
MA: Accurate to say no formal, also to say we allowed her some privileges
BC: Those are all my questions.
EJ: Does panel member 1 have any Qs
P1: no
EJ: P2?
P2: no
EJ: nor me
[OD begins closing que3stions]
OD: did you watch Luke Easley’s evidence. He said many operations separate. You agree?
MA: yes that’s my understanding
OD: You talk of risks outweighing benefits. You say if there had been consensus 2 months earlier might have been different. Did you mean the SPG december meeting?
MA: yes
OD: What changed beetween Dec and Feb re moving forward?
MA: I was more aware of the risks than in Dec. Understood more about the risks of claimant’s strong engagement. And that we had already invested too much time and trouble
MA: Had to repair relationships in leadership team. Even with “reluctant consensus” I could foresee all kinds of future problems. Had to make management decision.
OD: the video is mentioned by Cindy Huang on 7 December. Did you learn of the vidoe then?
MA: [I have missed answer]
OD: There were convos on Slack. We see discussion re pamphlet, claimant and others discussion. Is this when you became aware of it or was it earlier?
MA: Can’t say with certainty but I had not actively noticed re pamphlet before
OD: Between Dec and Feb. You said more aware of risk etc. What led you to being more aware?
MA: I read the QI reports and MF response. I think the response, along with, later, final email she sent, showed me she felt v strongly & felt we should discuss. All led me to decision
OD: will check with solicitors – 1 minute please
OD: No more questions
EJ: releases MA.

EJ: all evidence complete.
EJ: barrister submissions. We have not discussed timings and time limits. You have the rest of today to prepare. We suggested 3 hours each?
BC: OD & I have conferred, our preference would be to have clear working day for written subs, so would like to start after lunch tomorrow, and yes we would like 3 hours each though will do our best to economise, takes us to Wed lunch, that eats into your deliberation time
EJ: Panel has also discussed, that very nearly works, we had worked back and said submissions must be complete by Weds lunch. Not quite 6 hours as the court time is 5.5 hours less breaks. But yes it more or less works.
EJ: So we will resume oral hearing tomorrow afternoon.
EJ Can I check this is OK with P1 and P2?
P1 & P2: both happy. We will get written submissions in the morning?
OD: We hope to exchange 12/12.30 tomorrow. So some reaading time
EJ: And we will have them to refer back to, so that is probably OK to have them a little while before oral submissions.

EJ: [has lost Anya Palmer]

BC: We think this is about email –
AP: yes
BC: We have disclosed one more doc for the bundle, as last page, re the video
EJ: Only I have that. Any objection Ms Dobbie?
OD: Can’t see relevance but no objection. Also there is a doc for us to add as it was referred to re Ms Glassman
EJ: Will make written submissions available in the bundle we make public online. Resume 2pm tomorrow.
[ENDS]

Day 12: PM: Olivia Dobbie’s Closing Submission

OD: Lack of time means my submission reads more like a speaking note.
I remind Panel of the mission of CGD ,CGDE.
Neither of the respondents missions are concerned with definition of a woman. Looking at an overview of the case, our case if MF was never and employee or an applicant under Gates grant
Not obliged to have mission undermined by individual behaviour that are contradictory to policy on inclusion etc
Even where manifestation of protected belief. Even if Tribunal needs to carefully read Eq Act and HR act. Under articles 9 & 10 an interference with manifestation of belief can be justified
Even if you find MF behaviour could not be split from belief you need to follow Lee & Ashers. ITs compelled speech to associate with employee in this situation.
Individuals who do not hold GC belief have their HR rights infringed (effectively)

The approach taken to limit MF expression was perfectly reasonable but MF didn’t follow guidance. MA took a measured and balanced approach to the issue
There was a rep risk from being associated with MF. Risk of compelled speech on employees
MF final plea where she wanted VF renewed, she said she had decided not to tweet very much ie she wasn’t going to stop
She only said she would use personal pronouns in most not all social situations. MA concern on risks was reasonable. MA still offered a paid contract such that her income was not affected – measured and lawful approach
MA balanced MF rights and those of other e’ees. Now on employment status… MF argues that she is employed under a contract of a person to do work. She argues not being offered emplyed role on Gates
she was an applicant. [case references]. Case law and commentators agree that this is same test as limb B workers under Employ Rights Act. [Further case refs]
In this ref it states that difference between a worker and someone who is employed personally to work is a distinction w/o difference [ref Pimlico Plumbers]
Hope this is not controversial as I will build on this. So employed under a contract personally to do work and those who are self- employed see [ case ref] test. Does the person perform services under directions for money or do they provide independent services with no boss

