From TT
We resume:
NC - we are quite concerned as an asymmetry in treatment..
J - do we need to hear in private
NC - no
JR - don't know
J - continue for now
NC - of counsel for parties, I've engaged in no attacks or professionalism, my objection to the premise on langauge was flatly factual, about language. Beyond doubt JR is exorcised (exercised, rather than haunted) no doubt on instruction of client on the qu of language. nothing arguably pejorative about exErcised, not did I accuse her of heresy. One aspect of C case, is SP has been treated as heretic deserving of punish ment, someone who won't pay lip service to GI belief system. Not novel or fanciful, in addams v edin rape centre, heresy hunt in those words were used. I have no time impuning JR professionalism, converse not true.
(The Ring liked that, Orange Blerp)
Clear from public part, and to a greater degree in private
NC - same time JR granted repeated objecton to DU correct sex pronouns on which you have already ruled. JR does not suggest grounds to revisit, nor appealed. JR suggests my use or ordinary language interferes with art 6 rights, despite that imp claim only inviting me to reflect
NC - quite a lot of time wasted that way.
So C team has reflected, in response to asymmetry not to be contemplated at this stage. Suggest we resume and complete evidence, but ask any further speeches about my language are restrained unless there's an application
Fifer : Allow me to translate legal tae normal fowk lingo ken. Richt up yer cat's erse gub, pronoun polis get tae Fruchie, n keep yer wheesht while I work on yer witness.
Nods to Big Sond "Mlaird"
J - so far as the left over objection?
NC - as to ask qu again in similar terms
JR - don't know what terms NC will use, support reask with diff words.
J - response to the rest?
JR - briefly yes, unfortunate it didn't contain an apology.
Fifer : aye ye noticed did ye, that NC is gieen NAE FUCKS tae yer second client, and further NAE FUCKS AGAIN tae the first ane.
JR DOn't believe exorcise right, implies heat which was clearly not there. My concern about impact on proceedings not just art 6. Also DU art 8 right to be treated with dig and respect and witness right not to be subhject to harassment.
Fifer HE WIS a witness, he's no a witness the day but.
JR My objections professional at all times, public and private. FOr you to decide but don't believe there's been asymmetry, but Bench book contains how we should treat eachother in a prof context. When we are working together, not just right we treat eachother in accordance, it's also kind. nothing further to say.
NC - nothing to add
J - ask the qu, slowly
J - see how we get on.
NC - long digretion, qu was reason SP had to be punished for heresy, JR on instruction, for not adhering. AG- disagree NC - JR says you have been confused/upset by correct sex pronouns, cutting across your use of F pronouns. Am I right you've not been confused by them?
AG - I know you mean DU
NC - no signs of distress
AG - no but I've misgendered DU and it's not something I'd normally do.
NC - trained yourself into the habit
AG - it's what I've been asked to do
NC - tricky to remember
VROOOM VROOOOM
AG - no
Fifer : aye it's deid easy ken. It's like the opposite o that Roy Walker in his teal sports jaikit wid say
"Jist say whit ye dinnae see."
NC - if I called Miss Elves he, it wouldn't confuse you because its apparent
AG - if you use diff ones can be confusing.
NC - you would yourself revert to using usual pronouns
AG - you can see earlier i misgendered as i followed you, if you'd done that to another colleague I may have done same
NC - I suggest not, you have trained yourself and my use of correct sense pronouns disrupted that and used correct sex pronouns
VROOM VROOM is heard. Is it The Ring?
AG - disagree
NC - in chief asked if approp for SP to say something to DU in F CR, you said don't confront, speak to manager
NC - imagine not DU, doesn't dress as a woman, big masculine manly man, no attempt to appear F, lets call him Pete. If SP in CR in a bra and trousers and Pete walked in. Decent thing for Pete is to back out.
Big Sond is beamin likes, he's jist crossed oot Pete on his Bingo Caird. Finally some justice in this room.
AG - yes he's a man
NC - if he shuts the door after walking in
AG - sandie would be right to say its the no its the F CR
NC - 1237 - 2nd jan GM email to a group, not you attaching datix, 1236 see GM forwards to Norma Beverage NB
AG - director of nursing,
NC - you knew that role?
AG yes
NC quite important role
AG - yes
NC - email says thanks for info this is urgent needs HR advice and potential reputational damage. SHows board taking seriously
AG - yes
NC - NB thinks could be significant rep damage. She was right?
AG - don;t know
NC not AG - not following coverage no.
NC - is the rep damage from letting SP say no to DU
AG - don't know
NC - from start senior people involved knew SP needed to be punished for the offence of not agreeing to use of CR
AG - no.
Paunel 1 - at start of evidence taken to 776, asked about notes, said it was paperwork mentioned things in it
P1 - first was susx check list, what is that?
AG - check list of have you done everything meant to do, contacts, representative etc
P1 - diff from risk assessment?
AG - yes
Fifer : RISK ASSESSMENTS DO NOT EXIST IN THIS DOJO. Sorry did ye see Cobra Kai, triple distilled nostalgia, was aboot greetin by the end ae the first episode it wis that guid.
P1 - did you see risk assessment
AG- just chekc list and record.
P1 - around same time AH gave you names DU ED KS and SP how do you decide who to speak to?
AG - anyone involved, seen it, been part of process eg ED and LC look after that area and SP went to them, so needed to know that.
P1 - who decides
AG - ix manager
P1 - you?
AG - yes
P1 - what did you do with names given
Fifer : pit them in twa columns. Guid Guy, and Wank. Standard Procedure.
I