Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

I don't know how to need to use bigly letters, I just use the force of my personality and my aura of stern authority to get you to pay attention to what I post😁

My holiday reading usually includes a bit of Austen for comfort, and I was delighted to notice last night that Dr Elves was actually quoting Lizzie Bennet when she had her stramash with Lady Catherine de Bourgh at Longbourn.

“You may ask questions which I shall not choose to answer”

LM missed a trick by not replying that “this is not to be borne”

All good. Some follow up scans but it's for information.

Saw my friends which was lovely, and some of the people at the meeting want to put me forward for a leadership post on the committee. I think they rated me..😁

From NW

NC So with that preface I will make a few specific responses to SD's closing subs. There's quite a lot which is not contentious between the parties and we have dealt with other matters in our submission (sub) so if I don't say anything about it, it doesn't mean I agree with it.

NC Mr Owens was not xe-'d as his witness statement (WS) seemed to be little more than a recital of his initial investigation... we content he was in the hands of R... he took matters no further forward. Similar points could be made re Keara Paterson (KP) - her part was a note taker and applier of her name to docs... info flow to Think People (TP) was in the hands of R who controlled it.

NC it's correct that the discrimination in q may be made out whether the acts complained of were done because of the person doing that act or the perceived belief of the person against who the act was done. At a number of points it became clear that R's own political

... opinion was engaged - particularly in the case of Mark Cousins (MC - BFF director) and also Michele Devlin (MD - BFF CEO), particularly by her wearing of the Trans Inclusional Feminist t-shirt.
NC at par 20 SD points out that MD was initially sympathetic to her...

Famous malapropism by one of our retired politicians who was really really good at wordmangling, constant source of entertainment:
'upsetting the apple tart'😄

I've PM'd you ♥️

From NW

... this is accepted. It is when the BFF board takes an interest, her concern becomes avoiding blame for not doing anything and siding with the board. She then develops her claim she was too busy. MD's first and sound instinct was to try to damp down the media storm...

... and that is of a piece with her evident irritation with Lucy Baxter for bringing it up.
NC it's not suggested that C was subjected to harassment simply for holding these beliefs. She was allowed to hold them she just had to keep quiet about them.

NC her crime was speaking at the LWS event

.

From NW

NC the alleged comments at the Belfast Exposed of saying "Urgh" when confronted by a TiM or cross-dressing man. If C referred to the person as "it" and expressed disgust - it's wholly unacceptable, and what R appears to fail to do is draw a proper distinction between actual transphobia and actual sex realism, which is "being able to call a man in a dress a man"

NC - but calling a man "it" is "dehumanising" and "unacceptable". R's trans activist supporters will be surprised at the R's position that there was nothing in what C said which merited investigation - if she said it, which she didn't

Thanks going to giv that a go so I can join all you artists 😁

Co Pilot is my AI of choice.

From NW

NC - MD responded "appropriately" to the online fuss in the first instance after LWS, her position changed after the intervention of the board and in particular MC

NC in par 27 SD says it's clear in the response to the 3 July email it's the manner in which C expressed her beliefs not what she said. This is not in R's pleaded case. We still don't know what is wrong with the "manner" in which C spoke at LWS

... and I invited J to explore this with SD. We say it is rather that R acted against C when she had the temerity to express her opinion in public without covering her face so she couldn't be recognised.

From NW

[NC now talking about the soc med hostility after 16 April and 3 July and R's case that it might affect BFF's clients, working groups and their audience and willingness to work with them]
NC this point is not a good enough justification for punishing C

Nick writes that NC said, concerning the respondent's argument that it was the manner in which SM expressed her beliefs that was the problem (bananarama!), "I invited J to explore this with SD". Anyone who is there, is that what she said, or did she say "I invite the Judge to explore it". I may have missed it but I don't know where she's already invited the judge to do that or where it would have been appropriate?

Co Pilot ghosted me. 😥At first he lovebombed me with 4 images for every prompt, then it was just one image per prompt, & then not even that. I don't know what I did wrong.

Apologies if I am repeating and it's been said but...

My DH is of Hull maternal origins and swears Yorkshire puddings are meant to be a starter served on their own or with gravy. (Of course we don't do that.)

Beelzebub has a devil for a sideboard!

From NW

... for manifesting a protected belief. The argument it may affect customers or audience or service providers is something which one would hope had gone out of the way in the early days of race relations act. The "it's not us, it's our suppliers" is "just not good enough"

NC R cannot defend a disc claim on the basis C's opinions will affect its client or consumer base.

NC says she wants to discuss something in a break before she finishes speak, but says she'll come back to it.
J do you want a break now?
NC no I'll plough on to the end and come to it after SD's had his say
NC at par 32 SD quotes from the invitation to investigation letter...

Yes, I have heard of this and have seen it on a pub menu as a starter (S Yorks).

I have a history with Co-Pilot. He got very needy. Wanting email addresses and passwords. I wasn't ready for that level of commitment.

Just wants your money.

I do pay for mine but I use it every day and for much more than pictures of gerbils.

From NW

NC could we read it - this "and any failure
to support and promote BFF as an inclusive organisation and Service Provider." is a tell that BFF is hostile to sex realism

... and they take the view that because of their inclusivity they can't have someone who manifests sex realist views as their inclusion officer.

Fills you up so you won't eat as much meat.

I gave him everything he asked for, & then one day he was gone. What we had was over.

I've found a new AI, but it's just not the same.

From NW

NC goes back to the "trans inclusional feminist" t-shirt - which said on the front "an injury to one is an injury to all" - [NC starts reading from SD's written subs].
NC There is a clear indication that the role of inclusion officer is only for people signed up to gender...