Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 2

[ickky]

Abbreviations

JP - Jo Phoenix, Claimant (C)
OU - The Open University, Respondent (R)
J - Regional Employment Judge Young
P - Panel or panel member
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for C
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, Counsel for R

OU Departments & Networks:

HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminology
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute
GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network

OU witnesses

CW - Chris Williams, Senior Lecturer History
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SE - Sarah Earle, Prof of Medical Sociology, Director HWSRA 2016-22
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
CT - Cath Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance

Witness for JP:

SE - Sarah Earle, Professor Modern History Uni of Oxford, Founding member GCRN

Tribunal Tweets - https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

TT coverage so far https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4905118-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-2nd-october-whispers-ben-cooper?page=1

I really don't understand why the OU is calling so many witnesses (other than try to make the tribunal too expensive).

How can they each bring some new crucial piece of evidence when this is the calibre of their staff? It appears this is going to be a very long parade of incompetent academics, that will reflect very badly on the OU as a whole.

I’m still stuck on the email they sent wanting to ensure the OU didn’t breach their obligations of the EA. Witness said they didn’t want any disciplinary action to be taken, didn’t want the research to stop and believes in academic freedom of speech. So exactly what action did they want OU to take? Soothing words to the trans community?

This is it exactly. It's a bit embarrassing that's the childish level of response from someone who is in a professional academic position and paid as such.

These organisations have obviously been subject to Stonewall law, and have never listened properly to what it actually means for women.

And although it's not surprising that women don't get listened to, I cannot understand how they don't connect the most basic of dots and grasp that women's sport will be ruined, and rapists really shouldn't be in women's prisons.

I'm assuming, they are all just totally hung up on pronouns and toilet use. Which rather begs the question of how come their ideology holds up in some places, but not others.

In other words, they haven't thought about it much at all. Which is a bit of a rookie error, when you're being taken to a bloody employment tribunal.

And they clearly have no clue about operation let them speak. Anyone who understands the implications of that, would not line up 20 bloody people to do it.

One of my underlying convictions in this entire issue, is that I know we're right. Nuttin', nowhere by no-one has ever given me the slightest concern otherwise.

It's also rather delicious that the answers so far have only served to make the judge want to listen to Jo's podcast.

OLTS

BenCoopersSupportWren

something of a cross post there!

Salem Witch Trials (as interpreted in The Crucible).

Multiple people saying the same unevidenced thing shore up each other, no matter how groundless and implausible the claim.

I do wonder what these people think when they hear about something like Dolatowski's attacks on girls using the women's toilets. Acceptable collateral damage? But how can they dismiss that and then blather on about 'vulnerable minorities'? You don't get more vulnerable than a child facing 6ft 5 Dolatowski alone in a toilet. The cognitive dissonance must be awful, unless they're just very, very stupid.

Either way, not a great look for the OU.

Oh! Yes toilets. Early on in their evidence the witness said that they had encountered difficulty at the OU with people misgendering them, people not using their preferred pronouns and having difficulty finding appropriate toilet facilities to use where they felt comfortable. I had assumed that witness was biologically female so I’m having to revisit my assumptions there.

Oh my goodness, the TT thread from this morning is quite something!

I thought this in particular was quite telling:
BC Well there's a debate about this and SW have a certain position and
SW's position of no debate is a folly, isnt it?
PB Hmmm
BC She was being reasonable?
PB No, she was saying it was the worst tactical move ever that made SW seem they'd made a massive error
BC what's wrong w making that point?
PB It isnt but I felt it was making a point about
?? [sorry missed]
BC We'll leave it up to the tribunal to decide about that shan't we? I think it's time to leave i
t there.

PB's train of thought appears to be that JP is criticizing Stonewall and that this in itself is bad. Something you just don't do. Like pointing out the Emperor's state of undress.

Only listened to a bit of it so far but the podcast is brilliant. It's making my lunchtime. It's lawyers talking sense ie the judge's language. Let's hope she listens with open ears.

I agree the witnesses should not have been making comments in the public gallery and in and around the building. I am surprised the HR person didn’t advise them to be more circumspect, but they had a legal right to be there. In the pub or elsewhere they are free to talk as they wish provided they don’t breach confidentiality.

Not quite. If they are there as employees of the OU they are only as free to talk as other employees - ie they must not create a hostile or intimidating atmosphere for those with a protected characteristic.

A poster on a thread last week quite openly asserted that you shouldn't stop men in women's toilets, until a certain number of offences had been committed.

When asked how many, they came up with a number.

One hundred.

Women and little girls should provide their bodies for men's validatory use, until they have been assaulted or attacked a hundred times.

Who is that dickhead, who dresses like Alice in Wonderland on Ketamine??

He said it 'wouldn't matter if there was a slight spike'.

Well, operation 'let them speak' is working I suppose. There's a reason they're called the TRAliban.

Yeah, it really is saying the quiet bit out loud. Well, positively shouting it, actually.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, or completely mistaken, but Jo is saying she was bullied for her GC beliefs. The OU contest this by sending 18 of her former colleagues to state why her beliefs are unacceptable and should not be said. In addition to the 300-odd that signed the letter against her.

Looks like bullying to me. Open and shut case.

@Datun that has sent such a chill down my spine. Anyone that thinks one, never mind 100, victim is acceptable is just one of the most revolting things to come out of this whole thing.

From what I have gleaned so far, the argument from the OU seems to be that nothing happened to Jo, but if it did it was because her beliefs were not WORIADS and that the OU (through the Equality Act?) had a responsibility to stop her in case she hurt someone's feelings?

TT: J requests the Savage Minds podcast to listen to and not just read transcript

Interesting that the judge wants to listen to it and not just read the transcript.

Funny how the Stonewallian version of the EA keeps cropping up.

Pernicious and intentional. It will take years to disentangle these misguided beliefs/interpretations of reality from public policy and relevant institutions.

Im guessing most women on here are fairly inured to the cruelty and inhumanity of the ideology.

But that one did produce rather a collective sharp intake of breath, it has to be said.

it's here, if anyone's interested

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4909353-how-do-we-find-a-middle-ground?page=10&reply=129716236

Wasn't it the wonderful Akua Reindorf who wrote that report for Essex University, when they rescinded invitations to both Jo Phoenix and Rosa Freedman?

‘In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’

Yes, she talks about it in the SM podcast.

😂