Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 5

[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.

The clerk will ask you (in a private remote room) to put your camera on to verify, this involves looking at you, but no ID is needed. You may turn off your camera after this pointless and unnecessary process.

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
MW - Prof Marcia Wilson, Dean EDI, 2020-23
CM - Caragh Molloy, Group People Director 2019-23
LD - Dr Leigh Downes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology (in SPC), Academic Lead for EDI FASS 2019-21
PK - Peter Keogh, Professor Health & Society, Member RSSH
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
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 - tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

Prof Jo Phoenix Witness Statement (scroll to bottom of page and download)

https://jophoenix.substack.com/p/phoenix-v-open-university?sd=pf

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

Thread 3 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4917480-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-3

Thread 4 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4918479-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-4

I think BC has done a good job breaking it down to show that for the last three witnesses, there is no way that Jo, or Jon Pike, or other members of the GCRN, could express their research aims in a way that the witnesses didn’t consider transphobic. Even the name of the network itself. He’s shown that the reaction to the formation of the GCRN was akin to “burn the witch(es)” and thus it was a hostile working environment. And the OU was ineffective in their duty of care to Jo as an employee who held views that were just as protected in law as the witnesses views.

Whether the panel considers that evidence enough or not under law remains to be seen.

For we’ve got them on the list we’ve got them on the list.

For avoidance of doubt, this is the list of "esteemed colleagues" to whom PK referred and he thought should have been invited to join the research network? 🤓

Excellent little list, @TeenDivided .

Loving the G&S theme developing. If I get time later I may have a go at:

Still five thousand sheets of bundle to be done
(to be done)
Oh, Ben Cooper's lot is not a happy one
(happy one)

It definitely lends itself to a scheduling song.

When the space cadets and windbags won't stop burbling (so much burbling!)
And the judge has one eye always on the time
Still five thousand sheets of bundle to be done
(to be done)
Oh, Ben Cooper's lot is not a happy one
(happy one)

That's should keep me busy for a bit.

I'm tremendously impressed by all the Gilbertese appearing. but thinking also of how, with his legal beginnings, he might have approached this Trial by Tribunal. Oh, for an original brand new piece from the master.
And I'm not putting down you lot. Coming from a family of parodists, I recognise the skill, but I'm not up to your standard.

I hope Sonia Sodha has been following this.

I hope Ben is following this.

Ben, if you are I know you can't comment, but you are doing an excellent job. We are hugely entertained and appreciate your forensic dismantling of the blowhards who seem to think they are in front of a fawning audience.

Glorious.

It's a nice idea but I can only assume when Ben is not in court or preparing for his next session in court he is sleeping with a tiny other amount of time allocated for eating, showering and a strong tipple (before the sleep).

Maybe he'll read them once it's all over and he's on a nice extended holiday somewhere.

This developing operetta is a thing of joy.

I do think we need somewhere in the first act a chorus of activists addressing lesbians with a quick round of

oh is there not one maiden breast
who does not feel the moral beauty
of making worldly interest
subordinate to sense of duty.....

no need really even to change the words. It takes the mickey every bit as well now as it did in 1879.

Whoever plays Ben and the Judge can stand there with suitably wtf expressions.

Ben's epitaph (hopefully not needed for a long time) has to be

'IF YOU COULD JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION'

that was marvellous

all those pastel 80's outfits <chef's kiss>

Yes this page is so unbelievably one sided, biased and leading.

It's suggesting that students are going to be emotionally invested in an employment tribunal. Why? That's a little bizarre, no? It doesn't actually have anything to do with them. Jo no longer works there, so they can't have contact with her.

Again, it's almost a suggestion to students that they SHOULD be traumatised by things that have nothing to do with them at all and cannot impact them in any sense - which I think is incredibly unethical - and clearly only one type of student is important when reading this page as gender critical realists / agender / gender atheists not mentioned.

I too would be very interested to know their response to any GC student that got in touch.

Bernard - isn't she 👋

I too would be very interested to know their response to any GC student that got in touch.

It would be useful to hear it spoken out loud, but the implication is there constantly.

