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

Baptism by fire, eh?

But asking in that way was a mis-step. Quite apart from the gender critical side, I teach some young students with for whom that would be a very charged question, who might find it most invasive. Tut.

It was definitely that way. An order not a question. A presumption that everyone believes in gender ideology.

Of course BC and JP could have said 'sex-based' or 'whatever the speaker would normally use' which would be normal usage but a) they had to think on their feet and b) when someone shows you they may be a TRA judging your case you need to tread carefully

The judge's behaviour surely gives Jo instant grounds for appeal if the judgment goes against her? Bias clear from the outset.

I'm reminded that Maya's first ET, which she lost, was headed by a new judge.

That’s a shocking indictment of their IT system then. I think I counted a maximum of 33 people in the meeting at one point, and that included the court room, the judge, Jo’s Covid positive solicitor and a couple of clerks. There were lots more people in Allison Baileys hearing. I regularly attend busier Teams, WebExes and Zoom meetings.

I also noticed that although I turned off my camera in the meeting, the light was still on on my PC and my computer was still sending video, so their meeting software doesn’t really interact properly with my equipment. I wonder if that contributes to the issues at the Watford end.

<sighs> I'll get my wallet out again.

Hmmm, I wonder if alongside all the EDI courses they no doubt have to do they also have any 'impartiality' courses.

Yes, it sounds like the judge gave an instruction - 'state your pronouns' - rather than gave permission to those in court to say them if they wished. More imperative than subjunctive.

If this issue impacted on the senior court staff, then they'd sort it out.

What do they care if random members of the public want to observe the hearings?
Out of sight. Out of mind.

I looked up the judge. She's been on the bench less than 6 months.

Sound wasn't great but I think he did state pronouns. Was probably blindsided and also it's putting them in a very difficult position from the outset.

Absolutely awful behaviour from the judge.

I wish. The sound was bad but BC's response was quite short and I think in the circumstances he decided to keep his powder dry and went for a brief he/him and she/her.

Just for general information, I've phoned the court and been told that so many people applied to watch remotely that the system is at breaking point and that there are at least 50 people, me included, who have not been granted access. I've asked that they get their IT people onto it, because obviously the whole idea of remote access is to enable interested parties to see justice being done. I'm told that increasing capacity is extremely unlikely.

I saw that Ben responded to the Judge's questions about both him and Jo, but the sound being what it was I didn't hear what he said. I'm hoping it was along the lines of "My client wishes to be addressed as Professor Phoenix and standard biological based pronouns are fine"

Exactly.

I cannot wait to see Ben Cooper in action. He is just brilliant. I am sure the pronoun compulsion will have been duly noted.

And if Ben Cooper in a case like this has to go along with the pronouns collusion so as not to get off on the wrong foot with the judge in the first 5 minutes, what hope is there for us ordinary mortals in schools, offices, worried about our jobs, dealing with employers, professional bodies, police and officialdom who have all signed up to this. It's terrifying.

Next time anyone asks my pronouns I'm going to say 'I leave that to the speaker to decide, as is normal'. And, if feeling particularly pissed off 'I don't believe in compelling others' speech'.

If the judge isn't recused then I might go to Watford in person now, I think Jo needs some support.

My signs will be

"Asking preferred pronouns = compelled belief / speech"

and (on the other side so I can mix it up)

"18 witnesses = attempt to price women out of justice"

Better suggestions happily received.

It is CHILLING when someone asks your pronouns. I really think what I said upthread applies, it's like asking which denomination of Christianity you belong to i.e. not allowing for the existence of other religions.

I also object to the forced changing of the English language and common usage by the courts.

And, as an aside, if we're really asking pronouns all the time now of everyone economic activity is going to be even worse than it already is. Imagine the waste of time?

I've had meetings with people in 3 different non-Uk countries today. No-one mentioned pronouns.

Yes CriticalCondition, the Judge obviously wants to avoid the accusation of singling anyone out - maybe given the topic of the hearing it makes it especially sensitive, and also we don’t know who the witnesses are yet, there maybe someone who did have preferred pronouns or who would complain if they weren’t asked.

I would be interested to know if the Judge did introduce themselves and give their own preferred pronouns before the online part of the meeting started. I could make an assumption based on their female voice of course. Don’t know if that would be considered rude though.

Joanna cherry

Thank you. So in a section on trans people. So we all potentially trans people now if the judge is asking every single person who appears before them. Is that the only way the judge can avoid giving offence/it being 'misinterpreted' ie by asking everyone? It is, isn't it? We all have to collude in this lie/fiction to not risk offending 0.5% of the population. It really is forced collusion.

Thank you, Icky. I thought I'd checked but I'll check again.

I agree with dimorphism that her suggested way of asking the pronouns question makes things level and impartial for all.

There's Article 6 of the Humans Right Act also relevant here surely? Which is an absolute right.
Right to a fair and public hearing
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

We've all spotted that the Judge's pronoun question here might be skewing the appearance of impartiality. I'm sure that Jo's barrister has that duly noted and parked at the back of his mind. He was right just to respond and not kick off at the start of the hearing.

Reasonable adjustments are usual these days, and no bad thing ... disability etc.
As long as it keeps everything level and impartial and FAIR.

There's often a hoo ha at the start of a Tribunal about how things will proceed, bundles, witness and so on. However, in a case like this, it's a poor do not checking what your juniors have put together prior to going in... unless it suits you to have a delay for some reason.

Sorry if I've been overtaken by more relavant posts, I'm not very fast responding today.

Thanks in advance. Just looked upthread and it clearly is viewable.