Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

It was KP yesterday who was inexperienced and didn't know the sector. LBd'S is on the BFF board.

Edit to add that which of them was the 'lead' investigator is very much in question.

Yes 🙌 this all day

@ProfessorBinturong - I think it was important Naomi’s points on LBD’s demeanor & eye contact - do you have notes?

Yes

Didn't KP say that she just took notes and said very little because the board member was running the ix? But today LBd'S said KP was in charge as she knew nothing about employment law and KP was in charge?

It's almost as though they were going through the motions of holding an investigation because the "clear destination" had already been chosen? 🙄🙄🙄

Welcome to your clear destination 🔚

Agreed. Not sure I got it in detail, but I think I got some. Hang on a mo ...

Found it. My writing was going to pot by that point so may not be able to decipher it all. Probably. Need to go back some way to get all the point that led up to it.

NW coverage of the questions that formed the run up:

NC the women speaking at LWS had real concerns

LB they did

NC single sex toilets, men in rape crisis centres, induced lactation in men, mutilating young bodies

LB can't speculate

NC what I'm trying to establish is that these are real important matters

LB I have no problem with people speaking about important things that they infringe on peoples' rights

NC so womens' groups trying to shut other women down for expressing those views they deserve criticism

LB speaking out is fine, but if it starts to cause reputational damage then its understandable people would want to explore
NC if women's orgs are trying to silence other women for speaking about serious

LB "I can't speak to their moral compass"

NC and BFF trying to say we can't speak about these things is "cowardly and unprincipled"

LB I don't think that was what was being said
NC it's not about women's groups tho, is it really - it's about SM speaking out about gender critical issues

LB it was that she had aligned herself with groups widely perceived to be transphobic and that troubled some people in the trans community

NC yes so it was about her alignment with view which were not approved

LB I think it can be both those things can be true - there wasn't any sense she wasn't allowed to say it. There were just aspects which clashed with the BFF's approach

My thinking is that by getting demeanour as a factor of credibility into evidence it makes it difficult for the panel to squirrel out of allowing their judgment to be informed by credibility factors like that.

All the Rs behaved v badly which did undermine their credibility. SM managed to resist being provoked which was well done in this context for that reason.

I noticed aswell that SD didn’t redirect LM at close of his testimony. I think he must have thought it wasn’t worth the risk as LM already exposed himself as being an arrogant arse.

Evidence of Lisa Barry’s D’sa.

So at one point Naomi said - please note Judge that the witness has not once looked me in the eye. There was a whole exchange. Naomi said I’m not expecting you to force her to look me in the eye etc but please consider her demeanor.

Shes 50+ but acts like a little girl. Oversized clothes, ankle socks and brogues. Her feet didn’t touch the floor. Her knees were crossed and feet wrapped around herself. She self comforted herself by hugging. She was avoidant. All she wanted to do was walk the tightrope and not fall off.

To my mind she was a very poor witness for the defence.

My notes from that point differ slightly from NW's (he generally condenses the legal squabbling a lot more than the actual testimony), so now switching to my notes.

N: These questions are about criticism. I note you've not looked me in the eye since we started.

[SD objects: This is not relevant.

J: Are you saying it's disrespectful? She doesn't have to.

NC Demeanor is relevant to the panel evaluating evidence. It's an unusual way to behave.

J says she won't order eye contact but invites witness to comment if she wishes.

SD interjects again - It's not odd for a witness not to look at the person crossexamining. I've seen it often.]

LB I'm just trying to think clearly

And while I have my book out, here's the sick pay bit from Moira Lock.

SSP = statutory sick pay

CE: You've been responsible for pay since 2021?

ML: Yes.

C: Including administering SSP?

M: Yes.

C: para 2 of your witness statement you say instructed verbally by MD. Not automatic decision by you?

M: I don't make decisions for the company.

C: So it's not automatic to put employees on SSP?

M: Not automatic. I take instruction.

C: When we're you instructed?

