Sara Morrison v BFF Thread 3

[SexRealistic]

For background please read here:

https://genderblog.net/sara-morrison-v-belfast-film-festival/

The panel might become aware though, if they happen to Google over the weekend, quite how many people are watching, despite the lack of online public access. Not of course that that would necessarily make any difference to their behaviour.

I'm sure I've heard that phrased used before. Possibly in Allison Bailey's first case? Although, in the unlikely event that I'm not imagining it, I suspect the context wouldn't have been so obnoxious. I'm not rereading those threads anyway. Though they had their moments.

I've been thinking about SD's immediate reaction to NC saying she was going to make a recusal application. Do you think he might have had an idea of what was coming?

Posters from N.Ireland have explained how intertwined people are. Perhaps he knew something of Professor Deborah Professor Boyd Professor's beliefs and allegiances and her daughter's partner but hoped that nobody else did because she'd be a geat advocate for his side in this tribunal. When NC said recusal he thought the game's up so he tried bluster and loud words in the hope of cowering NC into backing down (as if), or hoping to make the J sympathetic to him by his vehemence.

Just. So. Rude

Cocky and smug and confident and rude.

And all the allegations about non verbal communication between him and DB, then his verified defence of the panel - what is it all about?!

To summarise then. We have:

A panel member who says she is a Prof but is not actually a Prof who quite likely has strong LGBTQ+ leanings. Who regular people in court identified as having bias.

A Judge who lost her temper when the claimants followed legal process and threatened an illegal action.

A Defence Barrister who openly said that he would oppose recusal before any arguments put forward and then said the application was 'lipstick on a pig'.

One witness who said supporting women's rights was 'far right' and brought in equivalence with Mussolini, Nazis, Tommy Robinson etc

Another witness who seems perfectly at ease making jokes and disrespecting the court.

Definitely nothing to see here...

I've been lying here mulling over how sad it is that the forced teaming of LGB and the other muddle of letters means that NC could genuinely say that being LGBT supportive or into Pride are potentially bad things in this case.

Really not that long ago being a supporter of Pride or championing gay rights were absolutely non controversial and would not in any way indicate a strong political will to do harm/cancel/undermine to those who don't fit your very vehement set of correct thoughts, beliefs and actions. It just would have meant you were live and let live sort, with an appetite for floats and festivals.

Now it has become a by word for being intolerant, forceful, demanding compliance, no debate, no accomodation of different views even when arising from needs related to religions and cultures, trauma or disability etc etc.

It is almost unbelievable how wrong the whole thing has gone.

Dr Professor Deborah Professor Boyd please

iirc it emerged in the exchange of pleasantries between Kate Scottow & Fat Tony (she was arrested at home following his accusations, cleared on appeal)

Wasn't there a pig in a wig somewhere too. Can't remember if that one had lipstick on?

It's all a bit Fife, isn't it?

In more ways than one. You don't need to be an expert on Norn Iron to know it's a very socially conservative place, and might have a range of views on this newfangled TQ+ stuff.

But there are parts of Belfast society, and the arts sector is one of them, where "fuck the DUP" and "terfs = Mussolini" and banning political parties from Pride unless they support puberty blockers for 10 years olds - these are such default positions that they're not even seen as opinions.

And to draw a parallel with the BBC, these aren't very big bubbles in terms of the numbers of people, but they include most of the people in influential positions.

And even for those who don't buy into the Current Thing, there's a very strong "don't rock the boat" culture. I'm not surprised Sara had trouble finding a solicitor. You'd think an ambitious solicitor would see the chance of a high profile case in a developing area of law. But for most of the profession, "don't rock the boat" is the reflex.

Micheal McKeown, Panel Member is NIPSA member 2016/2017/2018. He goes way back but he’s in place during these years.

He is Trade Union Side for Whitley.

https://nipsa.org.uk/publications/AR2016.pdf

https://nipsa.org.uk/publications/AR2017.pdf

https://nipsa.org.uk/publications/AR2018.pdf

All docs are easily searchable for McKeown and Whitley.