Ive set out in my sub core aspects of test Panel needs to apply. MF must demonstrate there was a contract, that it required her to work personally and whether she was working for someone. Further case ref cited
Consider the period between end of 2nd contract and start of 3rd and 4th contracts. She had no paid contract for work and received no pay.
Need to consider mutuality of obligation. Need to show there is a contractual agreement. This is relevant re BC point as to whether there was an overarching umbrella contract during the whole time
Further case law cited. Other case law shows its legitimate to consider lack of obligation between contracts when looking at the nature during course of a contract
The same factors are need for deciding an employee in strict sense are same as whether someone is a worker in an extended sense but pass mark is lower.
Recall MF set up consultancy business in yr 2000. At all times she had her own website page offering her services. Her CV says she is an experienced researcher etc .. she has worked with NGOs etc etc.
So for 15yrs prior to this she had her own well established consultancy business. She accepts first contract was a genuine consultancy contract.
2nd contract. We can see MF has a large degree of input on concept for project. She drafted ToR that were appended to that contract. Collaborative with VR. During 2016 she had no pay and was meeting with funders.
Same activity she would do anyway to seek new work. No promise of deferred remuneration. BC will argue that work was put her way under contract 3 & 4 so she could continue to fund for tax work. We disagree. What she always does for new work
She was paid under 3 and 4 for work under those contracts. Back to 2nd contract. Note lack of obligation for MF to attend offices or lunches – I state this a red herring anyway. We all agree even employed staff
do not have to attend office, only lunches. MF was only encouraged to attend weekly lunch
When you look at interactions with MF and entity for 2nd contract, MF had large input in timetable, scoping and negotiating it. MF has large amount of autonomy.
Consider that contract carefully when you deliberate. She was not forced to accept standard , boiler plate terms except for terms like confidentiality. Freedom when it came to the work
The written agreement are significant in this case as they reflect how MF interacted with respondents in practice. MF was required to provide invoices for her work up to end of 2018
She made clear which entity she was billing. Reflected the written contract. She never received a salary or wage despite her attempts to argue this in evidence.

MF was responsible for her own tax and deductions. I will submit the break between 2nd and 3/4 contracts shows that there was no umbrella relationship
VR asked MF whether she wanted to continue to work on a proposal if more funding. Its clear that MF and VR had not agreed an ongoing relationship.
MF said interested but not if commuting daily. She tries to bridge period between contracts by showing she was late to finish work under 2nd contract. She billed final invoice dec 2017. She was not entitled to further work after that.
In Jan 2017 VR asked whether any luck on funding… nothing to show there was any obligation. And MF did not express this expectation to the respondents.
21 Feb 2018 MF says she will need funding some time soon. We know that Ford seed grant was not extended into 2018. Discussions about hiring MF as employee started…. They talk about pitching MF as ‘wider than tax’
and this is key. I.e. her work to date was too narrow for an employee role. VR reported back to MF that MA wants you to broaden scope of you work before we revisit taking you on full-time.
MF later seeks to resurrect pre Feb 2018 discussions but clearly this is untenable as we can see what everyone thought at Feb 2018. MA and OB stated that in any event a commitment will be limited in time and scope.
By this time MA knew that VR and OB wanted to employ MF. Therefore, he is making a broad statement about any commitment to Maya.
3rd contract. March 2018. Boiler plate terms are nearly identical to 2nd contract. It was for a one-off paper and for a different entity (this one for the London entity). Plainly a consultant contract.
4th contract. I put to MF that she could have rejected this work at that time. MF said she couldn’t as had already said she was interested. She had autonomy to reject overall.
Discussion about lump sum vs day rate – all proposed to MF to comment on. Again MF has lots of input. Consider also the terms of this contract identical to 3rd contract in terms of boiler plate wording.
So MF not in a position of subordination at any stage. MF continues to invoice (sometimes as little as 4 days a month). She also works for other clients eg in 2018 the B team(?)
MF was continuing to operate as a consultant. Now MP and MF are in discussion later in 2018. MP says if 50% funding we can discuss employment. Clear that employment to consider employment depends on funding.
Its clear that discussion never got beyond this. We know now that when MP had spoken to MA about MF, MA reiterated what he said to VR and OB in March 2018.
Relevant to show there was not a role available as funding not secured. She also needed to expand her work but never got to that stage

The need for a post grad qual – only ever one other person w/o this to be appointed to research staff
MF was at no time in a position that would undermine written contract. It operated in practice like the contract. There was no umbrella contract. Its clear by the gap between 2nd and 3rd contract where comms show no expectation of work to be offered or accepted.
MF’s argument that respondents are one and the same is misplaced in law. I won’t go into but its in my written submission. the London entity was not a ‘brass plaque’ or ‘PO Box’.
The programme structure didn’t happen until MP came to start to implement in Dec 2018. Operations were not coordinated between the entities. Integration started much later.
Given no umbrella, the tribunal should focus on relationship under 4th contract. MF was at no time in a subordinate position and was not employed personally to work.
Neither was she an applicant to work. MA explained that she would need a few more years to be a credible candidate to support an employed role. Finally MP didn’t decide not to offer work in dec 2018. He was simply correcting his own misunderstanding about how far along MF was
Moving on to substative claims. There is a point of difference between me and BC on the comparator. The comparator is someone who does not share GC beliefs but who produces the same tweets and internal comms and behaviours
EJ: Thats a bit impractical but that’s quoted [in case ref – page] dint it?
OD: it is. Refers to more case law and Lee and Ashers. Discussion around indissociability.
I submit this is not a case where MF can say her behaviour was indissociable from the belief. MF cannot say the compulsion to go on twitter, bring in the pamphlet to work are indissociable from holding GC beliefs.
Eg case law around a Pacifist distributing leafleting. So I ask you whether campaigning about changes to GRA is nothing other than a proxy for holding the belief. Same for calling someone a man in a dress. OR describing those who dont hold GC beliefs as having a delusion.
See Page case law. Sir, I say this is similar to Page in this regard. If you find her behaviour was indissociable you would still need to read down [ ref] eg what the situation would be if the request to ice a cake in support of gay marriage would be indissociable.
if it were, the freedom not to be obliged to manifest a belief is also protected. The right to remain silent. Further case law. Lady Hale found in Lee and Ashers that being required to promote a campaign is separate to being associated with it.
The associated is by the way. However, I submit the connection here is much more direct than seeing the logo on the cake box in Ashers.
Her connection to the respondents online included the website , whenever she did an article, the website had her twitter handle etc. Her followers were from the development community
Many were prominent leaders with combined audiences of 160 to 180k followers. The risk in this case in the association if VF renewed is much greater than the bakers in Lee and Ashers.
If you were to find the message were indissociable then you can read down this is compatible with convention rights. You then need to weigh up interferences
On MF convention rights eg non-renewal of VF waived must be balanced against those on the other side. Corporate and employees have their own Art 9 rights.
Was the unwanted conduct related to the protected belief. She refs in my submission for other cases. When is something a manifestation?
If you find that decisions were taken because of a manifestation then Art 9,2 is where you can justify interference. Either way you need to consider this and consider mechanism in Lee and Ashers – risk of compelled speech if MF is retained as a VF or employed.
If you find conduct was related to a protected belief then Ive set out the relevant case law and the matters to consider in my submission.
EJ: Lets have a 15 minute break now.

