Sara Morrison v BFF Thread 3

[SexRealistic]

For background please read here:

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

So what I get from the docs on the NICS trans policy is:

The policy is drafted by officials in the Department of Finance.

There's a bit of consultation, and obviously NIPSA as the lead union has to be consulted. MM would seem to be the point man for collating responses to the consultation.

Based on the screening doc, the question is briefly considered of whether the trans policy would affect other protected groups, but that's answered in the negative so it's considered there's no need for a full equality impact assessment. (An EIA should theoretically flag up areas where you haven't considered the impact on a protected group, e.g. your disability policy works for wheelchair users but not for the visually impaired. In practice, institutions like the Welsh Government often take the approach of "we asked Stonewall and they said it was fine")

What I'm interested in is where the impetus for the policy came from. Not from NIPSA, who just did a response though were obviously happy to go along with it. (I suspect most responses in NIPSA were from the LGBT caucus, and most members didn't notice it.) And not from the DoF officials who drafted the policy, because the civil service works on inertia and someone would have had to have the idea and push for it to be adopted. I don't know who that was and it's impossible to tell from the paper trail we have.

But once the ball gets rolling, it's pushing at an open door (excuse the mixed metaphor), officials get drafting, they ask for advice from Stonewall or The Rainbow Project who are supposed to be the experts in this exciting new area, when they consult the union (whose members are very apathetic on non-pay issues) they get a positive response, and bingo, here's the policy and there are no SSS any more.

And all this very conveniently happens when the Executive is collapsed and there are no pesky DUP ministers around to object. It's a masterclass in institutional capture. There can't have been more than a handful of people actively pushing for the policy, but once it starts it can't be stopped.

And now of course, once the policy is bedded in, any challenge to it looks like taking rights away from trans staff who haven't done anything wrong.

A few PP have suspected professional jealousy on the part of SD. Do remember NW is only recording the 'working' interactions between the 2.legal teams.

SD does seem.to have quite a combative style (and it is possible there's an element of keeping sweet with the judge in a small legal 'village'). But when off duty I've seen no sign of personal animosity. As everyone was packing away papers on Friday he was having a perfectly friendly chat with CE about a different case.

The considered impact is either that there won't be any on other groups 🤔 or that the impact will be overwhelmingly positive!

One wonders when anyone will go back over all this with a post SC lens and the penny will drop

It’s wild that they’ve concluded there won’t be any negative impact on men and women generally because the policy will have a positive impact on transgender people.

All the EqIAs on trans policies in the NHS look exactly like that.

They will have had plenty of time over the weekend to address it on Monday very thoroughly, which is probably the better outcome.

Headcount in the NICS at the time would have been approximately 23,000. I don't know for sure how many trans identified staff there would be, but I'd guesstimate less than 100 and probably quite a bit less. If you've got a workplace of say 200, that might be one individual.

So the impacts on the ground might be very small, it might literally be a matter of your colleague Dennis who now goes by Denise, and it's only when you zoom out that you realise you've abolished single sex spaces. Because the civil service doesn't do pragmatic adjustments for individuals, it has to have a policy for every eventuality.

I think SD was more shocking rudeness (and a weird team mentality with the panel)

But that the judge has a chip on her shoulder about people from elsewhere not falling into line with how they do it 'here'.

It has to be another recusal application:

1. You Judge allowed a panel member to step down citing ill health without addressing the merits of actual bias presented to you.
2. Further information has come to light that said panel member was misleading the court as to her academic qualifications - she isn’t a professor she left school at 16 with o-levels. This fraud has been persisting as far back as two decades, potentially more. Her stepping down was inextricably linked to NCs mentioning for an academic & prof you have a low online profile.
3. You judge have shown bias for failing to interrogate the willingness of the member to step down. If it was health related we could have made reasonable adjustments. Put her in a hotel to save the commute. She’s shown no other signs of ill health except with trans women were called men. We only had 4 more days to go.
4. The record states the recusal application failed - but for Naomi’s intervention the panel member wouldn’t have stepped down. That’s destroying trust in our public institutions.
5. You Judge have another problem. Mr McKeown, member for Central Whitley consulted with 40’people in 2017 and this led to an illegal policy being forced upon 47000 workers. Women are being forced to share spaces with intact men. It’s exactly this that goes to the heart of the case.
6. He hasn’t disclosed this conflict of interest to the Tribunal. Or he has and you haven’t thought it meritous enough to ask him to step down.
7. So he needs to go for actual bias and you for implied bias.
8. You are also biased in your actions as you showed incensed rage and othered Sara’s legal counsel - that’s not how we do things here.
9. We do things differently us sex realists. We look at things afresh. The emperor in his new clothes are in fact a man with his penis out.
10. Debbie’s professor ship is a lie: McKeown potentially played a part in forcing single sex spaces to become mixed in breach of the law. A liar and a law breaker and both trans supporters.

