Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

I'm afraid I disagree. Across all the testimonies they have forgetten exactly the same moments but remembered so much else. That smacks of lying.

If it was down to our flawed memories, someone would remember this bit and someone would remember another bit and we could jigsaw the overall sense but they are all conveniently forgetting the same bits. Memory doesn't work like that across individual recollections.

Will catch up properly later, NC is on fire. [fangirls madly]

It's a concerning number !😂🥃

Brief break. And a lovely poster has lent me a charger.

Word of the day is 'concern'. Lisa B d'S is very careful in her answers. And uses Pratchett's troll counting system of '1, 2 many'.

It's numerical realism. It shouldn't be allowed as it is phobic towards all those who believe that 2+2=5.

From NW

[we take a break]
[Court is full today - lots of people supporting BFF and SM]

... case to its conclusion, which currently means today's hearing, Friday's closing submissions and the ruling, whenever that happens. That will be published online, rather than physically handed down, but depending on which way it goes and whether either party appeals could see further legal battles.

If these tweets are of any use to you and you'd like to get a full round up in my newsletter tonight - pls consider a small one-off donation which gets you added permanently to the list. I'll be following this...
https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1991107317522157608

It's that Welsh govt meeting-minutes eating terrier. It eats all the relevant emails too, the little bastard. It wouldn't be difficult to find and stop, the poor thing must have a stomach the size of Cardiff by now all the documentation it's disappeared.

The judge has to see this was all organised, orchestrated manufactured bullshit.

BFF thought this was a perfectly acceptable way to get rid of a member of staff that they felt had suddenly become problematic for them. Instead of defending her they purposely set out to destroy her.

NC has been pointing out how similar the wording is in a lot of the emails. Orchestration is suggested.

@ProfLargofesse You raise a really good point. I was thinking I would not necessarily recall stuff from work ages ago- but of course these are important events in the life of such a small organisation and one or more of the staff would remember different things. And given this was a big issue for them they WOULD HAVE TAKEN NOTES unless they had something to hide.

I do hope the terrier is called Shredder!

concentrating on reading NW tweets and will come back to thread at breaks / end of session

The moment you realise you're making a decision on employment matters you should start taking notes for self protection.

The same applies when you even think there's a possibility that someone else is making a decision on your employment.

Is it that

• all of these witnesses have been told not to remember that they all actually got together at some point and talked out what their approach to SM was going to be (collusion)

or

• no one wants to take responsibility for the actual decision to victimize SM

From NW

Pls note at the moment there is no scheduled hearing tomorrow, which means there won't be any live-tweets or newsletter unless today's witnesses overrun (no one wants that - the parties' counsel have to write their closings tomorrow) or of course unless there is a significant development outside of court. Then I'll be back on Friday to cover the closing oral submissions and hopefully get copies of the written closings.

It's the lack of basic record keeping that I don't understand about these arty folx.

If I don't talk to somebody on the phone several times/day/week it is fairly simple to go back to look at the dates when I did.

"Lots" tends to be more than a dozen in my book (unless in the context of party food that the family have scoffed before guests arrive).
"Several" is at least 5 or 6.

Is it all Mark Cousin's fault?

Soooo - they had "concerns" about the "concerns" and decided to "talk" about the "concerns" but only "talking" ... but because of bigly busyness nobody can remember the outcomes of the "talks" about "talking about the concerns" and what happened decision-wise to the "concerns" as a result of the "talks" or who was present?

Is that the line the respondents are taking?

I won't argue - you're version is just as likely to be right
I just wanted to highlight the lack of recordkeeping, which is shocking given the seriousness of the case in question.

And we've seen it in other tribunals - if the aim is to punish a GC employee, who cares about keeping records of who bought the firelighters, who carried the bundles of firewood [there's a word meaning 'a bundle of firewood', but it would be a bit incendiary in this context😏], who had the box of matches....?

They could even have taken and circulated fake notes. That's what I'd have done if I was orchestrating an Evil Plan. I'd also have done a lot better with my outraged organisation planning and met people in a bar and sown the seeds of anger.

I was going to say 'they're not very bright, are they?' Then it occurred to me that they support people who look in the mirror while they shave and say 'yup, I'm a woman' so that explains a lot.

I reckon it has to be the first one. Otherwise it wouldn't the exact same answer answer answer memory hole answer answer routine from all of them.

And everybody knows this, people in minimum wage jobs know this, so that it wasn't done cannot be staggering ignorance. Which makes it look exactly like intentional avoidance of recording.

Which equally implies knowingly dodgy actions and attempts to avoid accountability.

This finger in mouth 'oh silly me too incompetent to minute/follow process/ talk to legal' bullshit really has to be stamped on as a means to avoid taking responsibility for actions.

We are still on a break, here are some arrivals from this morning. Sara Morrisons' solicitor Mark Chambers

I suspect the lack of notes is deliberate, not accidental.

<Concerned face>

I think so.

Two members of the BFF's legal team, including solicitor Gráinne Rice