Jo Phoenix vs The OU Employment Tribunal 2nd October (whispers Ben Cooper)

Oh it absolutely is. I'm in a position where I have nothing to lose. It's not a great position to be in, but it's what I've got so I'm going with it.

Never ever put anything in writing/text that you would not want read out at an ET.

Never ever send an email/text when angry - always sleep on it or get a trusted colleague to review.

Mad isn't it? Be very very careful what you do - or don't - put down in writing. But be aware that you will be held responsible for everything you have - or haven't - said.

re GCRN group
JP We were all very afraid. Difficult to convey the amount of fear of putting your head above the parapet. In the bundle a whole lot of egs of what happened to academics when they put their head above the parapet.
JM nothing in these messages about anyone being afraid
JP Didn't need to talk about it. We all knew about it, didn't have to mention it in the Whatsapps. We had had the Edinburgh incident, Julie B assaulted, Stock harassment...
JM Would have talked about it if a fear.

JM seems to be maintaining that Whatsapp messages are now a window into people's souls. If it's not mentioned on Whatsapp you didn't feel it.

Prof Jo sounds tired and in need of a break. She is doing very well in keeping calm.

I think one of the things I'm taking away from this is the vital importance of taking contemporaneous records when you're in a difficult work situation. Taking notes and emailing them to yourself or something. Who needs to give context in a WhatsApp conversation when you're all in the same situation?

What a ridiculous line of questioning. OU counsel saying that because dangerous situation facing GC academics was not discussed by them in Whatsapp Jo can't say that they were all aware of it. It's the reason for them being so careful in communications!

Don't worry ickky, it's just frustrating that those of us who can log in can clearly see the numbers of observers but there is no way of being able to prove that to anyone else to help the cause for additional access. Because as you say, that would be illegal.

The conference hosts should have data on the number of attendees. I wonder if a request to them of a breakdown of attendance numbers would get anywhere.

Oh, JM accusing her of being a campaigning political person now, not an academic fighting for academic freedom.

OU counsel really trying to ram home the difficult woman trope.

@chilling19 there are considerably less than 50 people in total in the meeting. I'm not sure how you can follow that up without outing those of us in the meeting, and I can't take a screenshot to show it as that is expressly forbidden as part of the T&C of getting access. aargh.

@chilling19
10 days is of no use to you, obviously.
Re the number of 50, there only seem to be about 27 individuals listed in the side bar, 7 of which are 'Host'

Yes it's always women who are over sensitive but yet men fly into rages over words they don't like.

Surely 'shouldn't have' refers to the idea of just enjoying an easy life, rather than deliberate poking the bear/troublemaking?

Yes, I thought it was nasty. A cheap dig to suggest JP is not being 'genuine'.

Response to my complaint received this morning

'Thank you for your recent complaint received on 4 October 2023.

I am a Team Leader and I am writing in response to your complaint.

I am very sorry that you have not been able to get a CVP link to observe case number 3322700/2022.

I have been advised that the digital support officer assigned to this hearing made enquiries with the DTS IT helpdesk with regard to the number of observers that the CVP system can safely handle, having received a high volume of enquiries in the weeks leading up to the hearing. He was advised that there should be no technical issues - such as the system crashing - allowing an absolute maximum of 50 observers per day. We have acted on this guidance and limited the number of CVP observers for this reason

I am unable to comment on the fact that you have attended CVP hearings with 150 participants in the past.

If you're unhappy with my response

If you're unhappy with the way I've handled your complaint, you can ask our Operations Manager- […] to review it. Just write to […] at this address with details of why you're not happy:

[…] will get back to you within [10] working days.'

JP Sorry I don't mean to laugh.
JM I'm sure you do. [!]

That was a bit off, and quite bad faith from JM, wasn't it? JP had said sorry, and then JM kind of says 'no you're not'.

As JP had said sorry, who is JM to pretend (in a tribunal) to look into JP's mind and soul as to the sincerity of the apology.

JP Sorry I don't mean to laugh.
JM I'm sure you do. [!]
JP No, it's nervous laughter. Goes on to explain why being likened to Charles Murray (?) is unbelievably upsetting - it is being referred to as a racist.

...

JP The Forstater ruling gave me protection for my beliefs that hadn't been in place before it.