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

I think I'm already resigned to this going to appeal, one way or the other. I'm good to donate the same amount again when the time comes.

I'm aware that some of the crowdfunders draw large donations that really boost the coffers, and they are fabulous, but it's equally important that the world out there sees the very large quantity of smaller donations coming in regularly. So, standing by.

But she's a massive fan of being ridiculous and wasting precious time.

She's a pain in the bloody arse.

Just popping in to say I'm another one who has asked for a link to join and not received anything. Not even an acknowledgement that I've asked.

I noticed that not one of the observers, court staff, or lawyers with a remote connection to the hearing entered pronouns with their login name.
I rather wish I had. Just so I could change them every day. Because why shouldn't I be able to? The point is that I'm free to choose if I'm in girl mode or boy mode, isn't it?

Which leads me to wonder why the judge is not starting the proceedings every day with a pronoun round.

Because that would be ridiculous and a huge waste of time? Oh wait...

I have made a complaint using the link above. I have tried twice to get a link but no luck.

This is a really good point. Why on earth would you open yourself up to the kind of bullying this case is about? Although I think plenty of people have ignored that instruction.

And also, given the case is about an ideology which allows you to self ID something as immutable and important for safeguarding and the rights of other as your sex (and apparently, according to the judge you can also choose your pronouns), it seems really churlish to not let you also self ID something which people quite routinely change and is personal and unique such as your name.

Makes NO logical sense at all. None.

I don't use my real name and join without my camera so no-one can see me.

I think it was only the LGBA/Mermaids case that required your real name.

I can't believe they've given the link to so few people.

We deal with a lot of the UK paperwork, not just Irish stuff.

@LarkLane I think I've seen that name crop in work, with that spelling.

I have one of the elusive links, but I'm not sure I'm going to use it (haven't been free to while it's actually been running so far) given what I read here about the requirement to use real name and face - because, duh, that would expose me to exactly the same kind of consequences that this case is about. Sigh. Wish I'd thought to email from one of my other addresses... I could email them back and give it up in the hope it would free a link for someone else, but I very much doubt they're competent enough to make that happen, even if I do.

The witness for Jo P is Sarah Earle, not Selina Todd

So.... Having been on For Women Scotland court case watching today (just about the only thing the Scottish government do well is their court feeds) I appear to have missed fuck all!

My local court was still using Windows XP at least up to 2018 so it’s more than possible this is one of the issues. When I pointed out the security concerns they shrugged and said nobody would be that interested anyway…

There was an SD in Dublin regarding Operation Transformation, but a different spelling of the first name @RocketPanda
The English OU SD I think is a different person, (but who blooming knows for sure anything anymore)

Where have I heard of SD before? Definitely cropped up somewhere.

Again I wonder how cases are assigned to courts (did we get an answer on how judges are assigned to cases?)

One would think in a functional judiciary system that the potential profile and interest in a case would mean it is directed to be heard at a location with the necessary capacity to handle it. It happens for criminal cases after all.

YY - out of date equipment/software, poor network capacity/connectivity, support staff with insufficient training, inadequate processes, eg for reviewing upcoming hearings and flagging up any that may require additional support - any and all of these reasons.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. The court system is buckling at the moment, I know. The case was originally due to be heard in Cambridge, then moved 45 days before it was due to start to Watford, which turns out not to have been prepared for possibly the biggest case it will have seen.

They 'knew', in the sense of GC cases attract lots of attention and observer requests.

Judges and barristers must talk to each other!

But none of it inconveniences the Judge, so it simply won't be remedied any time soon.

I'm in the incompetence camp at the moment re not being able to gain access. I think it's a case of crap out of date equipment.

I can't say for sure, but from what a few people here and elsewhere (Twitter/ X) have said, it seems that far fewer were able to gain access than for the LGBA/ Mermaids or Bailey hearings. I complained to the courts service, pointing out that this case will be relevant to thousands of people working in academia. It's not a standard ET and it's woeful that no one appears to have recognised and prepared for this. During lockdown I organised Zoom social evenings with more people that the court can handle.

they knew this hearing was going to generate lots of digital observers

except it hasn’t as the helpful IT issues mean only a select few are able to actually observe online.

it’s very easy to read conspiracy into all of this, but I do lean towards incompetence as the most likely explanation. I watched Partygate on C4 last night and am quite depressed about the low standards of competency in public life at the moment anyway.

SD is keen on pronouning it. I'm having a gander at the witness "folks" in my idle moments.
Mainly because I'm a nosey sod.

Any update as to the Judge giving Judges's own pronouns on Monday? Were other court staff required to? Or was it just Jo and lawyers?

It's even more annoying when we've dialled into how many tribunals now, and we haven't experienced such ineptitude.

Especially, when they knew this hearing was going to generate lots of digital observers.
This shouldn't have caught them with their pants down.

I don't think the Judge is helping matters, either.

From that list I want to hear what RH has to say as a member of the investigating panel. Just a member, not the chair?