Resulting in this doc:

https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dfp/NICS%20Trans%20Equality%20Policy%20and%20Transitioning%20at%20Work%20Guide%20-%20Screening%20Document0.pdf

To be fair, I once got a letter from a German institution addressing me as "sehr geehrte Frau Prof. Dr. med. Sionnach", and I have not the faintest idea where they got the idea that I was a professor, or a medical doctor forsooth. I just put it down to pathological German formality.

Maybe I should have kept the letter and used it to give myself credentials.

@SexRealistic

That's amazing digging. Does anyone have NC's (or CE's) email address?

one had a wig, the reply had lipstick

I'm not sure starting over would be possible.

The judge offered the options of carrying on with the remaining panel, or the remaining panel plus a replacement member. There are quite tight time limits on bringing an employment case, so if they didn't take either of those and instead withdrew I doubt they would be able to bring a new claim.

Just because a trade union has a trans policy that believes TWAW, it doesn't mean that an individual staff member or union member agrees with that view.

Remember that Martyn Reuby who was on Allison Bailey's panel was instrumental in finding for her. He was a Unite member while they had a TWAW policy.

If all TU panel members were recused because their union had a TWAW policy, they would all be recused.

wouldnt it be retrial of the same claim ?

You could have had a name plate all this time!

Is a Panel member neutral on Trans issues if they consult and manage Trans matters on behalf of one of NIs biggest Unions?

Realistically, we've all got our own political leanings and issues that we support. Which is fine. However, what we would expect in the interests of transparency of due process, is that interests or prejudices etc., are declared if relevant.

I might dislike the DUP, for instance, but as a panel member I'd hope that I could put that aside if someone who was a party member was before me on an unfair dismissal claim.

Having said that, I would think it pertinent to advise the Judge asap, if having realised this person was a DUP member, I had previously liked a social media post with Fuck the DUP and my own comment of Best Picture of the Day.

Not to do so would definitely raise questions about my integrity.

Edited to add:
So I think it's perfectly fine to have trade union responsibility for a group of members, such as members who happen to be trans. What isn't fine is if a panel member appears to be unable to act fairly as a panel member and allows personal bias to take over.

Thanks to @SexRealistic and all contributors for these fascinating threads.

Can someone please explain to me the significance of the judge saying that she would release SD (?) from not discussing the case?

What a farce of a document!

Section D - Formal Record of Screening Decision
Title of Proposed Policy / Decision beingscreened:
NICS Trans Equality Policy and Transitioningat Work Guide
I can confirm that the proposed policy / decision has been screened for (i) equality of
opportunity, (ii) good relations disabilities duties and (iii) human rights issues
On the basis of the answers to the screening questions, I recommend that this policy
/ decision is –
Screened Out – No EQIA necessary (no adverse impacts)

I find it by google 'her name barrister' but PM to you seems to have changed the email address to a url

NC wants the case heard. SM may very well win. Having been given a choice of carrying on with two panellists or having someone new, she chose two panellists. Better the devil you know, and a new panellist is an unknown danger. She didn't have the choice to walk away because she would automatically lose.

It is important to have the tribunal hear all the evidence and for the panel to adjudicate.

It would take a lot of time to make.legal applications and fight the composition of the tribunal when it's unnecessary.

But more importantly, the failure of Boyd to recuse herself or be recused for bias remains a point of appeal.

If the judge had said that Boyd recused herself for apparent bias Naomi would have a much lower chance of appealing for bias. By using illness as a reason the judge has left herself open for an appeal on the grounds of bias.

I know it's frustrating because in many of our lives we would be justified in pushing the point, arguing our case and kicking up a fuss. But in NC's world, sometimes it's better to keep your powder dry because there are more ways to get the result you want.

Can someone please explain to me the significance of the judge saying that she would release SD (?) from not discussing the case?

MD, not SD.

Once a witness is under oath they may not discuss the case with anyone - including I think their own legal team - until questioning has finished. Judges try to keep this time to a minimum. Because of the various interruptions MD's evidence is still part heard, so she's had to stay under oath over the weekend.

The judge said she'd release her from restrictions for the weekend, then realised she couldn't.

She said that she would release Michelle Devlin from being under oath.

This would mean that despite losing the morning from being able to cross examine her, NC would not be allowed to ask her any further questions after the end of the day.

The judge was proposing punishment and detriment to the Claimant and Claimant's team due to them being the cause of the delays.

Turns out that's illegal.