OD: the culture of the respondent. Employers are entitled to set culture, I submit MF should have known concept of GI was recognised + respect and inclusion for trans rights.
She was part of discussion where break-out groups by GI not sex. MF said culture in London allowed range of discussion. But please consider some in London eg Ian Mitchell thought it was appropriate MF should apologise for language.
Arthur Baker also criticises her. Complainant 3 was based in London and did complain. MP felt she did need to be held to task for denying feelings. So suggestion that London office was a Wild West should be reconsidered.
Going to her comms. Tweet re Pips Bunce and manels. MF knew PB described as gender fluid. Yet part-time cross dresser is used.
Dismissive to describe someone who is NB and gender fluid in this way. GI is internal, clothes are just expression as PB said in article.
Other tweets. Saying mans feeling he is a woman has no basis in material reality. Rachel Dolezal tweet. AB says I dont see why you have to refuse to acknowledge in normal life. MF goes to assault, and gets dramatic
We see MF mocks those who dont hold a GC belief. E.g. ‘Colour me surprised that some believe male people can be woman and old hat to need a word for woman.’ etc she is dismissive of those who dont share her belief. say they are ‘tying themselves in knots’
She also posted the campaign video and the pamphlet. Specifically bringing the pamphlet into office is extending the campaign into workplace. No evidence anyone else bought in campaigning literature. Witnesses agreed with this.
Infers risk to safety of other with self ID. This is truly propaganda and completely inappropriate to commend to colleagues.
Describes PB as ‘man in heels; talks to AB about ‘literal delusion’ in Slack. She talks about David Challenor a cis male who is convicted for pedophilia and torture of child. She accepted he was not trans but a cross-dresser
There was moral panic here linking trans to infiltration of Green Party. Reflect on the way LE, AG and MA approached the matter. BC said it wasn’t until HS said they were dinos that they then thought phobic.
But some of complainants 1 to 4 had already complained so this argument doesn’t work. MF is then emailed and told not to use exclusionary statements etc. It wasn’t knee-jerk. So not direct discrimination
LE emphasises distinction between how staff engage with each other vs views. Got to consider others. Even towards the end there were genuine attempts to handle a divisive and destructive situation they were in
LE draft policy around not wanting e’ees to speak for the org. See Lee and Ashers and compelled speech. Says they were not intending to limit right to free speech.
People are not calling her a bigot or phobic. MF reply to LE email caused concern. She says she will continue to say TW are male and makes no apology. She didn’t clarify within the tweet stream that her own views.
MF likens GD to anorexia an illness to be cured. Not the case for trans or having GD. They manifest GI to align more closely with how they identify – dont treat as an illness.
Now no to blogs. A risk here if she is a VF and writing blogs. MF must have known her reply was combative. She forwards to OB and says sorry no instinct for self preservation. She also forwards it to others. She doesn’t care if any of them are offended.
She is very combative and non-conciliatory. We know management were divided about how to manage risks. Note OB did not share GC belief – MP and OB disagreed.
When they got blog post OB says no intention of discouraging you but recognises sensitivity. He tries to tweak language. MF says no, need to be clear when male. Typical of her style when talking about TW and SS spaces
Various ppl said blog post needed to be more relevant to CGE activity. After LE email, MF carried on tweeting eg FPFW video. MP got complaints. He told MF.
Argument that if more ppl get GRC then sex crime will go up. Linking partner being murdered by partners with GRCs – tenuous. The stats are used to unnerve the observer. Not true to say ‘end of SS spaces’

