Sara Morrison v BFF thread 4

[MarieDeGournay]

continuation

Thank God its not a drinking game. We'd all be completely sozzled.

Right! I am going to watch crappy TV.

I'm sure you'll all talk amongst yourselves, but I might not read it.

This is the Outburst email for reference

Thanks @ProfessorMyrtleLion for your duty today.

Can I just say, when I put prof after the @ so many Profs came up. I think we are nearly a whole University with this may profs. 😂

I’m thinking it might have been Maya or possibly Allison, but I’m not very sure. I do remember a bunch of us using the comments box to make a point about something or other which led to a funder being taken down and then only replaced without comments.

Sorry - as helpful as a fake professor, I know.

Ooh, mine was 'I promise to do my best, to do my duty to God and the Queen, and help others every day, especially those at home.'
(I think that might have been a local variation by Brown Owl, who clearly had an agenda.)
I was a lumpy not-so-sprightly Sprite.

I spy thingy (i must go Google i spy)

Hmmm.... look, I've had some pretty messy break-ups in 'complex' situations myself, but after 14 flipping years, we'd all have well and truly got over it and it wouldn't be impacting on my professional life.

I'm not sure we needed to know about MD's 'complexities' with one organisation out of many, in 2011.

Some of these time-lapses are problematic for me - events in MD's love-life in 2011, McK's Union membership ending in 2018, DB's possible links at one or two removes with a pro-trans women's group in... 2015 was it?

Basically, NC has made it possible to infer that MD colluded with Ruth from Outburst before she sent out her email because why else would Outburst be so quick off the mark to respond given how long it is since they collaborated and that there is good reason they avoid such.

It might be reasonable to infer that MD was shown it before it was sent.

That MD consipired, in effect, with Outburst and two others to engineer a useful trail of complaints to meet employment law requirements for an investigation.

This is why her response to questioning about the tee-shirt, whilst it might seem on the surface to MD as a stretch, she revealed something without realising it.

When asked if she should have been investigated her immediate reply was 'there were no complaints.' Why would that be the first thought in response? You would see that NC is trying to create a parallel and if you weren't up to your neck in BS your answer would be more likely to be: but I didn't name specific groups and attack their intergrity in public, for example

It is easy to infer that at the forefront of her mind is the advice she got re investigations that they are only really justifiable if there had been complaints.

So she go got them.

vearing slightly off topic but how many fkn 'michael mckeowns' are there in the wee town/village of newbry in NI? I mean....jeezo

I guess it may be useful to underline the very tenuous relationship BFF has witb Outburst ie they did not collaborate for 10+ years (NC stages this is for personal rather than professional/commercial reasons) and then, with one email MD is expected and does view their objection far more favourably and with a greater degree of care than for her employee that she's worked closely with for years.

I think the point was to demonstrate the likelihood of MD having colluded with Outburst to send that email because given the absence of collaboration over such a long time and the likely explanation for that even though they are both directors (so why wouldn't they be collaborating all the time) why would Ruth from Outburst even bother to reply? It is extremely odd in that context and reasonable to infer some other motivation ie collusion.

One could almost imagine that the email to all the groups was sent so they could all make their complaints. One could almost imagine they may have been aware of that, giving them a platform to condemn SM. This amassing of complaints (completely out of the blue) could then be used with plausible deniability of any encouragement by the upright MD and Co. Not saying that is what happened. One can never know for sure unless someone honest pipes up. Then again (in my opinion) someone like that wouldn’t have engaged in such a fit up in the first place.

Maybe it is just me that would be suspicious of a stitch up. I have no doubt that these people are exemplary professionals whose behaviour is imbued with great integrity, despite how they strike one in the ET.

I wouldn't be surprised if the partner/ex/Outburst jigsaw pieces which Naomi put together form part of a bigger picture we only get to see later.

I see what you mean, and take your point and all that, but there's plenty of other evidence that MD manufactured the reaction. I'm not sure that a reference to MD's private life in 2011 is warranted.

Is the suggestion that her horror at SM's terfitude was such that it even enabled her to talk to with her partner's ex after 14 years of avoiding each other....in Belfast? where everybody knows everybody, even moreso in the L&G community I'm not convinced.
But NC is usually 'dead-on' so it may be shown to be very relevant and totally warranted.

If I was MD I'd be even more hacked off at NC now, that's for sure!

I suspect that Naomi took this line of questioning to discomfort MD by letting her know that she had been deeply researched & that the Claimant's side had the receipts.

I think in ETs and trials the panel are allowed to infer things because people will lie. I don't think, unlike USA courtroom dramas, it is necessary for someone to make a confession in the stress of the moment.

But if something useful is entered into evidence through testimony NC can invite the panel to infer something from what is present. This inference will depend in large part on the panel's view of the witness's credibility.

If MD had been calm and consistant she would be more credible. I think ET judges allow some room for the stress of being giving evidence.

It is quite clear to me that when MD was being asked if she should be investigated in the same way they planned to investigate SM for wearing that trans inclusive feminist tee out at a public event and instead of replying with something credible ie I didn't attack treasured members by name, she went completely off piste 'I welcome investigation...called a bastard' which was an attempt at misdirection before saying 'There were no complaints'

And by making that assertion making it clear that she knew an investigation required something more to be feasible within Employment Law settings, and what would justify it was complaints.

And so she went and engineered complaints because for all the twitter stuff no one had actually complained. To ensure that she got complaints it is possible to infer from the cc action and the next day responses, all quite similar and only three (and the exclusion of two positive emails which MD did not include in her WS) and one from an organisation that hasn't worked with BFF in any capacity for over a decade it is reasonable to infer collusion.

And if you infer that the complaints were engineered to satisfy the process it is reasonable to infer that the investigation was being forced into being in order to sack SM.

And there you have constructive dismissal, hostile working environment and harassment.

You can apply to be a tribunal panel member no matter what your background, and when you apply you are asked if you would be "employer" or "employee" side. The latter tends to be union staff, either current, or ex. They don't have to be from a union and they certainly don't have to be current staff, reps or even members.

Er side can be anyone too, usually people who have had management experience.

When I say "you can apply....", they are currently recruiting and it's the first time for fifteen years, and you've missed the deadline, so you can't....but one was able to!

I Spy books were wonderful. Kept children quiet in the car for hours. I think they cost sixpence. There was even a (cough) "Big Chief I Spy" who sent you a badge if you wrote to him. Still got mine somewhere!

It's almost as if she assumes the judge will be sympathetic to her attitude; otherwise you'd think she'd be more respectful in court.

@ProfessorMyrtleLion I actually cannot deal with the name changes 🤣

On a serious note, thank you to everybody here for the most extraordinary reporting skills and insights. I am in awe.

Do they still exist? I had loads.

One quick verification question:

What size if your screen? 📺

We didn't have a car growing up

Sad times