Prof Jo Phoenix vs The OU - Employment Tribunal Thread 8

[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
NatS - Natalie Starkey, Outreach & Public Engagement Officer Sch Physical Sciences, 2019-22
HBC - Helen Bowes-Catton, Lecturer Social Research Methods
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
LW - Louise Westmarland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
RH - Richard Holliman, Prof Engaged Research, Head School Environment, Earth & Ecosystem Sciences, 2019-22. Member of Investigation Panel investigating the C’s grievance
CT - Catherine Tomlinson, Senior Student Advisor
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21😇
SD - Shaun Daley, Head OU’s Resourcing Hub. Head Strategic Resources, Co-Chair OU’s LGBT+ Staff Network
SJ - Samantha Jacobson, Employee Relations Case Manager
NS - Nicola Snarey, Assoc Lecturer Eng Language - This witness did not give evidence.

Witness for JP:

SE - Professor Sarah Earle, Head of the HWSRA

Tribunal Tweets - https://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)

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

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

Thread 6
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4921308-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-6

Thread 7
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4922765-prof-jo-phoenix-vs-the-ou-employment-tribunal-thread-7

Well exactly. I think what they really want to say is 'you're not pandering to my ego / delusion' but I suppose that doesn't sound as convincing when you are looking for sympathy...

Believing that sex is immutable doesn't mean believing that trans people don't exist. It means believing that a man who says he is a woman is still a man. You still believe that he is a person who calls himself (and has the right to do so) a transwoman and you can call someone a transwoman and refer to them as such while believing that they haven't magically changed sex. It's not that hard. It's crazy how TRAs don't seem to be able to grasp it.

It's like me saying I'm a Christian and that atheists are saying I don't exist because there is no God so I can't be a Christian. I can say I am a child of God and they can say I'm not because there is no God. It doesn't stop me existing as a child of God within my own belief system. The atheist doesn't believe I'm a child of God but I do. It doesn't mean I no longer exist as a Christian or a child of God.

An oft trotted out phrase.

It tends to work by the respondent then doing a whole lot of leg work in trying to reasonably work out wtaf it means, as it's never explained or justified, and after a lot of mystified time wasting trying to work out what on earth was happening between that person's ears, they come up with their own version of what that person might possibly have meant in order to reasonably respond. Wiser people at this point know not to bother. No one knows what it means. It just sounds emotively dramatic, and stops/interrupts difficult conversations.

In essence, reading through, JM appears to have gone for the narcissist's prayer.
It didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad, and if it was, no one meant it, and if they did, Jo deserved it.

How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child . . .

It's DARVO isn't it?

Exactly. She was the best witness they had and her part in all this, no disrespect to her, was a relatively lowly administrative role which to her credit she was doing as best she could.

And as is usual it is a plop and run, so clearly not interested in any other opinions it's no debate again coupled with look at me, look how superior and wonderful I am.

Tiresome is an understatement.

n essence, reading through, JM appears to have gone for the narcissist's prayer.
It didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad, and if it was, no one meant it, and if they did, Jo deserved it.

that seems a fair summary. I also found it hard to follow JM as she seemed to jump around a bit again, like she did in her examination of JP. I’m expecting BC to lead us through his rationale in more logical manner.

The only way a man can be a woman is to change the meaning of "woman" to include men.

The only way a Christian can be an atheist is to change the meaning of "atheist" to include Christians.

We'll hold you in our warm, sooty, flat-capped, whippet-loving Northern hearts, Wrens . . .

. . . and who knows, one day . . .

The cheek of suggesting Reading conducted a sham interview!

I listened to the entirety of JM’s closing statement and it seemed to boil down to: Jo wasn’t really upset, she just pretended to be once she realised she could bring a case. They’re all as bad as each other. Jo was the one against academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Then we seemed to tip headlong down a rabbit hole of conflating the immutability of sex with denial of trans people’s rights to exist, and something about someone else having said something about homophobia which Jo didn’t challenge. At that point I lost the will to live and was glad of the break for lunch/something stronger.

Poor Jo, having to listen to that character assassination. I frequently checked I had my microphone muted as I was frequently bellowing “BOLLOCKS! ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS” at my phone, so goodness knows how much harder it is to stay schtum when it’s about you.

Possibly.

The words "They're all lying through their teeth, your judgeships" wouldn't take long to say.

By that logic believing that femaleness is all about make-up, heels and dresses equates to believing that GNC women have no right to exist.

Yet again accusations are admissions I suspect.

Just catching up.

This is bad. JM was concerned they'd given a false impression!? Slight understatement isn't it?

I wonder if BC will make something of this in his closing submissions? He basically lost a chance to question JM on the significance of 3 cancellations out of a line up of 17.

Also when you have JM submitting that the judges are going to have to decide on "which reality to accept" it should be pretty clear to them that one of the "realities" is tenuous at best.

I’ve got stupid bastarding meetings between 2 and 4.
Im going to need all the details and will have to catch up later. Those that are dialled in, tell me, how fine is BC’s beard looking today?

I love it when people do that to me. It makes me feel so generous towards them.

I think it's quite dangerous to pursue the mine that the Reading interview was a sham. Other universities don't like their integrity being questioned

LOL!
😂

I also found it hard to follow JM as she seemed to jump around a bit

Defence by gishgallop.

LIke the HoC, or when legal representatives speak at criminal trials (I'm slightly dodgy on the latter), is JM protected by privilege so this implicit accusation isn't actionable by Reading?

@tryanotherone123
And of course the only way they know is that JP disclosed whatsapps whereas all the OUs sides whatsapps mysteriously disappeared down a well.

<praying that this very sentence will appear in the judgement summary in 3 months time . . . >

And if you change the word woman to include men - then woman just means 'person'. It has lost its original (useful) meaning

It’s quite normal for closing submissions to lay out what counsel thinks the judge should do. It’s not seen as condescending in that context.

Ah, but JM was clear to say that she wasn’t implying that [the “sham” interview”] at all. With a legal nod and wink.

Defence by gishgallop

I’ve never actually heard of that before and looked it up and it’s an excellent description, particularly of certain politicians who spew so many lies in one short speech that it is too difficult to hold them to account effectively.

I was wondering that RethinkingLife, and also with th GC = trans don’t exist - are barristers allowed to say stuff which actually isn’t true? IANAL!