Now on to Comic Relief tweets. MF knew this was about celebrating women and included a TW. However, MF talks about individuals who identify as a 6 yr old. Clearly mocking.
Seeking advice from Ruth Szabo and QI was totally reasonable. Consider MF reply. ‘I dont think QI report is useful and I do not accept.’
This report talked about tolerance and respect in the workplace and other laudable suggestions. Yet MF criticises.
MF final plea says she will tweet less but that she will still do it. And only preferred pronouns in most not all social situations.
MF says in one email ‘bonkers that economist types accept this with a straight face’ again mocking others beliefs
MA talked about not having consensus in the December SPG . But by February he felt risks too great whether or not consensus. This shows his own decision.
MA reasons are in his statement. With MF he didn’t go into things such as MF costing money or taking up a lot of management time however this was no doubt on his mind
Its clear the respondent is concerned about reputation etc. On 28 Feb when MA narrated decision to MF with some of the reasons I submit she rejected Gates contract at or shortly after this. She spoke to a lawyer on same day.
Draft email to ombudsperson we can see MF setting out a broader account than what she provided to MA. She alleges discrimination due to not renewing VF.
4th March she emailed Vishal at Gates and was seeking to poach that work at a new institution. Can she plausibly assert that thereafter she might have gone back and accepted that contract?? Its untenable and impacts on her credibility.
Even if MF perceived MA email as withdrawal of contract… EJ: Not quite following. OD: From comms its clear there is no mention of contract withdrawn. EJ: BC may say that the thanking sounded as though relationship at an end. Are you saying no act of withdrawing the contract?
OD: MF may have perceived it that way but wasn’t. EJ: If employer gives impression of withdrawal is that not a detriment? OD: there was no withdrawal. we can see from internal comms that SPG were talking about drafting a contract
I do submit sir that this is not a case about the belief but the expression. Then we are in Art 9, 2 territory and other case refs such as Lee and Ashers.
The offer of the Gates contract (21 Nov comm). I argue this wasn’t a withdrawal of the offer but a correction that it would be expected further along in time. This is not connected to the later matters.
MF would have to persuade tribunal to extend time. The onus is on her to this. She knew of right to bring claim when she responded to QI report and cites a legal claim about protected beliefs. We know she got legal advice on 28 Feb and formed view she had a good case.
Ive set out some stats for indirect sex discrimation claim, the assertion that more women hold GC beliefs. I have shown the opposite in my submission
Removal from the website. You should consider various other protected acts that happened and she remained on the website. Only deleted after Sunday Times article. LE explained due to negative press.
OD makes further arguments to show that victimisation claim should fail on its facts. I would like to save time for a right of reply.
EJ: OK there are 50 minutes left that you have. Thank you OD. BC we have not read your submission. How long do you think you will be? BC: Around 2 hours.
EJ: Ok lets close for today. We can read your statement and return at 10am tomorrow.

Day 13: AM – Ben Cooper QC Closing Submission

BC: start by saying a few things about claimants protected belief. The EAT judgement conclusion and summarise the claimants belief. We extracted a few aspects of that in our subs.
You’ll see that we identify part of the claimants belief of biological sex and it is reality…and GI cannot change biological sex. Its not recognised by witnesses this is an important core protected belief. Sex matters and sometime should take presidence
BC (cont): it’s a core and protecteded part of claimants belief and may be upsetting for some males who identify as women. It may be upsetting to ae ppl to be told not to use female spaces that’s not a reason to compromise women’s safety
BC: there’s not a statement in EAt that to make that statement is ignited or transphobic or inappropriate.
BC: you must consider belief in their entirety and whether a part. Whether statement is a manifestation of belief or objectively offensive or transphobuc. You need to have those beliefs in mind.
BC: OD had a tendency to say ‘holding’ a belief, in EA 2010, a ref to a person with a partic PC, ref of a person ‘OF’ a belief. Q determined on authorities whether PC and gow far it extends to a manifestation or expression. Not limited to holding, it is OF the belief

BC: the PC of GC, first two points, 1, GC are not inherrantly offensive or transphobic, they do not involve paying moral judgement of trans people or denying their feelings. They’re based know different held value judgements about sex and gender
BC: 2nd point is as there is a misunderstanding of GC belief, they are a vulnerable group easily stigmatised and at risk of unjustified complaint who are offended by views
BC: [cites case Miller – reading ] the judge says the topic Mr Miller was tweeting and plainly public matter of interest…where it falls into that category it requires strong protection.
BC: Dame Sharp identifies opposing views of the balance of harms that I put to a number of witnesses. She expressly says these are matters of public interest and in NO way that saying Self ID is risk to a women is fearmongering
BC: many women supported Mr Millers claim. This shows the pressure on Kathleen Stock and cancel culture and fear of expressing views. The claimant said in reposnse to QI report there is climate of fear and shut down of the debate
BC: Stocks describes that twitter is stifling debate…some involved in debate label those with different views as transphobic which they are NOT
BC: speaks of Kathleen’s stocks she points, one being misgendering, note the Claimant says she will not misgender. Stock describes utterances as observable facts.
BC reads Kathleen stock and Stonewalls descriptions. DAme Sharp is adopting and her citation of SW definition indicates SW itself, defines transphobia in a way that would encompass the NON transphobic propositions by Prof Stock
BC: I invite you to consider tweets under consideration in Miller case, described as opaque but nevertheless help by court of appeal and endorsed. I’d ask you to contrast claimants tweets next to Mr Miller.
BC: Prof stock evidence demonstrated how some ppl in debate who quick to judge others as transphobic, when they are not, and simply hold a different view.
BC: particular contact of miller’s case was police action and analysing risk and impact for ppl with GC beliefs. ‘Mr Miller belong to a group easily stigmatised, member of a class of people affected by this
BC: GC views are not inherrantly offensive and those with PC of GC belief at risk because of prejudice and stigmatisation that misunderstands their belief as being transphobic. That is the nature of belief in question.
VC: in light of subs yesterday I need to go back to acceptance and tolerance. The prohibitions on harassment in EA are concerned with quality of treatment. They require employers NOT to pick and choose on any PCs in the act.
BC: the reason for this [ashers case cited] Baroness Hail judgement. (Reads) ‘it is deeply humiliating to deny someone a service or employment because of race, gender, etc’.

