Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 6

[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
CW - Dr Christopher Williams, Senior Lecturer History
KS - Kevin Shakesheff. PVC for Research and Innovation
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
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 - twitter.com/tribunaltweets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thread 5 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4919223-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-5

There are also no court orders or OU policies that have been shared ordering this 'paramount'. The man has taken it upon himself to enable his own bias.

Just reading JD's evidence on TT now. This witness really epitomises the extent to which people just don't understand the EA and discrimination law.

@Froodwithatowel I think it's more that he have in to his staff member to stop the whining.

I am very concerned by some groups in society who are doing things that cause harm to others, or to all fucking countries, in the name of 'solidarity' without putting in the work to actually understand all the ramifications for their virtue signalling efforts. Maybe I didn't realise how deep this went in the past. I don't think that I can ever unsee the superficiality of 'being kind' while doing any degree of harm to others and then simply deflecting that harm with 'well, we were just standing in solidarity'.

I'm not impressed with this witness so far, slightly combative and BC asked about the recipients of an email and if they were board members of HERC, and the answer was ...pause... yes (muttered: not that it's relevant)

That sounds like the rookie error of underestimating Ben Cooper.

I would have expected this witness who seems to have influenced so many of the other witnesses would be combative and will aim to deflect and run the time down.

She seems very influential.

BC is getting annoyed!

Asking LW whether she agrees that the Richard Garside comments about trans prisoners were the only source of external complaints to HERC and relationship with CCJS at that time.

LW said, no, there were others and he asked what the complaints were - and it turned out it was HER complaints which are turning into a whinge about the working relationship.

Judge is now clarifying.

LW and JP went for the same job at the OU and JP got it. There was no hard feelings on LW's part but she felt some hostility from JP.

This is from her witness statement.

LM was on the board of HERC at the time

BC: I am asking you to use your knowledge and memory LM. There was no other issue being complained about (apart from Garside)

LM: There were a number of things

BC: what, in March 2019, were people complaining about

LM: well I was complaining we seemed to have lost a level of engagement with CCJS -

a really long spiel from LM c her concerns

J tries to bring it back

LM: I will concede you are talking about specific complaints

BC: I'll be suggesting you are inventing issues from March 2019 in order to head off the import of JPs case

Why would JP be hostile? She got the job.

another for the bonfire of pants

I think it's more that he have in to his staff member to stop the whining.

I think all these busy important people will very much benefit from being able to say "my hands are tied, I can't discriminate" to these people. I hope eventually that's going to be the result. The mental health issues of particular individuals are something which can be dealt with appropriately through the same channels as anyone else with the same issues, not by engaging in discrimination against other members of staff.

Of course, but is paints the picture of the unreasonableness of JP.

BC: Nothing else in March 2019 of such significance that someone threatening to resign from HERC except re Garside's views on t prisoners

LM: I can't confirm or deny that

BC: but you can remember all those things you were raising at the time which aren't mentioned in any correspondence

Long pause from BC

cannot confirm or deny for the bingo card pls

another for the bonfire of pants

😁😁😁

What? So she is refusing to admit that the only reason people were threatening to resign was richard's views on trans prisoners? She is blatantly lying.

It does need pinning down though.

Was this willing and eager discrimination based on mindless embracing of prejudice against those who believe in the reality of sex?

Or was this a fearful attempt to escape and placate bullying from difficult adults with links to an extremist agenda?

BC: Are minutes taken at the board meeting?

LW: Very long pause before saying yes!

BC: The minutes don't record you raising these points do they?

BC: were you at that meeting

LM: long pause. Can't remember

BC: are minutes taken of board meetings of HERC

LM: pause. I think so

BC: so we would have minutes of meetings. In this meeting none of the points you were raising are in these notes.

LM: this meeting wasn't about that

BC: yes it was. See p ...

Well said.

I think this is such an apt example. We all know who the people self Id-ing as children in this scenario here and who the adults are except as @Ereshkigalangcleg points out that's not reflected in law in terms of different adult groups, quite the opposite.

You can't self ID as a child and then also expect to be able to have a job and hold the positions these people have held. You can't have it both ways. With adult positions come responsibility not to discriminate, something they've failed at.

Adults behaving like this - to hell with everyone else, particularly in academia is utterly shameful.

It is just interpreting the law their own way - and they've come to court and are trying to tell the judge how the law should be, not how it is. I wonder how that will go...

It's a strange set of minutes that can't be arsed to mention who is attending the meeting and who sent apologies (but then I don't have a very important job).

It does need pinning down though.

Was this willing and eager discrimination based on mindless embracing of prejudice against those who believe in the reality of sex?

Or was this a fearful attempt to escape and placate bullying from difficult adults with links to an extremist agenda?

Yes, I agree it does. I just hope in future as more and more of these cases are brought that the message eventually trickles down to all these institutions that you can't discriminate on behalf of trans people, real or hypothetical, who simply feel offended by GC views.

BC: wondering if you have misremembered. Are you getting your years muddled up?

Arthur!

I didn't see you there. 😄