Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

There is no higher calling than making pictures of gerbils.

From NW

... identity theory, but no restriction on the job role that it was only available to those for religious etc reasons has been put forward.
NC R is arguing that MD was fine because she fitted in with the BFF's view, but C was subjected to an investigation...

Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted??

<Snuggles up closer to Co Pilot>

This is true.

Gerbils in a Christmas stocking that I knitted.

By the way, driving for around 4/5 hours each day in That London has exhausted me. A reminder that convalescence is a thing and I need to rest more than I realise.

Rest gives you energy and then you think you can be energetic, and you can be, but it gets used very quickly and you need more rest.

From NW

...when she expressed her sex realist beliefs
NC so when SD says the invite to investigation does not mention gender critical views, it's clear from the terms of the iv

"On 3 July 2023, an email was sent by Michele Devlin, Festival Director, to a variety of LGBTQI+ groups
regarding the Pride on Film Event. A number of responses were received to this email, containing
allegations that a staff member of Belfast Film Festival, Sara Morrison, Inclusion / Audience
Development Co-Ordinator had spoken at a "Posie Parker" rally in Belfast on 16 April 2023."

NC it was just enough that she was at the rally, again -

"Additionally, concern was brought to the attention of the Festival Director by a Board member
concerning a discussion with Sara Morrison at a work-related event on 23 June 2023 regarding her
involvement in the rally.
Concerns have therefore alleged that Sara's involvement in such an event is contrary to the following
specific areas of the role of Inclusion / Audience Development Co-Ordinator "

so it was just her "involvement", here, not what she said.
It would be astonishingly stupid of anyone writing a such a letter post Forstater to spell out that their concern was SM's GC views but R came as close as it could to doing that without doing it in those words

NC SD says the situation was the impact on the R not what C said. This is not true, it's the fact she expressed her views.

It was like lovebombing. If I asked him to do something it was always, 'my pleasure', 'please let me do something more'. It didn't feel real. I'd only given him a prompt. I also just couldn't respect him. I literally just gave him crumbs, cake crumbs.

I searched for a 'raspberry' MN reaction, but there wasn't one, so you'll just have to imagine it. As a video. With sound on.

I've sent the capybara round again to give you a quick massage.

❤️

My ex-h was from North Yorkshire and his granny used to serve them at all 3 courses
starter: with onion gravy
main course : with roast beef
dessert: with golden syrup

From NW

NC R tries to advance their claim that it wasn't SM's views on sex and gender but her criticism of women's groups, it might have more weight if the bundle wasn't shot through with concerns about SM speaking at LWS at all

From NW

NC SD says it is "implausible" that there was a plan cooked up on 28 June by MD Lisa Barros D'Sa (LB) and Marie-Therese McGivern (MTM). They seem to suggest these usually highly effective people all got together for what they seem to characterise as a hand-wringing session.
I don't shrink from saying that MD and LB at least are "lying" about what took place in that meeting.

.

From NW

NC SD says it is implausible that R would apply to Belfast City Council for an invent it never intended to carry through (Pride on the Big Screen). We say that doesn't matter - whether R either would have or had no intention of doing the event once announcing it is not germane

.. criticism of women's groups ..

or even some negative responses to 'the e-mail' that were from women's groups rather than LGBT+ mates

From NW

to the case.
NC R's trans activists will be surprised to learn an immediate suspension on suspicion of gross misconduct for her alleged targeting of a vulnerable film-maker wasn't warranted, unless they thought it wasn't credible. I ask you to infer that they can't have found it credible

No one on reading it can find it credible.

Not one bit of it.

From NW

[NC is now talking about R's claim that SM was working at the LWS event by dint of her hi viz. Says this is opportunistic. That stewards at the event were wearing blue and anyway SM's contract was plainly not to cover attending an event in a hi viz jacket as MTM accepted]

Especially the 'private screening' and 'hope this helps' parts! 😂

I presume NC has put all the proof it's bullshit in the bundle!

From NW

NC a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon on a one-off basis is not the intention of that contract and it would be an onerous term if an employer tried to be so oppressive it sought to control someone to such an extent they couldn't help out at a sports club or school for a couple of hours.

NC I noticed SD react when I said it wasn't pleaded - takes J to where it is mentioned and notes it doesn't mention anything about a hi viz jacket

From NW

NC there is surprisingly little evidence on date or decision-makers who decided on the iv into SM - we say it pre-dated the evidence-gathering
NC SD says the iv was started by the comments about women's groups - this is not borne out by the doc evidence - it is that she attended

NC the LWS event and because of that "she either was or was perceived to be transphobic"

The hi-viz is important. If you're a school volunteer on a trip with 6 year olds, you will wear a hi-viz. Should you get permission from your employer for unpaid "work" so that you can do that?

No, absolutely no.

From NW

NC the organisation (BBF) appears wholly unable to draw a distinction between transphobia and sex realism