Sara Morrison v BFF Thread 3

[SexRealistic]

For background please read here:

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

@SexRealistic I'm going to push back slightly on McKeown. Looking at the annual reports, the LGBT section is overwhelmingly reporting LGB activities - marriage equality, the blood ban, banners at Pride - with the T seemingly bolted on as an afterthought.

You can see that start to change in the 2018 report, and there's two small things. The first is a conference motion calling for unisex toilets that's remitted, where they say we're consulting some trans campaign groups to form our considered view.

The other is the consultation, but that's not NIPSA driven, that's collating responses from members to the proposed NICS trans strategy. So you can see the union moving into being captured by saying let's listen to these trans groups, but I don't think NIPSA is driving policy.

I'd love to know more about the NICS trans strategy and where it emerged from and who drafted it. This was in a period when the Executive had collapsed and the NICS was basically running things off its own bat. Was there some dedicated unit driving this? Did it come from ideologically driven officials and the Permanent Secretaries just signed off on it without thinking much about it, or was it strongly supported from the top? Did someone spot an opportunity with no Executive in place and no DUP ministers to throw a spanner in the works? I think we should be told.

MD (Michele Devlin) is in the middle of giving evidence. If the judge released her from not talking about the case, MD could discuss it with the BFF's lawyers, directors and others. This might then mean her evidence in Monday is tainted by others' tactics, theories and suppositions. That would make her evidence different to her original statement and might mean she changed her account as a result.

So though the judge originally released her, the judge changed her mind.

To be pendantic, the judge didn’t change her mind but found she had no legal basis to make such an order which made her look like a bit of a tit and quite possibly well out of her depth.

They have been kept suitably appraised of proceedings.

It was worse.

The Judge said regardless of anything she would be releasing Michelle Devlin over the weekend.

Except her and Sean Doherty checked and that would be a breach of the law so they decided best not to.

She was never released because you know Tribunal proceedings and what not.

I think you should! But clearly you have values and other respected qualifications so didn't need to.

I think that if you are leading on bringing in illegal policies (bear with me I haven’t read it) that likely infringe on women’s rights and you are the only named member out of so many other members who could have taken on that work it gives rise to the inference you are invested in these matters.

It’s not his Union had a policy. He did the work to bring the Union into Stonewall law (they are referenced in one of them), that policy is a mess and likely illegal.

And he doesn’t say boo to a goose when Naomi is suggesting they’re biased? Oh no not me.

Imagine if Naomi brings this up on Monday and suddenly Micheal is recused for gout.

Things are very catching when Naomi calls for a recusal.

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table

"Cunningham told the court it was difficult to find much information online about Professor Boyd including her academic specialism."

Is this a polite lawyerly way of saying we know you're not a real professor, now are you going to get out of the way or make us spell it out?

Maybe that's what the pointed "thank you" was all about.

She knows she's rumbled.

As an aside, presumably her husband could have said, "er, darling, are you really a Dr and Professor and Queen and Lord? Should we maybe mention to people that they were just roles in a play at the village fete and all done with now?"

My New Year’s resolution will be to never do another one ever!

All those posters on previous trials who dropped in a perfectly timed post at 1000 with a link to a well organized new thread. They are super human.

Carrying on and ignoring the problem is the sixth best option.

Naomi, Charlotte and Sara are 1st best option people. I’m pure ragin’ it’s so long until Monday afternoon.

NI is also quite prone to deferring to people's titles. The current Economy Minister is invariably addressed as Dr Caoimhe Archibald. Now I will say in Caoimhe's defence that she does have a PhD, and if unsuspecting voters have assumed she's an economist, she has never made that claim.

I would guess that very few voters know she's a mycologist i.e. an expert in fungi.

In this case the Dr is just a way of indicating that Caoimhe is a clever woman, which she undoubtedly is in an Assembly not brimming over with cleverness.

Sean Doherty is full of bluster at times - but he’s a decent barrister. He’s kind & courteous in role. He’s shouldering the case for BFF and the arty crowd so he has the short straw.