BC: the prohibitions in EA are concerned with PCs as to treat differently is humiliating and affront to dignity. There is nor hierarchy of pCs and must what’s applied must work for all. Its not a PC we must tolerate while holding our noses,no less valuable than the colour of skin
BC: the fact some are prejudice of GC and are too ready to take offence is all more reason to enforce protection more rigorously and not to pander. Ca you imagine a sub been made, like OD, that CGD should have a right not to associate with a person with a skincolour…
BC: and etc, the submission is exactly the same as this. The reason the sun is flawed as it would set to one side the core concept of tolerance. We have EA because people are prejudice.
BC: EA tries to prevent differential treatment, the principle of tolerance is at the heart of EA. Particularly refs to Miller…which emphasis the properistions that is a Democratic Society, diversity of belief and view is essential
BC: the role of the state is NOT to facilitate the exclusion of ppl with different beliefs but require them to tolerate each other.
BC: in Azhers case its about enforcing tolerance not pandering to prejudice. An employer has a right NOT to be compelled to associate with beliefs of which they are uncomfortable.
BC: That’s a pretty dangerous sub for respondents. Involves premise the reason to dissociate wad beliefs of claimant not the manner they were expressed. It was a complete misreading of Ashers.
Bc: stated in the case, ‘actively participate’. ‘It is not a right to eliminate an association with a person who expresses belief’ and employers have a right to do that.
BC: Any belief the employer doesn’t like, employer can say this and faced with keeping all beliefs to themselves …(distraction online)
Pick up Ashers again.
BC: Hale reviews the prudence in compelled speech (reads) and refers to [case cited] and refer to [case cited]. I emphasise this phrase ‘ this was sufficiently active participation.
BC: All of these involve ‘active participation’ and the question of compelled speech as to whether it is ‘active’.
BC: (reading case) the fact a Baker provides a cake for witches doesn’t mean baker support witches. OD suggests mere Association is enough.
Someone being compelled to speak, others might understand they don’t support the msg. Point she is considering is not nebulous Association, she is saying someone has been compelled to speak and Q is whether it matters they might NOT to support it
BC: the fact that ppl would think of that association…is by the way…what matters is by being required to produce cake they were required to produce msg they disagreed.

BC: Ashers DOES NOT say mere Association with ppl expressing belief amounts to compelled speech. It says ppl can be required to actively participate in the expression of manifestation if belief. It has absolutely NO relevance to this case.
BC: OD can list as many as she likes but there is no refusal to adopt Claimant’s belief, to publish blogs…the claim is all about the treatment of the claimant, the discrimination and nothing in Ashers is relevant
BC: we’ve proposed a structure and suggest that you start as an ordinary direct discrimination case, not the nuances of article 10 and 8.
It’s our case that if you approach this on ordinary direct disc principles you can both start and finish your analysis.
BC: these will be familiar with you as they are the ordinary principles. The evidence supports an inference that all detriment complained… were collective decisions by core group of MA MP EM AG and LE.
BC: They were influenced by prejudice in Miller. Substantive GC beliefs were transphibic. Evidence supports significant and primary part.
BC: The detriment to which claimant complains were all part of a reaction to her beliefs on this subject and less favourable that Respondents would treat any other belief.
BC: you can’t choose just to treat the things you like in the same way. Our primary case, the comparator is someone expressing a different belief in same forums and equivalent rone and manner.
BC: that the respondents did not rreat any other belief in this way is clear, whether they would, I would highlight in particular the culture, OB talking of vasectomy. Clearly would not treat views of sexual conduct in same way they did the Claimant
BC: OB talking of circumcision being child abuse is another example. Robust term ‘child abuse’. Another example, the report called ‘fake news’…plainly robust and one might say ridiculing language on twitter and attacking others in the field
BC: OB publically criticises claimants views on manels..clearly they don’t view their behaviour as they did the claimants. If you look at they’re more sensible phase, early on, AG looked issue…
BC: AG said she was concerned about interfering with twitter…what they’re doing with claimant is singling her out and less favourable to her because of her beliefs. If we look at core principles that is the end of this case.
BC: I emphasis a fact finding exercise which focuses carefully on respondents reasons for doing things, in light of material they considering at that stage, OD had a magpie like tendency to highlight claimants words to stitch together a picture she wanted to paint.
Bc: it needs to be carefully considered exercise. I will focus on what I suggest 4 keys that unlock core issues in this case 1st, meeting between claimant and MP.
BC: that meeting it was common ground she would not be taken in as employee and reasons given cast light backwards as why indication changed. Cast light forwards about the reliability and credibility of respondents
BC: the claimant pleaded in terms the meeting MP told her they’d changed their minds and proposed consultancy on the gates. MP made it clear was about tweets.
BC: In grounds of resistance, the respondents denied in terms which I have established are not true despite the witness dislike of that characterisation.
BC: evidence you now have is claimants account which is consistent with what she was telling other ppl when she was emailing about this topic.
BC: then you have MP on day 9 he can’t recall one way or another whether he said what claimant said he said to her.
BC: you are all but bound to accept claimant on that meeting. You then see later MP briefing RS, ‘the controversy surrounding her position had no bearing’
BC: once you’ve accepted MP decision not to make employee, then the conclusion is inevitable this briefing on repositioning, it follows what follows is spin and deliberately misleading
BC: casting light backwards, we have glimpses from docs of what was going on. If you didn’t have this key to unlock it you could just about stitch that together, but from the meeting on 1st…
BC: the only sensible reading of that material given the secret way its address is there was deliverate effort to redirect funding away from claimant to provide pretext for abandoning relationship

BC: why would she be told it was because of tweets when said that wasn’t the controversy. Bear in mind MP in Nov has said relationships are broken because of tweets. What hope had she of being a fellow or further work?
BC: what was the point of the whole process and what effect did MF have on decisions. We knew in Nov the relationships were irrecoverable broken so all the other stuff is not what this is about.
BC: This all about principle knee jerkreaction of Washington office that found MF unacceptable.