They would be the wrong kind of student.

In the same way that there is the wrong kind of lesbian, the wrong kind of disabled person, the wrong kind of inclusion, the wrong kind of trans person, the wrong kind of woman.

They use the words to imply they mean the whole group to give the appearance of righteousness and goodness. They in fact only mean those of their chosen political and quasi religious group, and the 'wrong kind' is anyone who does not promote and reinforce their political beliefs. They have enough lingering self awareness to know that to be honest about this would weaken their appearance of moral superiority.

I suspect though that this is more to protect their ego from themselves than through any real concern about what others would think of them. It has been a surprise the past few days to realise how completely away with the fairies those in these circles have been able to become. They are deeply satisfied with themselves and that is all that matters to them.

”It's suggesting that students are going to be emotionally invested in an employment tribunal. Why? That's a little bizarre, no? It doesn't actually have anything to do with them. Jo no longer works there, so they can't have contact with her.”

It showcases a deep paranoia around the entire topic. The OU is fighting the case, thus demonstrating the fact that they disagree with JP on some level. If the OU lose, then the only effect I can see is that those with GC rules will have to be treated with respect in future and it will be the court that decided that and not the university.

They want women to be silenced and will use any and every tactic they can, including inducing that paranoia into themselves and others by continually searching for things to ruminate over.

I'll add that I think this may be what happens when you have a political ruling class of all parties who have been stupid enough and corrupt enough to permit a lobby group to spend years unchallenged, misrepresenting the law and openly teaching people that their own version of the law is better, that right thinking people do what they say and not what the law says, and that the law will eventually 'catch up'.

Thereby abandoning democracy, validity of law, impartial and unpoliticised policing, and justice among other things. This is what Jo and Ben are fighting back against.

We're having a good time with the entertaining aspects of this - and sense of humour is a part of the humanity of women compared to the po faced totalitarianism we're faced with - and frankly if we didn't laugh we'd despair. But this is a phenomenally serious matter, and we are still dealing with a press and an establishment of all parties with its fingers in its ears and its eyes shut, in the face of disaster that really does have parallels with the early 1930s in Germany.

QUICKLY

Yes this page is so unbelievably one sided, biased and leading.

It's suggesting that students are going to be emotionally invested in an employment tribunal. Why? That's a little bizarre, no? It doesn't actually have anything to do with them. Jo no longer works there, so they can't have contact with her.

Again, it's almost a suggestion to students that they SHOULD be traumatised by things that have nothing to do with them at all and cannot impact them in any sense - which I think is incredibly unethical - and clearly only one type of student is important when reading this page as gender critical realists / agender / gender atheists not mentioned.

I too would be very interested to know their response to any GC student that got in touch.

Me too. None of this directly has anything to do with students apart from their imagined trauma that some people don't believe in their ideology.

@BoiledBeetle hope you're getting all the lyrics here for a future volume!

I just want to say that I am loving all the G&S creativity!

👏👏👏

Why? I knew Sonia quite well about 20 - 25 years ago, we were undergraduates together. I haven't kept in touch with her since, but I see her name around in the media. What's her position on GC/trans? It just didn't come up much in the early 2000s, but when it did and I was involved (on the 'inclusive' side, when I was young and naive and hadn't understood the consequences) I don't remember her having much to say about it either way.

Ms Gasparova told the panel Mr Goulandris was "rich and powerful" and that a "man in his position would be too clever" to make any advances obvious.

The batshit idea was basically "He said xx, but because of his position, I know he really meant something else, something that breaks the law".

Gosh! Why does that sound familiar?

Sonia is definitely GC as demonstrated on a regular basis in the Observer.

Why? I knew Sonia quite well about 20 - 25 years ago, we were undergraduates together. I haven't kept in touch with her since, but I see her name around in the media. What's her position on GC/trans? It just didn't come up much in the early 2000s, but when it did and I was involved (on the 'inclusive' side, when I was young and naive and hadn't understood the consequences) I don't remember her having much to say about it either way.

She's been outspoken in her column in the Observer and is supportive of women's sex based rights. She has attended some of the other tribunals.