So Judge round 2 of recusal. Shall we do it properly this time?

Ps you might need to have a good clear out of your lay members before we come back. Our pack of MN vipers stand at the ready.

Ok I’m getting carried away. I have no idea what they’re going to do. But this would be what I’d do. Blow up the entire farce. Put them all on notice and get a huge white board set to plot out all the conflict of interests in the governance of BFF and lock down the letter writing campaign evidence.

Retrial goes rather swimmingly. JKR pic with an even bigger cigar.

We can crowd fund the film production and host it on the VERY EXPENSIVE BIG SCREEN. Some of the engineers here can use the 37 page manual to ERECT the darn thing and save the £2000 erection fee.

I like Sean, he’s a decent chap doing a good job. He knows when to be outraged and when to doff his cap to the panel.

He has grown up in these spaces. He knows how they operate. It doesn’t make him bad or biased - he can’t step outside of himself. But neither can the panel or any one else in the room.

Naomi doesn’t come from here - so it’s rather disconcerting to have fresh eyes.

The lipstick on a pig thing was bad. I’ll tell him off in person.

Exactly this!! Thank you. It’s there in plain sight.

Ph D, LLB, DD, MD etc

It took me to this morning to twig this.

I get @myrtlelion point that you're not going to get anyone who is anyone in a union these days, without them being linked to a union with a dodgy trans policy (except the newly minted Darlington one) because all the unions have a dodgy trans policy. But, for you to have an extensive working history with a union that was a signatory to the manifesto that was criticised at the heart of the case, and for you to have been a named contributor and facilitator to the exact type of policy that SM was raising issue with, well you should have just run that by everyone at least.

@SexRealistic careful you don't out yourself!

I'm curious how you know what you know @SexRealistic can you give insight without outing yourself?

I feel like a disappointed Auntie in that case.

He got overdone and was showing off, and he's let himself down.

Sad times.

As its breakfast time (yes I know it's 10 am but I've only just got up)...

If CE and NC have found any more info on the panel members - and I can't imagine they would have spent the weekend in a spa or having a jolly piss up, I don't imagine there's anything else they can do but address it on Monday.

I have to disagree re Sean Doherty being a decent chap. He might be nice to his Mum, but his carry on during the Tribunal came across as unprofessional and not how we do it over the water here.

He reminded me of a mini me version of J.D. Vance when he took off at Zelensky at Trump's behest.

Disagree and challenge your opposite number by all means, but stick to legal argument, not insults about pigs, lipstick and references to Sarah Palin. Nor do you take your lead from nods and eye rolls from panel members.

It makes you the pet attack dog, not an independent advocate for justice.

Is Mckeown Michael or Micheal? Obviously they are both usually 'Catholic names' in a NI context, but the the Irish language version is an extra cultural statement.

And yes, some people use both at various times as seem appropriate, but a William introducing himself as Billy is making a different point from the times he calls himself Liam.

Wasn't it said that the Court would reconvene on Tuesday 1.30? Can't remember the reason.

Given all these issues, can NC request the hearing on Monday, or will she have to wait?

Shes about 45 now

And the ScotGov one. So many people seem to think these EQIA should only consider the impact on the group they intend to impact, and that it is irrelevant to consider potential impacts on the other groups.

We are back on Monday 1.30. Sean has another hearing in the morning.

Scratch that, ir's 1.30 on Monday. My device is dying and it's hard to find things!