I asked MP which ppl were offended by MF, I asked if EM had involvement and MP could not remember. Look for what MF said and how she said it none you will find.
BC: They’ve taken a decision NOT to cl her. The absence of EM evidence is v important. Mp confirmed that one person said ‘you can’t say that’. Inconsistency between MP and AH, MP gives us a clearer reaction that was expressed at SPG meetings.
BC: MA spun most of this and was forced to abandon his distinction. Then you have MP on day 10 saying the action taken against MF was driven by misunderstanding in Washington office of her beliefs.
BC: second key of MP evidence and gives the lie to spin they now seek to put in case, it was the manner and expression of MF tweets.
BC: third key is express reasons as to why claimant wasn’t given fair opportunity to respond to specific concerns of language. You always had QI report for deliberately not putting specifics to MF.
BC: But MP said expressly on day 9, he didn’t want MF explaining herself in response to concerns as it would aggravate Washington.
BC: Putting together QI and MP is C was deliberately denied ability to respond about language and tweets because A) entrenched prejudice in Washington b) because wad thought nothing she could say could defend without aggravating.
BC: Essentially that is the no debate position identified in Miller. Anything she might say would be offensive and should NOt be given opp to say it. The 4th key is collection of emails form MP
BC: (missed) by far the best and contemporous evidence and explicitly it was the claimant’s offence.
BC: the real reason is the only thing the aiming change was her views and not consistent to CGD…these emails make my case that the reasons were the claimant’s beliefs.
BC: There was a less detrimental way of managing open to respondents and their intransigence meant that line was not taken. Shall we break there?
EJ: yes we resume at 11.30
This @wommando signing off and passing over to my esteemed colleague @goodyactually who will take us to the end of the hearing today.
Thank you @wommando!
This is Jenny Smith @GoodyActually – after the break Ben Cooper will complete his closing arguments. A reminder that Olivia Dobbie for the respondents yesterday reserved some time in case she wished to speak further after that.
[We resume]

BC: Will now address “separability” – the way the Equality Act is to be applied in the context of the HR Convention. This may not be entirely familiar to the Tribunal.
BC: Headlines are: this question of separability between belief and expression. It engages articles 9 and 10. It is about expanding the scope of the EA2010 protections re 9 and 10, not about limiting them.
BC: If we get to this point, you will have found that the detriments were not to do with the belief but were consequences of expression. But you cannot even so do the exercise OD suggested, of picking out snippets.
BC: Any analysis of separability has to be about whether anything complained of can actually be separated from the belief.
BC: Will only look at one case here but full authorities in bundle.
BC: Argument here is that action taken against a claimant is not dissociable from the belief. Judge is clear that separability is different from indissociability.

