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

Back to WFTCHTJ

Kicked out then back in for a second then out again. I think the poor clerk (Debra) is having a tough time today

I am sure I am going to have a nightmare where WFTCHTJ features.

I suppose I need to keep the sound on as otherwise I won't know, working in another window, when they're back... better try to get into the mode where WFTCHTJ is meditative, not infuriating, in case it's a while!

I think Debra has been quite a good clerk after a few initial hiccups.

This is probably not at all a usual part of the job of clerk - can't be easy to handle if the stereotype of demanding lawyers is anything like true.

Yes Debra seems pretty good. I expect none of the clerks have a lot of experience in running the online system

Yesterday evening I introduced a friend to the TT coverage of this case and she spent an hour or two reading it. She's messaged me this morning saying that she could understand the BC comments and guess the kind of thing they were alluding to, and could get a sense of him building a coherent picture/ case. But she found JM, who questioned JP, impossible to follow and had no idea why many of the questions were being asked, or what they alluded to. She says that Ben got a narrative going and IF exposed himself, and JM didn't seem to have done that. That echoed my own experience. Can anyone offer any insight into why JM's examination of JP seemed so disjointed and unhelpful? She's a highly regarded KC. Does she just play to the J and panel, trying to make legal points, while BC takes longer, laying it all out, bit by bit, in chronological order? What are the advantages and dangers of those strategies? Is there a risk the J and panel get pissed off at the leading them by the hand approach or are they likely to be grateful for the clarity he offers?

I am presuming that the later witnesses will only be asked on specific issues arising from their witness statement and not go over the same questions again and again. IF is important as it sets the scene for how the OU approached the issues raised in Jo's statement, so I can see how it might be longer, although I think didn't BC say originally it would take 3 hours?

Debra was v good to deal with on the phone re the ID thing. I think @Chrysanthemum5 is right - they are probably facing quite a new thing for them.

The IT section (national, not just Watford) was aware there is a high-profile case happening at Watford. I don't think they are used to this level of public interest from people not directly involved with the case.

Too much to hope for that something good is happening in Watford to cause the delay?

@VWdieselnightmare thats good insight from your friend.

My experience is not in law but science. In my experience, panels like being lead through the key points in a logical manner. It doesn't stop them having their own opinion on them, but they appreciate you being clear on where you are coming from.

Doubt it, it is probably just faffing.

Was the Kevin Bacon thing where he danced with his wife to show their support for drag and the LGBTQIA++++++++++ community

Yes @FloweryWowery I saw that too. 🙁

Yesterday they seemed to have a discussion about some witnesses only being available on specific days so maybe the timetable is having to be re-worked

That's disappointing to hear. I was only referring to him in a degrees of separation way. I didn't know he'd picked a side. 😕

In now.

We're in and they've turned on the lights as I can see Counsel.

Lots of re scheduling of witnesses due to availability.

Oh crap I can't hear it. Must be something I need to press

All the bundles are in a mess on the witness table.

Go out and come back in again with icons for camera and mic selected, they are for tribunal's end.

Ok, I can hear now

Morning all 👋