Sara Morrison v BFF thread 4

[MarieDeGournay]

continuation

I am a heathen. I’ve got you can’t decline a recline from the Royle Family going round my head.

From 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

The return of Think People, who may or may not have a Director of Better😁

Oy! I'll have no goblinism here. I'd have left by my second meeting if they'd forced me to be a wussy sprite like my sister.

I remember our soap carving activity as though it was yesterday. She had a green bar, and I had a white one.

My carving was way better, even if she was a poxy sixer because she was such a goody two-shoes.

Some people don't stay members. Also panel membership is not tied to union membership. Fortunately for us because Martyn Reuby in Allison Bailey's case had left the union.

Did we ever find out what the info was before the start that was ‘not about the panel’ and caused an audible gasp?

Not yet!

MD: do I have to?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

From NW

MD the grievance process
NC it can't be that because that came later
MD to see if anyone was around in the next month because we might need them
NC you are deliberately trying to blur the chronology here - you are trying to pretend the investigation did not begin until after 11 July when it began on the 5th

MD no I don't accept that
[NC takes her to the fine line email]
NC what did you mean by fine line
MD it's self explanatory
NC could you explain it anyway
MD do I have to
J Ms D, the tribunal does need to understand what you mean

MD I kind of suspected that there would be some kind of process coming out of this
NC I put it to you that you were already gearing up to push towards disc proceedings
MD I don't accept that.

I think it was the youtube video of Prof DB claiming to be an employment judge.

And it was Nick Wallis gasping, not anyone on the panel.

From NW

[Fine line msg (it's not an email): "She maintains she is not trans phobic. Her comments at the rally were about freedom of speech and "letting women speak".
We are treading a fine line - re Employment law
I have been working on that f-ing statement all day
with HR people / lawyers / chair/s"

From NW

Msg was to Laurence McKeown, BFF board member who replies: "I can imagine Michele"

I don't think that makes sense, does it? It was a stack of papers, IIRR, and anyway, DB was on the panel (not any more, but to say info about her is not about the panel would seem v odd).

It's so disingenuous to pay an external company to conduct an investigation on BFF's behalf. They can't enforce any sort of disclosure parameters that might be reasonable; they more or less have to take MC and MD's word for things if no evidence to the contrary (and what are the chances of that being forthcoming!) and since the BFF is paying their fees that is who matters to them. They didn't accept that the Union rep would be bias and as useful as a dead fish to SM, they wouldn't make any concessions to who should attend with her so they Think People were screwing the pooch from the off.

I have been working on that f-ing statement all day

😱

NC what did you mean by fine line
MD it's self explanatory
NC could you explain it anyway
MD do I have to

No, I think it was in relation to something in the bundle...

Yes I realise that ProfMyrtle It just strikes me as an odd thing to not retain in this particular case. Just me musing.

Lots of small companies pay external companies for HR.

ANY HR company or department will act for the company, not the staff member.

From NW

[we are now looking at Ruth McCarthy from Outburst Arts/Michele Devlin's email chain from 4 - 7 July after the 3 July email]
MD I was protecting our reputation
NC after the damage done by SM?
MD no - just protecting our rep
NC you hadn't collaborated with BFF since 2011

I'm on my high horse here. They farmed it out to Think People because they were using the process to get to an end, to sack SM, and Think People would have played the game for them.

It's a small org with few resources so why not just try and treat SM fairly internally. The investigation implies she has done something significantly wrong which is nonsense and they knew it implied that which is why they signalled it to the world and his arsehole.

They should have just said to Sara would you mind keeping a lid on attacking specific groups when you are giving speeches about women's rights in future. And then allowed her outreach work to work with the many other communities than captured ones for a while.

Fuckers!

My point being in the main that an investigation wasn't really justified because they knew exactly what she did and when so what is there, really, for an outside company to investigate.

What they really wanted to do was to have a sit down meeting where they could accuse her of transphobia and get her to say something they could deem transphobic.

@NoBinturongsHereMate wrote
Prob can't give details of the next bit but SM's solicitor has just shown her a bundle of papers that has an additional revelation. Not about the panel.

But they knew sacking her could be challenged, so.they brought in an external company to add legitimacy to what they were doing.

At my last company I didn't even approve anyone's probation period without checking with our employment law firm first.