BC: If you were to find that CGD’s only reason for actions against claimant was offence taken by their employees and that offense was itself discriminatory, this is where we would rely on indissociability, but that’s not the same as separability
BC: I said articles 9 and 10 engaged. Authority here: re submission that article 10 not engaged; Judge says not sure it’s as clear as that, and does not resolve question. But clear judge is not saying Art10 has no relevance.
BC: Art9 very clearly protects expressions closely linked and integral to a protected belief
BC: gives example of belief in traditional family and points to manifestations in Q as being closely linked. Including direct statements of belief
BC: Art10 much wider protection for freedom of speech. Q is how far can EA2010 be stretched to encompass Art9 and Art10 rights.
BC: [another case] It is necessary in discrimination to ascertain reason for actions. This is the case here. In cases of protected belief – judge draws manifestation/belief distinction but says it may not be possible to separate
BC: Analogy – if was protected characteristic of race, could include colour of skin, birthplace, parents’ birthplace. With belief it’s the same – what is and is not included as part of the category. [Case] identifies manifestations that are under Arts9&10 as being within category
BC: Court will have to decide whether distinction belief/manifestation can in fact be made.
BC: Essential finding in [case] is that someone had not been acted against bcs belief nor bcs he had expressed them but bcs he had gone on TV to do so after being asked not to
BC: Key distinction is between absolute right to hold belief and qualified right to manifest it. Point is to give Art9 & Art10 rights
BC: So that is the “separability” distinction. So. If you were to reject my primary analysis, the Q is why respondent acted as they did, and was the action justified in context of qualified manifestation right
BC: There are some reasons that would not be good enough. Return to case of person going on TV to criticise same sex relationships.
BC: Court then found that he had legitimate-debate reasons for expressing his views, compare context of GRA-reform consultation.
BC: Court notes that action vs him was not about his views or reputational damage, it was about danger that gay people might not feel safe at the Trust. Different from this case, where no such risk.
BC: Court notes that offence by public or vague idea of reputational damage would not be enough in itself to justify action vs the claimant in that case
BC: Compare and contrast fact that MF was willing to modify / limit expression, did all that was asked.
BC: [another case] My submission is that this case is to all intents and purposes same as this one.
BC: Case was re student expression of religious views inc disapproval of homosexuality on social media, and whether dismissal of student from course was justified
BC: there’s discussion of freedom of belief, of the limits of manifestation being qualified. Court notes that at no point did university tell student it was the vocabulary, including religious terms, was the problem.
BC: Court notes polarisation of views.
BC: Court notes that student’s “intransigence” was natural reaction to being told he could never express his religious views.
BC: Implication of university’s submission is that religious beliefs can never be expressed if it’s possible to identify the author. Court says such a blanket ban cannot be proportionate.
BC: Court very clear on that. Blanket ban cannot be proportionate. Especially when no engagement with individual to guide how expression could be made.
BC: In this case. It was only perceived offence and putatative reputational damage CGD rely on. They did not engage with MF on how she could express. They did in effect impose blanket ban.
BC: If we look at email from Luke Easley. It says not asking MF to agree with CGD position but need to set ground rules – but we never see what those were, and it is later clear blanket ban in place.
BC: LE says CGD not trying to limit belief but sets that against “comfort” of other staff. Privileging that comfort over the belief
BC: LE says “it goes both ways” but when he wrote this he knew C1 had described MF as bigoted, anti-trans. But MF does not know this, because nobody every told her.
BC: LE can see from QI report that it makes same judgement, the belief is fundamentally wrong and offensive, but he simply adopts it, and when MF criticises he calls it intransigence.
BC: “Goes both ways” is fine words but it’s not what happened in practice.
BC: And we see as Mr Plant says that MF was being compliant, responding positively to requests etc. CGD cannot convince you that they had no other option re what to do. That is fatal to anything engaging Art9&10
BC: Just a few more points.
BC: relatively small but important Q of detriment re Gates project. Court must decide whether offer withdrawn or whether MF refused. We have in detail in written submission.
BC: If you find CGD withdrew, it’s immaterial whether they actually intended to. If you find they did & meant to that’s the detriment. If you find they did but did not mean to, detriment is unequal treatment.
BC: If you found that MF refused it via her farewell email, she is still entitled to compensation because she was responding to whole sequence of events – still amounts to constructive dismissal and we invite you to reach that decision.
BC: Re victimisation claim. First point is the “termination” email. Witnesses esp Mr Plant have confirmed they understood they were in belief-discrimination territory and feared litigation and the “termination” email went out as “send it and see”
BC: Second point is removal of website page. OD has not expanded on this; it is clear that this was not standard practice, and claims it was are false.
BC: And we note that it was when CGD submitted that false claim that they removed other pages. Fatal duplicity by CGD. Speaks to credibility.
BC: Many examples esp Mr Ahmed of disingenousness, spinning, duplicity. Court should add these up. When considering what likely to be true, Court should consider them all.
BC: Will not go through employment status, we have covered in opening and closing submissions, but a few points.
BC: Point of “Uber” was to start with statute and look at evidence of practice. OD’s argument re MF’s written contracts not valid.
BC: It’s not relevant that someone does other work, or has done in the past. What matters is the status in THIS employment.
BC: MF was not challenged on her statement that she viewed CGD as main job.
BC: Not relevant that she invoiced and was not PAYE.
BC: Most important factor is integration into the organisation. Fundraising – MF was not fundraising for some separate oneperson project. She was part of team fundraising for overall CGD project. Shows integration.
BC: Overarching relationship – we emphasise [case] which says that to find if there are sufficient mutual obligations you don’t have to have them spelled out, you can infer them from the full set of circumstance.
BC: CGD witnesses by and large agreed that MF’s VF was based on work being available.
BC: Authorities say that contract in common law is not required but in any case clear from [cases] that mutual obligations needed to found a contract don’t even have to involve a salary or pay; sufficient if obligation to work and benefit (cash or kind) present
BC: and LE agreed those were present in any VF
BC: Would like to emphasise it does not matter whether MF was employee or not other than for the period of her last contract. Because if she was, then when all this starts she was an employee
BC: Time limits. This is not a case of one off decision vs ongoing policy, it’s about is there enough of a link between detriments to count as one case
BC: which they clearly do. So court does not need to consider time limits, unless you de-link the detriments and find any out of time.
BC: Termination email was 5 March 2019; thereafter she finds she may have employment rights after all; files claim ten days later. No detriment to CGD by that delay
BC [checking for any notifications of things missed] [none]
EJ: Does Miss Dobbie intend to reply, does she need time to formulate
OD: Don’t need time but yes replies, hope to finish by 1
OD: Re [case] – reject BC view on this. Where there is danger of compelled speech or perception of it this case will apply. It was the icing of the cake would have been compelled speech.
OD: There are 2 separate matters – compelled to promote a campaign, and, being associated with it
OD: Re the association part. It is not the case that s/o can ONLY complain IF there is association by others.
OD: Judge says It is by the by, because it’s the cake icing that is the compelled bit. But we can see that it is part of the equation, that perceived association cd be a problem. Fundamentally disagree with BC’s take on this section.
[EJ reading it in detail]
EJ: 1 = actively promoting, 2 = associated with.
EJ: You are saying whole of that discussion is talking about second element?
OD: No, but it’s saying that the associating COULD be a problem, though it was not the issue in that case itself
OD: Not being associated with is part of “compelled speech”
OD: [case] itself relies on the icing, but, court acknowledges association could be issue. Is my view and where I disagree with BC.
OD: the public aspect of any message is going to be significant. See [case] where he went on TV. If employer’s name broadcast like that, there is that compelled association.
OD: re separability / indissociability. Invite court to consider the way was pleaded. See last sentence. Does not include importance of promulgating the belief as say Jehovah’s Witnessing would.
OD: So campaigning against reform of GRA2004, compulsion or need to tweet, compulsion or need to debate at work, compulsion or need to blog on employer’s platform – plus consider particular comments re man in dress, part time crossdresser –
OD: it can’t be argued that those are inseparable from the core belief as stated, in fact I say they are not even part of it.
OD: Even if you found they were manifestations, they are still subject to qualification (Article 9.2)
OD: re the VF. We know that Nov 2018 – this is after tweets, after blog, after HS’ supposed intervention and EM’s, and Szabo report, we see that Mr Ahmed still considering renewing.
OD: We see Mr Plant proposing renewal, EM objecting, Mr Ahmed saying “but she has only done 2 years so renewal is fine”. Clear that if SPG had agreed in Dec he would have renewed.
OD: Clear MA happy to proceed.