M: 24 or 25 July [note, NW has 'before 25 July' here - not sure which of us misheard]. Don't have exact date.

C: So before she was on sick leave?

M: No. Would get a sick note.

C: When?

M: Would have been before that date. Sick note is received then I get instruction.

C: So before C went on sick leave 25 July?

M: No. Must have a sick note. Can't have one before the other.

C: This email to you from Bethany is August 1st. Then you received the form.

M: OK.

C: Apparent from the emails that you'd not done SSP before.

M: No, I hadn't.

C: So if anyone was sick between you starting in 2022 [my note - earlier I put 2021, not sure which is right] and this time, they wouldn't have been on SSP?

M: Depends on their contract. We have very few employees, don't recall anyone before this sending sick note.

C: How many employees?

M: 3

C: No more Qs.

What I'm surprised by is their wildly arrogant belief in being RSOH. Are they not aware of NW's past work or NC? No pause for thought? No replay of that Mitchell and Webb sketch playing in their tiny brains?

I can't decide if they're compulsive liars or completely and utterly deluded. Either way, they are morally bankrupt.

I hope Sara's okay. She's such a smart, warm and funny woman. I hope she gets to put this bunch of absolute melts behind her soon.

In which case, I believe your title should be downgraded to OccasionalProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins.
If this tribunal has proved anything, it's that the world would be a better place if people knew how little they knew and were openly prepared to admit it - particularly to NC 🙂

Mild diversion. I went to a panel event tonight featuring a real long term hero of mine who is a superstar in their (my) field, it took place at an academic institution. At the start they were introduced (by an academic) who said something like “so I now introduce…Professor…” (slight inflection of voice at which the visiting speaker neither nodded nor shook his head) “[name of speaker]”. How funny, I thought since I have followed this person for 20 years (big fan) and did not know they were a professor as they are not hosted by an Uni.

Anyway, looked them up afterwards, several visiting professorships all more than ten years ago and I check thems rules and all have very clear time limits to these roles.

so a) DB not alone, and b) charitably in tonight’s case this person didn’t want to be rude and correct the chair in the moment and the chair may have got it from ChatGPG, and c) there’s a lot of this goes on and no one really does their due diligence (perhaps because it doesn’t always matter).

I think DB was bang out of order in accepting a name plate in court with the title on it though tbc.

@SexRealistic This is probably aready known to you all there at the tribunal but am tagging you just in case and putting links and quotes in one place.

I am not going to obscure the names of the service user complainant because the court hasn't made an anonymity order and I think it is relevant to name them in order to point out the discrepancy between what was advertised to the public in 2021, and what the complainant Caleb described in the email complaint in 2023.

This is a link to an archived version of Outburst's November 2021 Festival program that I think the complainant Caleb J Roberts referred to in the complaint of 7 July 2023 https://outburstarts.com/2020/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Outburst-2021-PDF-Programme.pdf

The publicly available programme said:

We are so excited to present the world premiere of a brand new queer short film from Belfast based trans director Caleb J. Roberts

... Caleb and his team will join us to introduce the film...

...when Monday 15th November, 6:00pm
...where QFT
...tickets FREE, booking essential

And this seems to directly contradict the evidence given by Caleb J Roberts in the July 2023 witness statement posted on twitter by Nick Wallis (https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1991119190665650465?s=20):

"At the Belfast Film Festival in November 2022 - during the after-screening drinks of Ballywalter in the Cineworld foyer, I was approached by Sara Morrison. ...She also alluded to the fact that she had my film removed from competition by alerting the programmers to a private screening that Homebird had for cast and crew in the QFT a year prior, with our co-founder Outburst Arts - but I don't know if she had the power to do this or if she was just saying this to be oddly antagonistic."

The screening of Homebird a year prior can't have been just a private screening for cast and crew, because it was advertised to the public as a free ticketed event, and some of the cast and crew, including Caleb, were billed as being there specifically to introduce the film to that public audience. Even if no-one else showed up it was still advertised and presented as a public screening.

