Sara Morrison v BFF thread 4

[MarieDeGournay]

continuation

I was once awarded a badge and a badly photocopied letter directly from Lesley Judd, John Noakes and Simon Groom to congratulate me on winning a Spot The Cat competition at the back of a Blue Peter annual.

Naturally, I'll be putting myself forward for next Director General.

I think it all actually highlights and underlines the minimal interactions she has had with HE institutions.

If she had any existing or enduring relationship with academics or their institutions, was a regular visitor/speaker and involved in planning, delivering and assessing taught programmes, was part of an interview panel or attended ceremonies the it would very easily and readily made clear to her thay the title Professor was not hers to use.

The fact this has gone on so long and permeated so far is proof in itself that she's had fleeting interactions with HE at very best.

Looking at that S75 legislation, I'm.struck by the differences between the 'promote equality' list in (1) and the much shorter 'promote good relations' list in (2).

Hmm, so it hadn't occurred to me that RM's response could be written by AI. I was thinking more along the lines of MD helpfully providing a suggested text for recipients to personalise. But both could be true. Of course there's no actual evidence of this so far. But Naomi hasn't finished yet.

Would that be another example of Stonewall law v the real thing? And thanks for pointing out about AI. I've always avoided it because I don't like it and now I have something to back me up.

The other problem with AI is that there's a growing body of research (mostly in education so far, but it's going to become quickly visible in things like law and HR) that people ask AI a question and then paste in the answer without reading or understanding it - so they don't learn and retain the information.

Stonewall law is very much about 'what you want to be in the legislation'. So faced with 2 different lists they'd definitely pick the one that best fitted their ideology rather than the facts.

MD has a duty to disclose any documents or messages relevant to the case whether they are sent via her work email or personal WhatsApp or written in lemon juice on parchment and sent by carrier pigeon.
I suppose that last one wouldn't be in her possession but you get the idea.

Wasn't there evidence that she also receive 'some' responses to her message in support of Sara?

Then I think what NC has effectively set in motion is reasonable doubt that this has been done and she has provided a likely route by which other modes of comms may have occurred.

Oh, and I've remembered I once got a picture in the gallery on Vision On.

Naturally I'll be putting myself up for appointment to the board of the Tate.

Sorry if this has already been shared. I found BFFs company information interesting. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/NI032251/filing-history?page=2
March16 last full accounts:
MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to promote a diverse and dynamic programme of film events, and outreach activity, which entertaining, provocative and provides a platform for cultural expression and debate.

Is it me, or in this case weren't BFF attempting to be the opposite of provocative, and trying to stifle debate?

@BingeleyBingeleyBeep well if nothing else this tribunal has delivered provocation and cultural debate for and about the BFF in spades, as well as them having to explain themselves to the formidable Naomi Cunningham, so... task failed successfully? 😄

I've been developing a deeper understanding of GenAI over the last year or so and it is clear that it is so woven into the lives of the younger generation that they are being significantly de-skilled on lots of levels and don't fully appreciate that text based AI is a language learning model that seeks patterns, and in that process will seek to fill in gaps by using those patterns rather than actual information.

I find it more useful to think of it in those terms rather than the more common idea of it hallucinating because it is important to see it as a pattern-seeking machine looking for statistical probabilities rather than having any actual intelligence. Hallucinating tends to suggest it's just a blip which is unexplainable rather than it being very explainable.

It is a very useful tool when you understand that. As a search engine it can gather information and sources in a useful way and much more quickly than google which favours advertising payments in how it presents the results of your searchers but AI also learns from your use what you are seeking and will find a pattern in that behaviour too which it will then apply to any searching.

And so you always need to ask it to provide links to sources and go to those sources yourself. If the summary stands up in the face of that then it might be useful. As with the law itself and evidenced in these threads everything is open to interpretation, even most facts, so applying your own intelligence to any information gathering is always crucial.

I'm always against blanket rejection of any tool rather than the application of critical thinking to how it is being used. Adding a working understanding of the tool you are using to further develop research skills rather than de-skill is much more productive. Know the tool you are using and setting out how you are using it, and how you have applied your own critical assessment to the offering rather than do knee-jerk rejection is more useful. It is here to stay and the better we understand its benefits and failings and apply our brains to how we use it the better we will be at using it.

I used to babysit the DC of someone who worked on Vision On.

That probably qualifies me to oversee the whole country's nursery and Early Years provision.

Basic good academic practice - always go back to the source. But I fear that may have been lost in the scramble to embrace AI ( not to mention how energy hungry it is)

Wow! Genuinely impressed 👏

Eta have you thought about submitting for the RA Summer exhibition?

The impression I'm getting from all of this is that a lot of not very bright, not very honest, and not very pleasant people have been wielding an undue amount of clout in a rather small pond.

They've been the big fish for a long time and it's made them careless.

Turn, turn, turn 🎶

Well, back in the sixties I was a great fan of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. on tv and along with several friends I joined the organisation. I was sent a certificate to confirm that I had been allocated to the communications section, along with a picture of Illya Kuryakin (aka David McCallum 😍).
I am confident therefore, that this qualifies me to be the Head of GCHQ!

You have reminded me that I did too! Shove up at that Tate boardroom table 😁

Accurate.

Am struggling to keep up with this as usual...I was a Gnome in brownies but didn't enjoy it and dropped out asap. I like a certificate or two and actually have a diploma in booze 🍷🍾Not sure what that qualifies me for in terms of jobs.

Having had time to think of previous accomplishments I once spent 2 days at REDACTED Crown Court treating a bug infestation in the records room.

Having walked past (and likely covered in bug spray) 1000s of old court records I feel I am more qualified than any judge in the land.

Therefore I will be taking up my place as President of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

You may call me The Right Honourable Boiledbeetle or Lady Boiled.

I'm not sure if you have to courtesy when you meet me, but I think you should just to be on the safe side.

@ProfessorBoiledbeetle I really would, except that witches never curtsy.

bows to the Right Hon. Boiledbeetle

"MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to promote a diverse and dynamic programme of film events, and outreach activity, which entertaining, provocative and provides a platform for cultural expression and debate."

Is it me, or in this case weren't BFF attempting to be the opposite of provocative, and trying to stifle debate?

I agree, and sticking my neck out a bit here but it's going on in the arts in general, maybe that's not really sticking my neck out tbh. The avant garde never happens where one thinks it's going to and it can't be insitutionalised.

If the BFF really wanted to be provocative, rather than pose as provocative they missed a golden opportunity here, instead they set about bullying the provocateuse (I may have made that word up) like a bunch of clucking chickens trying to stop the sky falling.