Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 3

[ickky]

Started on 2nd October at Watford Employment Tribunal (Radius House, 51 Clarendon Rd, Watford WD17 1HP 01923 281750)

You may attend in person or remote viewing has been quite limited but you can request log in details from

Email [email protected]

Header should read

URGENT CURRENT CASE - Public Access Request - J Phoenix - The Open University - 3322700/2021

Ask for access link and pin and please give your name and address in the email as they check when you connect to the tribunal.

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

PB - Dr Paraskevi Boukli, Former Senior Lecturer Criminology, Deputy Head SPC 2021-22
IF - Prof Ian Fribbance Dean of FASS
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
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

Thread 2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4913946-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-2?page=1

I think the OU were faced with an extraordinary response that they hadn’t expected. They were aware of the toxicity of the debate and probably wanted to minimise reputational damage by not riling GI/TRA students & staff. They were essentially fire fighting and so focused on quieting the loudest voices. In doing so they missed their duty of care to Jo, didn’t realise it was harassment and discrimination and by the time they did it was too late.

Even more than GCC and CGD I think employers will be able to see how this could happen in their organisation. The Civil Service, NHS, other public sector organisations and Universities will recognise the OUs ways of working and how this could happen to them.

I agree I think BC has demonstrated discrimination, but understand I'm biased so may be wrong. It's all about how unbalanced it is. The way they treated the genderists was totally different to the way they treated gender critical people or indeed anyone else (and not according to policy). An open letter such as that against atheists (which is the closest example I can think of) would not have been acceptable.

I am feeling slightly sorry for the OU because I suspect they did at least try a tiny bit to be more even handed than a lot of other universities (see the VC of Oxford's recent comments for a demonstration of even worse bias) but at the end of the day 'I only burnt the witch a tiny bit' isn't that good of a defence.

Tomorrow seems to be Weston, Downes and Molloy, in no particular order. One of themmay run on to Friday.

TT commentary from this afternoon.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1712109693814845615.html

I can't find a Weston on the witness list.

Westmarland?

JM mentioned Drake (was very faint) but not in connection with any particular day and it sounded like she is not available yet. BC estimates 3 hours with her, the most of the remaining witnesses.

I think I heard next Wednesday for Dr Drake

Sorry, yes, Westmarland. There was a lot of back and forth.

Ah OK, so Molloy, Westmarland and Drake tomorrow.

Think we've worked it out together!

My sound only goes up to 11!

No, it's Downes, not Drake tomorrow.

Looking forward to Downes tomorrow!

Tribunal Tweets mentions laughter at a couple of stages. does anyone know what that was about? Is it just that the questioning is taking longer than expected?

Oh God, my brain has melted.

I don't know how barristers do this all the time

I’m muddling Downes and Drake. One of them was referred to quite a lot on Monday right?

Downes spearheaded the campaign against the GCRN I believe. Sending emails asking people to sign, and making complaints about the posldcast etc.

Drake had a hand in the outcomes of complaints I think.

Being naive here, why is Downes on the OU witness list? Do Dave Hall and Tim Blackman think that these witnesses are going to explain it all away?

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.

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?

Slytherin

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.

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

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

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.