And all of this is just by way of evidence to support what @ProfLargofesse said (apols for cut & paste wonkiness) Yesterday 12:46 and Yesterday 12:39

"Ok, so my read of this bit of the letter of complaint is what it hangs on: 'She also alluded to the fact that she had my film removed from competition by alerting
the programmers to a private screening that Homebird had for cast and crew in the QFT a year prior, with our co-founder Outburst Arts.'
Film festivals are quite strict in asking for premier status for shorts. The rules for submitting will make this quite clear.
I believe SM went up to this person after the screening, told him that she enjoyed the film and that she hopes lots of folk will see it and that she's sorry it couldn't be included because it had already been screened.
And they have confected all the rest around that to help MD.

Yep here are the short competition guidelines ie if you want to be considered in the competitive aspect of the fest you have to comply:
SHORT FILMS
Films must be 20 minutes or under.
They must have been completed between the following dates: 1st September 2024 - 31st August 2025.
Films must have been made in Ireland, or made by an Irish writer/director.
Films must not have been screened before publicly in Northern Ireland.
That's why he has inserted the word privately, weirdly, in that letter of complaint.
It's the total giveaway.
In all likelihood that 'private' screening was open to the public and ticketed so not at all private.
He and the producer are fuckin angry that the rules were applied and they were excluded from competition.
Given how they did not respond immediately to the complaint given how horrendous if true, I suspect they all know the filmmakers had an axe to grind and they were using this to grind it big time."

Screnshots will appear after moderation.

Super sleuthing 🕵️ @NebulousProfessorSupportPostcard

I don’t think anyone who was looking at this case would have had a clue. And also SD has everyone on the back foot not to mention names - due to mental health - but that is only because because a sock puppet - who sent in the complaint with ‘I hope this is of use’.

Thats the thing about this case.

When you go to verify anything - like who a random complainer is - it’s all can be found on a cursory google search.

All this chat about investigations and grievances and many complainers. A bundle stuffed to the gills. An email cc list stuff to the gills by Michele Devlin after Sara left the office.

It’s all so easily verified. And it’s all lies or indeed as Naomi has so clearly set out - a conspiracy of lies

@SexRealistic Unfortunately, deceptive cases like these only make it harder for future witnesses to ask for anonymity. Caleb and crew haven't helped the wider cause at all.

In the 2023 complaint, Caleb was laying it on thick about having never heard of Sara: "At the Belfast Film Festival in November 2022 - during the after-screening drinks of Ballywalter in the Cineworld foyer, I was approached by Sara Morrison. I had never met Sara before, and had to google her after the interaction, shocked that she was listed as the Audience Development and Inclusion Officer. Sara initiated a conversation with me by name, knowing who I was. This conversation quickly became incredibly uncomfortable, turning into what felt like borderline targeted harassment. "

For completeness, this is the archived program for the 2022 BFF programme: https://belfastfilmfestival.org/assets/uploads/2022/10/BFF_Programme_Web_Medium.pdf

The event at which Sara introduced herself to Caleb was the BFF Opening Night Gala on Thursday 3 November 2022 where she was there as a member of BFF staff as listed in the BFF 2022 Brochure (screenshots to follow)

There was nothing unusual in her recognising Caleb, as his short film was to be shown at the BFF's Sunday 6th November programme. And it seems reasonable and appropriate for Sara to offer on Thursday her congratulations for Caleb's film, and commiserations for the film being ineligible for the competition, so as to break the ice before that Sunday showing.

It seems absolutely incredible if the BFF Audience Development & Inclusion Officer were to launch an attack on a trans film maker in public during the BFF's Opening Gala Night celebration, and for this to not to lead to a public ruckus on the same night!

But, incredibly, it wasn't brought up until the 7 July 2023 complaint from Caleb.