OD: So cannot be core belief that MA based decision on. He knew what it was, he knew objections.
OD: He knew all that well before this, but, renewal still on table. Must be things that happened later, post-SPG, that changed his mind.
OD: It was that he decided MF would not desist, was because of risks.
OD: We know video didn’t come to his attention from CH until day after the SPG
OD: MA was concerned re those messages continuing to be associated with CGD. Reputation damage. Diverting attention & time from work. People distracted.
OD: MA concerned, says in statement, that disruption etc would continue. Already 4 complaints, then the video comes up.
OD: Need for management to deal with all this.
OD: Decision making process –
BC: intervenes – right of reply should be on questions of law
OD: Did not read BC submission until after I had finished, no chance to consider on facts
EJ: convention is that right of reply is re law, but facts allowed, and this case should take the maximum information. Within reason. So we should hear whatever submissions either party wants to make
OD: So re the process, claim that EM a sort of Iago figure, contaminating with her prejudices – we can see it’s clear not true, all delegated to Mr Plant. So we can see that post-SPG matter lay with MA and MP
OD: Other SPG members had little input afterwards –
EJ: interrupts to say that OD has already made this point
OD: Apologieses. Re EM. Not involved, we see MA making decision on his own part only
OD: And as point of law, re EM, [names case], found that line manager had downgraded bcs of protected disclosures & put in appraisals, which NEXT line manager relied on, whole process found unfair
OD: But you can’t conclude that EM intervention was bcs discrimination
EJ: both parties appear to be relying on EM not being called …
OD: CGD did not add her as witness bcs her role minor.
OD: Point is you can’t infer that EM’s interventions were bcs of views themselves. EM concerned with whole workplace
OD: Myriad other reasons for EM views, including fallout, offence to staff, reputational risk.
OD: Re BC written submission – talks of “taking on” MF – context of recruiting others – says “taking on” MF for tax and transparency work. BC says implies intention to employ. But here MA says same phrase [cites page] when clearly only for a temp contract
OD: “Taking on” just a phrase – does not suggest employee per se
OD: BC suggest all can be unlocked by looking at msg to MF 21/11 when MP said he saw no route to VF. But MA is saying same day it was still open. Undermines suggestion that MA had already taken view re claimant and looking to squeeze her out
OD: Submit that Mr Plant had genuinely misunderstood the position. MA evidence accurate around this
OD: Re the 5/3 email, and considering whether it is “termination”. Must consider alongside MF farewell email. She says offer of work withdrawn then VF renewal withdrawn. She does not say offer of contact then also withdrawn.
OD: BC asked you to draw inference from not calling Holly Shulman. Pls note BC objected to addition of HS at late stage. We actually made application to call her.
OD: Also re the website page thing – any error in the grounds of resistance we tried to clear up – you recall the various emails re this – CGD people believed it was the standard practice. Did not realise till later it was not.
OD: So changing their witness statements re that was just trying to clear up confusion
[EJ intervenes to remind OD not to rerun whole case]
OD: [case] where public-facing was a matter of issue – that applies here, publicity
OD: re reliance on HR cases, cases that engage Art9 & 10 but are outside employment context. Ask court to consider those at slight remove.
OD: Art10 protections very wide – pornography, advertising. That does not mean an employer has to include them in workplace.
OD: Please don’t misquote me on mumsnet as comparing MF views to pornograhy.
OD: But, must consider Art 10 within workplace context
OD: [case]: says, re religion/belief – distinction between fact that claimants holds & manifests belief and the way they are manifested.
OD: I read that as saying they are separable and therefore Art9 not engaged
OD: Ask court to take distinction between holding belief, which is absolute, and manifestion which (9.2) can be qualified. BC & I don’t disagree here on law but do on application you should make
EJ: but this is the basic question
OD: yes, and again I think BC & I agree, you need to determine reasons for actions taken.
OD: And re association, publication on workplace “channels”. Fact that it had not happened doesn’t mean it wouldn’t.

OD: those are all my points.
EJ: please all remain in hearing for now – panel and I will have a brief conference re where we go from here
BC: would like to make a couple of points, factual correction
BC: first is re website. It has been asserted that they were unaware at the time of pleading re what was standard practice. Must correct that
BC: The ONLY doc ever disclosed (CGD declined to disclose further in support of abandoned application) – suggests they did know when pleading and there is NO evidence they did not.
BC: And re not calling HS and EM – OD says because not important personnel – but CGD have known for a long time about the “opposition” email re EM, and that we would use it. It is not true that CGD didn’t know it was important; you are allowed to draw adverse inferences
EJ: thank you Mr Cooper. As I said, panel will withdraw for brief discussion on Whatsapp, everyone else please stay.

[Panel withdraw]
[We resume]
EJ: we have nothing further to raise with either barrister. We will start deliberations this afternoon, and we have most of tomorrow, and Friday. We have also set April 7th to meet.
Cannot predict how far we will get in that time.
EJ: We will keep both parties informed. Am sure everyone will understand that it will take us time to reach decision, document, discuss with parties. It will be a lengthy process.
EJ: Aware of much public interest – please be aware it will be lengthy.
EJ: Court will continue to meet via video but those will be private sessions not open to the public
EJ: there is Q in chat re transcript for OD’s replies today. No, there is no recording and as said at outset, none must be made.

EJ: Asks everyone to leave.

[THE END – of the public court sessions, at least]
Thank you everybody that has been following the case, and for your interest in our #OpenJustice tweeting.