BFF aren’t paying too well as the solicitors are only sending a junior to sit alongside Sean.

He plays his part but his case was over on day 1 post questioning Sara.

Interrupting NC’s flow was the best he could do mostly.

Please say more - more insight & eyes over the documents are required.

There are Trans activities increasing in scope each year and Micheal is the only name against those.

I think it’s something that should be at the very least disclosed or maybe flagged when the Panel are accused of bias. No way would a TERF being doing that work.

He wasn’t sitting on a Committee with a host of others. He was leading on the Trans activity for NIPSA and it was to impact 47,000 people. He may be been supporting the members wishes - but it was done in line with Stonewall law - that makes it unsafe for women and precisely what Sara was speaking out about.

A few things to chew over!

The NICS Trans Equality Policy and Transitioning At Work Guide: Transitioning at work - Trans equality policy guide

The screening document which details how NICS internally assessed the impacts of the trans policy on other groups: NICS Trans Equality Policy and Transitioning Guide - Screening document

Someone who submitted some FOIs on the policy: Haidah Rasheem - Freedom of Information requests - WhatDoTheyKnow

There are some details there about how the sausage was made, but not as many as I'd like.

Enjoy!

A small snippet from The NICS Trans Equality Policy and Transitioning At Work Guide re accessing toilets. The person has a right to use the facilities according to their stated gender...

Managers are expected to support the trans colleague’s rights on this issue and may do so by dealing with unreasonable behaviour through communication, discussion, education and adherence to the NICS diversity and inclusion values.

Some posts may also require the use of showers/changing facilities and the legal position regarding changing facilities is as that for toilet facilities.

And there we see it again - if you have problem with this (or as they put it dealing with unreasonable behaviour) you need to be educated.

Thank you - some morning reading

Just dropping in to say a big thank you to all who are contributing to the thread, I have no contribution to make myself, but I very much apricate be able to read about what's going on. 👍💐

I don’t know - but while Naomi has seen some strange things I’m not sure she was quite at the point of alledging fraudulent misrepresentation of a panels education status.

If you read Nick Wallis’ wonderful blogs you can see Naomi referring to Professor Boyd.

It’s a term of significant importance and deserves respect.

But to sit and be called Professor when you dipped into some visiting professor work at a university some decades ago.

I don’t think Naomi & Charlotte had that on their bingo cards.

I'm not sure that the regular players in the NI tribunal world (i.e the panel and legals) were really prepared for the scrutiny the presence of a major player like NC would cause in this case. Reading their comments, there is a whiff of professional jealousy coming from some parties, including the judge, which does not accord with open and fair justice. I wonder how they will look back on their actions once they realise quite how public they have become.

Some of these documents are wild.

The FOI shows extensive involvement from Stonewall in the drafting of the policy with 'track changes' proving their influence. There was no engagement with women's groups, religious, faith or cultural groups and only 2 individuals were consulted. One of the consultants TRA groups suggests trans people may want to make use of accessible toilets instead but no thought in the policy or consultation to those with needs to those spaces already.

If Michael Mckeown was the member of staff involved in getting this policy adopted by NIPSA then he absolutely should have declared this. It very specifically and deliberately and clearly requires the admittance of men to women's sss and states that it is illegal to prevent access.

I think we need some kind of graphic here😁

I don't think anyone, even on Friday, realised how much scrutiny this how things was going to come under.

Quite apart from the specific impacts to this case, I now think that there will need to be a formal review of panel appointments and the governance of re/applications etc across the tribunal service, and that the cases DB has sat on in the past may all have to be notified and put through a process too.

I definitely think that the panel, judge and R legal team have behaved as though this was their usual set up and basically forgotten that NW was live tweeting and we were all watching.

Apols if this has already been dissected , but NC described Deborah Boyd as a “foreign” academic which seems odd. Is it possible that she googled in a rush and found the only discoverable professors with that name are infact foreign and assumed Boyd must be one of them.And that it might not have crossed NC’s mind at that point to query the professorship in its entirety?