And so Caleb's complaint seems to have at least three tall tales:
.From Nov 2021 the 'private' yet also public premiere of his short film HomeBird at the Outburst Festival

.From Nov 2022 the alleged transphobic attack from Sara during the BFF Opening Gala Night, witnessed by Caleb's partner and producer but complained about at the time by nobody.
.
And then, as of July 7th 2023 Caleb claimed "I want to preface this letter with the fact that I am an openly transgender man, but my work does not focus on this topic. Nor did the films I was representing at the festival have anything to do with me beings trans."

This may have been in some sense true when Caleb first met Sara in 2022, and in relation only to the BFF films, but we can now see from the public record (NIScreen/BFI Funding Application and NIScreen Awards 2023-24 ) that by 29th September 2023 - just 10 weeks after the complaint by the 3 Outburst staff members, Outburst would have made a detailed application, which included the script, for £12.5K funding to develop Caleb's next short film "Purebred" which tells the story of "a transgender man [who] returns to the flat of his on-off-again lover after taking a pregnancy test. Funded by Northern Ireland Screen and BFI".

(We can also see that in 2021, Caleb was speaking publicly about an earlier film he wrote featuring a transgender male character (https://www.totallydublin.ie/film/trans-filmmaker-caleb-roberts-tells-us-about-homebird-his-short-film-boxed-in-ahead-of-its-screening-at-gaze-festival/

"In November of last year, I was casting for the main character of my first funded stage play The Third Date as part of the Outburst Queer Arts Festival. I wanted to authentically cast a transgender man for the role")

And hasn't he done well: vulnerable service user and OUTBURST QUEER ARTS FESTIVAL Producer and Head of Film Programming 2023 - Present

@NebulousProfessorSupportPostcard

Indeed quite well - she concocts a crock of nonsense, gets a cover account, “hopefully this helps”.

Doesn’t follow up, no chase from the concerned Aime Martin doesn’t continue to seek justice for her ‘vulnerable’ trans person.

And BFF doesn’t investigate because (a) it’s all made up (b) a quick google search shows how nonsensical it is and (c) in actual fact Sara isn’t a transphobe - she’s actually great at her job and made her follow the rules around her film. 🎥

The charitable "not outright lying" interpretation would be to say that he's splitting hairs, and that he'd argue that a publicly-advertised screening isn't a public screening if no members of the public actually turn up.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that only cast and crew were actually present.

I mean, they only offered free tickets and introductions from the cast and crew.

I generally feel you're going to need more major incentives - like free food! - to make people turn up and sit through through a random "brand new queer short film" by a local "trans director", right?

Let’s be fair to her.

A least one of her mates or a granny or second cousin once removed or an extra in the movie or indeed a stray cat might have found their way in.

Oh and I imagine it would be easily found on Facebook - to confirm the public aspect

It is really unfortunate that a request to a hcp for confidentiality has blown up in such a public way - maybe with repercussions for the hcp? I wonder how the case file for this has recorded the interactions and why it needed the hcp to forward the conplaint on behalf of this person when this person had quite a significant existing relationship with BFF and as a grant applicant and award recipient would not appear to struggle with written comms.

However, without the confidentiality being ignored, the connections of this person to Outburst wouldnt be known.

Also the absolutely unfathomable timeline of this verbally abusive interaction which was apparently witnessed by other people but jot reported or taken forward by them, and the eventual very belated written account also didn't come with their back up or version of events. Surely, surely, the quickest thing to do would be to asl for a written account from those who witnessed this behaviour towards Caleb 'and their back' afterwards?

Oops, sorry, "she".

I'm actually at the point now that enough references to "arts" and "queer" just make me assume that any "trans" don't involve any actual effort at traditional 1960s-style cross-sex identification claims. Rather high-effort :)

So I just skimmed past the "trans" and "Caleb" actually signifying TIF, and assumed we were still talking about nails...

Stray from the Sandie Peggie threads lurking here but not had time to keep up this week!
Can I ask those Professors in attendance in person, how has the Judge’s demeanour been with NC and CE this week following last Fridays behaviour?

We need a 😮react button.
It's amazing how many people lie and expect to get away with it.