Sara Morrison v BFF thread 4

[MarieDeGournay]

continuation

From NW

J C also says MM might be swayed by loyalty to the Union. He retired some time ago. Taking all this to account, the arguments and case law, that we have not been persuaded there is a case for recusal...

... - not been a member of the union since 2018

• not involved in the authoring of any trans policies inc those which post date his membership
• membership of a union does not imply endorsement of its policies

[we are now cracking on with Michele Devlin (MD)'s cross-examination (xe) by Sara Morrison (SM & C)'s counsel Naomi Cunningham (NC)]

To the tune of Begin the Beguine.

So DB was not recused as she stepped down to poor health and that allegation of bias was not examined.

Now today

In a really big case the postroom boy (solicitors) or the clerk from chambers (barristers) would wheel one of those tall trolleys stacked shoulder high with bundles.

...then it's time to begin the beguine?

The J certainly does seem more restrained today. I bet MD wonders if she will be under oath for the rest of her life now, as its been so long.

From NW

NC takes MD to 3 July tweet sent by Queerspace which notices SM's involvement in email sent to LGBTQ groups and replies with hostility. You sent your response late on 4 July, which suggests you'd put thought into it
MD yes

NC and your response is about SM isn't it
MD no I don't accept that
NC it is about SM and your support for LGBTQ against her
MD no

Not a prima inter pares then.

membership of a union does not imply endorsement of its policies

But is it correct to say that non-endorsement of those policies means that the Union will not support you in e.g. a tribunal?

It makes sense. They can't use it later if they don't raise it now. I still think he should have flagged it and made the point when flagging it that he has been retired for some time, but I don't think that's the get out of jail free card because he will be so deeply connected to all there that it will be hard to not have them in mind.

From NW

NC takes her to R response to the claim - that an investigation started on 5 July - it follows that the decision to make an investigation on 4 or 5 July
MD I don't recall
NC must it not follow it began then
MD I don't know I'd need to look back at the emails

MD going for a tribunal favourite "I don't recall"

No. A union is obliged to represent members if the union's lawyers say they have a reasonable case.

Hence Sandie Peggie suing her union.

Keen former Elf pipes up:

The big square cases were "pilot bags" as some bright spark spent far too much time at airports and thought they were just the right size to stuff in A4 files, with room for pencil cases and hole punches and bags of sweets etc. You didn't want to be carrying a full one any further than to a waiting taxi!

Once laptops became a thing (but still pretty heavy) the great luggage gods put some casters on the bottom and created trolley bags.

I think this element of the appearance of bias, raised by @ProfLargofesse in the last thread hasn't really been acknowledged:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5444914-sara-morrison-v-bff-thread-3?reply=148594862&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

From NW

NC you're not willing to accept... oh I don't need to pursue that
[she moves on]
NC look at par 25 of your Witness Statement (WS)
"Ultimately, after consulting with the Chairs of the Board [ref to 11 July email] we took the decision to
postpone the Pride on the Big Screen event."

Prof Myrtle starts to relax at NW's slower tweeting pace.

not been a member of the union since 2018

• not involved in the authoring of any trans policies inc those which post date his membership
• membership of a union does not imply endorsement of its policies

That seems fair enough - esp the last one!

DB's alleged links twice removed to a pro trans womens' group were also from a long time ago.

DB's stated reason for stepping down, i.e. health, has been accepted, although it was widely questioned here.

So either it was because she was unable to continue because of fibromyalgia, or the judge is either [a] gullible AF or [b] dishonest.

What are the nuances here?

I'd be terrified if NC said to me " you're not willing to accept... oh I don't need to pursue that" - tantamount to 'oh, you thought this was the trap... how adorably quaint'

From NW

NC so the cancellation took place after 11 July.
MD mm-hmm
[NC trying to pin down when the decision was taken to commence investigation]
[MD is not sure it was after 11 July]

I've sent a capybara round to do a massage.

I do a quick name change and my image gets blocked!

I'm sure it will turn up at some point!

I might venture out for a wee...

Doesn't NIPSA have a retired members branch?
Odd that the Judge says MM is no longer a member, yet he is on the panel for the trade union side?
Most unions have a branch for retired members. Yet he is claiming not to have anything to do with unions these days? I suppose it tops up his pensions nicely. Another grifter.

NW
NC takes her back to her WS where it says Think People were engaged on 5 July to investigate concerns from stakeholders. MD mm-hmm NC that seems to be saying that in response to the outcry on 4 July which came after your email on 3 July
MD we were already working with Think People (TP) NC on and investigation MD no for payroll stuff NC can you recall anything more about your 28 June phone meeting MD it was to see if anyone senior was available to oversee the process NC which process

MD is mm-hmming