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!

The Judge was angry because Naomi said something is off here and I think the panel member is pro trans.

The judge said I did not experience the pro trans sentiment but to give her the benefit of doubt. Deborah offers to step down and for her it seems like a compromise.

The Judge is younger and again probably name up before the Professor. She didn’t know she was sitting next to a potential liar liar pants on 🔥.

So as of this moment no one knows apart from Mumsnet. And the Prof.

Googling DB now gives this thread as result three 😁

And quite possibly Charlotte Elves and hence Naomi Cunningham? Remember Charlotte in the NHS Fife case? She could make computers sit up and beg, and that reaction was so weird that I can't see her not investigating.

Anyway on the topic of witchhunts....if you deem yourself to be of suitable standing to sit on and rule for or against other members of society that could break them, lose them their income and possibly their houses, families, status in society...then you better be solid as a rock yourself. If you aren't then that's on you.

Am really hoping that there are Elves doing their background reading this weekend

And that this has piqued some journalistic curiosity somewhere.

I can't imagine working for that local Belfast paper, constantly printing stories about the same 'successful' business figures being appointed to the same boards who then award large sums of investment to those people's companies, then reporting on how successful those companies and people are and how that success means they're appointed to some new position which allows them to award investment to their own company .....year after year and not thinking 🤔 at some point....

It's all bloody fascinating.

Maybe the judge will go away and do some digging themselves this weekend

If DB is as fishy as it seems at the moment would this have a potential impact on previous cases where she was a panel member?

Looking at the Re3 website, the company produced biofuel pellets from autoclaving waste (basically incinerating rubbish).

Biofuel was the product people were burning in the Cash for Ash scandal (subsidy for using fuel exceed cost of fuel, people were heating empty outbuildings to make a profit at the government's expense).

It looks like Re3 attracted investment and awards when biofuel was the rising star of green energy in NI, but then fell out of favour when the scandal was exposed.

No evidence of any wrongdoing, but definitely a bit seedy. Like selling PPE in the pandemic.

If she'd been on a panel for a case involving me, where I didn't like the outcome, then I would be on this like a shot.

Imagine going through a possibly life and career changing tribunal in which you experience stress and vulnerability unlike anything else you've been through, and you submit and trust in the legal process without question (I would too, like I say, we are mugs) and then you find out it was a sham, with the opinion of someone who had just put themselves there being given great weight in decisions that have had huge negative impacts on you - it wouldn't make me feel particularly well done by. Especially if I had been financial liable for the fun they were having at my expense.

There will have to be some sort of official process.

And you don’t use it as a title if it’s honorary without declaring its honorary.!

Agreed.

And there is no depth to the witch hunt if you have nothing to fudge.

I could back up any of my qualifications in less than minutes on here. My professional accreditation is checkable on a database available to the public for that very reason. My involvement in published papers and discussions/panels is verifiable by a quick search of the references that throw up the results. I could draw on any number of people with the same publicly checkable PINs that I have done what I have said I have and been where I said I was.

It would cause me very little trouble and next to no worry to undergo such verification. Because it is all true.

I mean if I'd been ruled against by a panel including this person I'd be calling my legal team first thing on Monday! I'd be doing spreadsheets to tot up personal losses all weekend.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160820153951/re3group.com/view.php?PID=47&TID=2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20160820153951/re3group.com/view.php?PID=47&TID=2

😊

It looks like the process might be open to abuse of this sort.

it seems they might overly rely on references.

I think they will ask for proof of ID like a passport, and of address, but it doesn’t look like they will ask for proof of qualifications other than a CV and references.

They might check the most recent jobs on your CV but that wouldn’t reveal the ‘borrowing’ of a title of which you are not eligible.,

I suspect any checks done 30 years ago will be lost to the mists of time anyway:

To apply, candidates must show how they satisfy the eligibility requirements for the post. This is a relatively straightforward but incredibly important step. Applicants will not be able to go any further in the process if they have not provided clear evidence of their eligibility.
There are two ways we might ask for information about your eligibility. For some roles, you will simply need to list relevant experience and memberships. For other roles, you may need to provide an eligibility statement.
If you are asked to provide an eligibility statement, you should read the eligibility requirements closely and make sure your statement explains how you meet these specific requirements. Remember that the panel reading your application will include members who are not specialists in this area, and that the panel will not have access to any other information about how your professional experience meets these requirements. So you need to be clear. You will not need to complete a self-assessment or provide further documents such as a CV at this stage.
You can read more about eligibility here.
You will also need to supply independent assessments. Make sure that the people you ask to give these assessments know your work and will be able to explain your competencies.

Definitely Charlotte too.

She’s a total savant.

Shes so intelligent and seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of any bundle she glances at.

Friday morning someone sent something into Sara’s solicitor. It set the ball rolling and now we’ll have an avalanche.

Just recently Companies House has brought in a verification procedure involving passport or other photo ID for directors of companies.

AFAIK there is no link with HMRC.

I've lost track - does anyone have a rough date range for the Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University? They both have sites in the Wayback Machine

She joined in 1990 - she started using the title 15 years after joining if I recall.

She is misleading the tribunal and everyone who comes before it.

I think it might have been September 2009 that the title Prof appeared in the evidence others have found so far but that’s just from memory so might be wrong.

Currently the earliest record of using the title of Professor is the 1990 appointment to the ET - "Prof D Boyd"

As far back as that? Wow I missed that. Thank you.

Thank you for checking

Ah. Way back doesnt go back that far! I was wondering if her visiting professorship might be in one of the news pages.

That's good.

Just from a very quick skim search of companies Boyd has been posted for with her variation of names/titles there are a mishmash of other people listing themselves as titles such as Dr, OBE and Prof as part of their name (Stephen Trent Parkinson for eg). This person only has one listing with Prof as part of the name, but there are more entries for someone of the same name elsewhere in the country with the same dob without the Prof part.

Regardless of the veracity of his use of Prof, what this means is that he has different entries on CH that only cross referencing and assuming re dob allows you to make links.

It should surely be the case that you have a legal name and that all your CH entries are linked. Otherwise it's as leaky as a sieve.

Absolutely.

the professor thing should really be investigated / picked up. If PB lied about her qualifications and background, it calls the whole integrity of the ET system into doubt. They should be checking things like this surely.