Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 3

I think he has the right air of disarming friendliness over a core of steel. But he'd need a fairly severe groom, and I'm not sure it would be right to trim and brush him.

I'd have Kristofer Hivju (Tormund in Game of Thrones) playing Ben in the movie.

Well done, Ereshkigalangcleg and yourhairiswinterfire - it was, indeed Ellen Mackenzie. I remember thinking the name wasn't entirely unlike Macavity and even vaguely recalled "Ellen" but couldn't put it together.

I think it was Ellen Mackenzie? She's mentioned a lot in the judgment, but isn't listed as a witness. Judgment notes that she was 'organising opposition to the renewal of Ms Forstater's Visiting Fellowship'

Ellen McKenzie?

She was there, wasn't she? It was a different woman I think.

@CriticalCondition @RethinkingLife I don’t want to incorrectly malign anyone but was it Amanda Glassman?

What I would love to see would be Maya jump up and shout HOUSE - then flash her bingo card !

This has been bothering me all afternoon. I remember it was a woman in the US office but her name escapes me.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine the only way the OU could argue that is if they took disciplinary action against a member of staff for not applying the policies.

It’s clear the Executive Team were involved as they helped draft the VC’s statements. There is no way the OU can argue they were not aware of what manager’s and senior staff were doing.

I don’t mean to be patronising but in my experience employees and even junior managers can be naive about how senior management works and HR’s involvement or non-involvement. There is a lot more conversations, joint drafts, agreeing a course of action etc. in situations like this. I think MW said they were meeting daily, this is typical in a crisis situation, there are conversations before each step is taken, so whilst one person may appear to be the decision maker they were not acting alone.

I'm not sure where to look, but who are the law firms on each side?

Not excusing it in any way, but I always think it is plain daft to take an accomplished lecturer and researcher and "promote them to the extent they are having to deal with a whole load of stuff they really have no experience of".

Some might fly, others will begrudge it.

Possibly not an issue so much when departments were small but now that 40%+ go to Uni that is a lot more batshittery to firefight.

Even in my tiny charity we are very clear about when we need to hold our nose and settle versus risking a tribunal.

They can argue that, but IF's evidence that 'the Secretary was receiving legal advice all the time' is a bit of a faux pas in that case.

[At the OU the Secretary is Dave Hall, a sort-of CEO. The Chancellor is Tim Blackman. Very big cheeses. Not on the list.]

Is it possible for the OU to argue that they didn't discriminate, but some of their staff did, by not following the OU guidelines?

I'm trying to piece together the day's events from comments here as I'm not following the tribunal. It sounds like a shitshow from the OU. For those of you feeling sorry for them as they were having to soothe the trans tantrums, remember they chose to fight this. They could have settled at anytime before they got to the door of the court. It is the job of their Counsel and solicitor to advise them as to the weaknesses in their case and risks of going to trial. If they get trounced it might start to turn things around for other claimants and change the culture. Maya, Jo and Ali have been real heroes.

Checking in, so wish I could directly witness BC's brilliance

IF is probaby having a long lie down in a darkened room.

Thanks everyone for your input and company.

@ickky You are doing a great job, I hope you are holding up ok.

Indeed, thank you to the KC and His Sunshine Band.

Whilst harrowing for the claimants in these cases (and I will be eternally grateful to them for bringing them and will dig for every one), I am so relieved that it is being shown what I've always thought i.e Stonewall Law infiltrated our institutions through complacency and passivity within those places.

I'm not sure relieved is the right word (because the situation is disgraceful) - I mean that I am comforted that I have been on the right track all these years and have the additional strength to challenge where appropriate (though limited in my world). These institutions are incapable of even considering women & children so the mission continues.

Thank you all - claimants, commentators & Ben Cooper KC (oh to be so skilled in my job).

I agree. Which is why they need to be armed with some actual facts.

They need to feel confident in telling their staff and students that both sides have equal footing, in terms of the law. And that they would be breaking the law if they didn't accommodate that.

Yes I'm sorry Mrs staff member, or Mr student, but our job is to treat you equally. And much as you might wish it otherwise, that's the law, and we can't break it.

And if a staff member/student comes to us with a grievance, we have to address that, whether it's your side or their side.

I understand (this is me talking), that it's a right fucking pain in the arse, but that's part of their job.

I wonder if this is the very first time that these individuals had to sit and think through, truly confronting the implications of what they endorsed

It's the first time in a long time their mind sets have been challenged for sure.

Thank you. Tomorrow sounds like it’s going to be mind bending stuff.

I wonder if this is the very first time that these individuals had to sit and think through, truly confronting the implications of what they endorsed.

Are they all having a live lesson in Robert Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform?

Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows a reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious, and must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

Slytherin

Who was the Macavity figure behind everything but who was never there or on a witness list in Maya F's last set of hearings?

It's going to look weird if Downes isn't on the list given their role as instigator. However I am expecting a lot of very very muddled thinking.