Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

I am now seeing the "concerns" as Hattifatners.

This witness is the concern queen

NC you felt you were in a crisis
LB "I'm not descriging it as a crisis - it was a concern"
NC so you decide what to do next
LB talking about our concern

"A concerning occurrence"

drink!

Dying to know how being a lesbian who does not believe in 'learning to cope' with sex with straight men to validate men's identities by providing internal access to their body..... to in fact be homosexual.... is 'anti LGB'.

It isn't even 'anti T' unless being 'pro T' means getting your knickers off, lying back and thinking of Stonewall. In which case, this 'pro T' position is fucked up beyond all aid.

ickky · Today 11:04

...
NC the evidence of transphobia just isn't there, nor is there evidence of damage to reputation through the women's sector orgs that SM had criticised
LB it was a concern. and there was the concern about the context in which SM had spoken
NC there is nothing in the bundle you can point to where anyone in the women's sector criticises SM for what she said
LB I don't see anything

Hasn't been evidence that e-mails from women's groups in support of SM have been left out BFF's disclosure?

We'll be plastered by lunch time

Wonder how many Muslim women she's ever discussed the issue with.

Congrats on the PhD @VegemiteandhoneyontoastPhD

I have decided that my achievements in the field of <vague hand waft> are worthy of recognition at the highest level, hence my shiny new name <twirls>

Also, do we have a bingo card for Naomi’s phrases to inspire terror in a witness?

The Inebriati fail to see the problem.

<joins party very late indeed, waving O level maths certificate>

NC on cracking form this morning!

From NW

... no
NC so you say to MTM you will have a chat. How did that work - 2 sep calls or a three-way chat
LB can't really remember - "it felt like there were serious matters worth considering" "there was at least one phone call"
J were they both on the call
LB can't quite remember

... they might have both been on the call it might have been separate calls. it was def on the phone as I wasn't in the country.
NC and you say in your WS par 6: "I conveyed
my growing concern in my response to Mark and arranged to discuss the matter
further with Marie-Therese and Michele the following day, which I did by
phone call."

NC can't remember how it happened?
LB no I honestly can't remember
NC the concerns were well-established - wasn't this an occasion to decide what to do nex
LB "no this was an occasion to discuss what was a concerning occurrence"
NC you're all busy people
LB yes

NC you get things done
LB yes
NC you set up a phone call, quite urgently, in response to MC saying something needs to be done, and then you have a "hand-wringing session"
LB "we were taking the temp of sit which had been escalating - this was a new bit of info we had to discuss and we discussed it as concerning"

NC you felt you were in a crisis
LB "I'm not descriging it as a crisis - it was a concern"
NC so you decide what to do next
LB talking about our concern

NC so you discussed your concerns and decided to leave it there, is that right
LB can't really remember
NC next thing in your statement is message from MD on 4 July
LB yes
NC so are you saying inbetween your meeting on 28 June and the email on 4 July, nothing was decided about the situation

LB I was packing up to leave London
NC you were too busy
LB "no not too busy... this was an ongoing situation that needed to be considered and it was being considered"
NC okay let's go to 4 July email where MD updates you

@ProfPerformativeBewildermentOBE - given the state of the world, being honoured with an OBE for Services to Bewilderment seems very right and proper.

The board have obviously nailed down the script - the "concerns", the need to "talk"

But they haven't agreed the minutiae of the script and every time NC tests that - was it one call or two? - we get the "can't recall" answers as they have no idea what the others said in their WS!

And the 'considereds'.

All the concerns being considered and given consideration.

Definitions of these waffle words needed.

Yep. NC said that she will come back to the complaint from filmmaker so I presume she is going to come back to this too.

From NW

[it's the one where she shared the email she sent on 3 July with LB and MTM and the feedback]
NC odd to be told about this routine event
"Hi Marie-Therese and Louise
Yesterday we sent this email to all LGBTQ groups on our database, I worked with Sara to draw up the
list and we jointly wrote this email. Sara was concerned about sending it from her email address,
because of an issue she had with Alliance forChoice-ltoldheritwasherjobasinclusion officer that
it should come from her, but if it would help I would send it from my email address and cc her in."

NC odd that MD framed as an issue with Alliance for Choice
LB not really
NC it would potentially be an issue for SM given what had happened to her
LB can't speak to what MD meant, but it didn't strike me as odd at the time

NC at par 7 of your statement re the 3 July email and response you say: "Michele forwarded to me complaints
received from many organisations in response to her invitation." How many?
LB can't remember
NC how many is many? More than 10
LB three? more than one is sig
NC what's the lowest number you'd think of as "many"
LB "three I think in that context"

NC nobody refers to three as many - you're trying to exaggerate
LB no not in that context, it's a small sector, small city
NC anyway you're saying - three or more complaints - MD says she'll send you two complaints she's received
two is not many
LB I think that's fair - two is two

I recently read your paper on the application of the anchovy - your primary sources seemed a little fishy to me

They'd probably dive into a bastardised version of post modernism and decide that words can be defined by what you feel they mean. Missing the entire point etc

Three is many.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Pants on fire moment of all pants on fire moment.

Especially when followed by two is two.

Three is the magic number

I believe that the BFF crowd are genuine in saying they don't remember stuff - I know I couldn't necessarily recall dates of meetings and decisions and phone calls etc. from a while back.
WHICH IS WHY IT IS ESSENTIAL TO TAKE NOTES AND MINUTES AND RECORD THINGS PROPERLY! Duh!

That way, your process of dealing with 'serious concerns' involving the reputation of the organisation and the wellbeing and future of an employee will be clear and obvious if you have to defend it at an ET.

Not 'well it must've been then because it was the day before I was going to London....' 🙄

LB is coming off as someone who thinks she thinks she has successfully worn an invisible cloak with regard to machinations ie because none of the EVIL PLAN was said out loud by anyone there is, therefore, no proof of the EVIL PLAN.

Court is on a break

The lack of record keeping is gob smacking.
And I am sure saying two is two is some sort of heresy.

Don’t Lola Petigrew get nominated for a best Actress BAFTA even though LP is trans NB. It always seems a bit like double standards.