Sara Morrison vs Belfast Film Festival - Thread 2

[TwoLoonsAndASprout]

Continuation of previous thread - don’t have all the details to hand to add here, so if someone can pop them on, pls do! Want to get this up quickly!

NW

NC your doubts about enforceability did not make any sense. It's not the tribunal's job. the assumption was notices would would be sufficient. as a rule, people obey with court orders. That was a puzzle and an inexplicable feature of what happened on Tuesday. It was also odd to...

Bloody hell - she is going after the judge as well

Well worth the wait!

This all sounds a bit... high risk?

NW

... make an order unopposed and then seek to change it without an application. The strong suspicion in this side of this room is that the order as drawn used correct sex pronouns for her son. By some means the extent of fury using correct sex pronouns for a man who identifies as female by trans rights activists had somehow been brought home to you, and part of the reason for that suspicion arose from your demeanour which was "almost pleading" the claimant to take down the notices. C took the view that we would be practical about this and we agreed to the order being adjusted. But we now think there are good grounds to infer there would be TRA fury in response to a tribunal order correctly sexing a TiM, using pronouns related to his sex rather than his preferred pronouns. We infer that this was brought home to you by PB when she learned about the terms in which the order had been made. One final piece of evidence - the question of the revised anonymity order has been allowed to stay. Nor has the tribunal proposed one. We didn't propose one because we understood it was its use of correct sex pronouns, but that doesn't account for the tribunal's desire to let the matter slip.

Yes and no. If the judge doesn't recuse herself that's a ground for appeal, and she could then be criticised for her handling of the case by the EAT, not fun

I knew the judge was overly angry earlier....

NW

NC we say that should it be redrafted it would bring the issue of pronouns into sharp focus. We say there are grounds to fear actual bias of PB due to her apparent alignment with the GI theory side of the debate.

What happened with the face pulling and whispered conversation sounds extremely dubious.

OMG - I've been up to my eyeballs this week with end of Darlington Nurses and I did the 2 full days from the RCJ on GLP's latest folly.

This is amazing stuff - Nick Wallis doing a great job.

We (TT) are sad we couldn't attend and report but we've been crushed recently.

Hanging on X - refresh, refresh, refresh.

And may I say - I have seen NC on the warpath before - circle the wagons, get the women and children to safety.

Who was the journalist who blew the whistle? not NW. presumably

Hanging on X - refresh, refresh, refresh.

Now you know how we feel waiting for you to tweet !

😘

NW

But also that the full panel should recuse itself because the surrounding circs give rise to an appearance of apparent bias because the full panel must be aware of PB's compromised position so on that basis I ask the full panel to recuse themselves
J why ask now not on Mon - Wed or yesterday

NC because we have only been able to put this together. The material in bundle only came before us this morning. We are obviously extremely reluctant to make this. Because if it is refused it will inevitably make the party who made it unpopular with the tribunal "It's an extraordinarilty serious step" to make the application. We had concerns...

Is this essentially a panel member has hid her online activity (to get in on this?), involved with one of the organisations on the emails, but couldn't hide her disgust at the phrase "men who identify as women", then her and the judge (and the panel?) all raced off for a bit of a secret squirrel bitch about NCs language, the whole lot are clearly not impartial and not fit for purpose? IANAL.

This is absolutely gripping stuff.

I did wonder. It wasn’t the only explanation, but it did seem like it could be plausible…

Naomi is a force of nature.

Somebody please check the waybackmachine website - internet archive - to see if there anything to suggest Deborah’s web presence has been cleaned. I would do it but I’m not at a desk.

NW

... earlier, but it was not compelling until now. But it does not need to be compelling. Just a real possibility.
J - SD?
SD this is an absolutely staggering app - I have never heard the likes of it. If we were not already on Day 5 - the C's case is that she was silenced by people...

@TwoLoonsAndASprout thanks for the new thread.
I've only started following this in the last few days and it's gone bonkers.

And as posters said on the other thread, there is a concept of having a conflict of interests. I'm on a couple of committees, smallish local organisations, and I know this, so I don't vote if I could possibly be seen as being conflicted.

It beggars belief that PB thought she'd get away with it.

Thanks for breaking it down like this - I’m finding it hard to follow as it’s so shocking!

For a moment back there we thought she would have to apologise grovellingly to the Judge for not appearing this morning - yeah right!😁

edited to apologise grovellingly for not calling you Your Grace, Len
[Fr Ted ref, for the puzzled..]

Signing in with truckloads of popcorn

Shoot me down if I speak out of turn, but, I don’t think NC proved her first point about DBs membership of the consortium, because she didn’t give dates. I also kind of think that if SM was entitled to her beliefs and shouldn’t lose her job, then same should apply to DB. But I have been accused of naïveté in the past…

😮😮😮