Sara Morrison v BFF - thread 5

[SexRealistic]

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

I hope it can be of use

Smoking gun, right there.

NC takes LB to a text message she sends to MC and LM (among others): "Hi all, MT and Michele are on holiday this week so I wanted to give you a quick update. Michele has gathered further formal complaints relating to Sara. And refusal to do certain aspects of her job involving these issues and groups in itself constitutes gross misconduct. So pending further legal discussion things are moving toward a clear destination - again it's just about doing everything in the correct way."

😶

The bus is coming🚍

From NW

NC you're unmistakably talking in terms of dismissal at this point
LB no I'm saying it's very serious and things need to be investigated by impartial bodies
NC and clear destination for GM is dismissal isn't it
LB no the destination i'm talking about is the investigation
[NC takes LB to her iv into SM: "My name is Lisa and I have been appointed alongside Keara Paterson, Senior HR Consultant at Think
People Consulting to conduct a formal grievance investigation into complaints raised by Sara
O'Gorman in accordance with the Company's grievance Procedure.
Keara will take notes of the meeting and also provide any HR Support and Guidance, and you will be
given the opportunity to review the notes and to make any necessary amendments at the conclusion
of this meeting. These will be summary notes and not verbatim."]

Hope you are right! Seems clear to us but will the judge pick it up..

DrRevProfCriticalConditionETC · Today 12:31

'I hope it can be of use'
Smoking gun, right there.

Hopefully it will prove very useful!

Boom!

She just said she doesn't really understand gross misconduct and here she is being absolutely fucking sure.

Why do none of these organisations remember that investigations are supposed to be carried out in an impartial non biased manner?

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.

I hope the 'panel' sees it as: it was made impossible for SM to stay in her job, given the unanimous negativity at the BFF towards her WORIADS belief that sex is binary and immutable., and the organisation's unwillingness to be inclusive of those who hold those WORIADS beliefs.

I think it's pretty obvious that there was no future for SM in the BFF because of their attitudes and behaviour.

SM's sex-realist beliefs are probably what she has always believed, as did/
do the majority of people. The BFF were the ones who changed the context by adopting unquestioning gender ID politics, and enforcing them on their employees.

Is there a hold up?

From NW

NC it's your iv here. you're in charge
LB no I don't think so - Keara was providing knowledge about HR matters and expertise
NC why did you take charge of the iv
LB a senior person needed to look at it and we concluded it needed to be me as I was avail
NC other people...

I'd put money on that quote being underlined, highlighted, tabbed, and cross-referenced in NC's bundle. I look forward to it reappearing in her final submissions.

From NW

could have done it, couldn't they? you were busy coming back from London
NC you were the wrong person to appoint as the investigator of SM's grievance claim given you were involved in setting up the iv which SM claimed a grievance about
LB no impartiality was a consideration which
NC you could hardly have been closer to the subject matter and the grievance given you were involved in the drafting of the investigation letter and approved it
LB yes
NC the nec impartiality could be brought by Keara Paterson (KP) - she could overrule you
LB I think she would
NC so do you agree if you looked into the grievance by yourself it would have been unfair
LB it would have been unfair because I'm not really qualified to conduct a grievance - I don't have the knowledge KP has
[NC takes her to the grievance outcome which is signed only by KP and written in the first person throughout]
NC so the documentary record is that this was KP's iv
LB "that was the correct way to express this outcome"
NC if all you wanted was impartiality - why involved a board member at all
LB "as an internal mechanism I understood that that was the necessary thing to do for me to be there to oversee it"
NC "the truth is you were determined to oversee it because you were determined to have control of the outcome of the G process weren't you"
LB no
NC and having KP sign the letter was a belated attempt to distance you from the process because it was patently unfair.
LB no
NC no further questions
[SD picks up for BFF]
SD it was put to you there were no complaints from women's sector
LB yes
SD as part of the grievance procedure did you consider social media
LB yes
[SD goes to the bundle and asks LB to read tweet "Having their 'inclusion' staff member Sarah Morrison
saying the women’s sector is a racket and trying to prevent trans women and men
being offered equality and help is the opposite of inclusive...”]

I miss the rumblings. Can't we have some rumblings?

Baldrick got there first, back in the Renaissance.

The ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this.

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

1. Films must be 20 minutes or under.
2. They must have been completed between the following dates: 1st September 2024 - 31st August 2025.
3. Films must have been made in Ireland, or made by an Irish writer/director.
4. 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.

Although I mostly lean towards the view of a deliberate lack of record keeping, incompetence is also a credible explanation. BFF has been painted as a vehicle for people who thought a lot of themselves and knew nothing,

I always thought is was the eight creatures...

I think they are going straight on to next witness

Moyra Lock giving evidence now

And I was right, a quick Google confirms. I'm not often right.

From NW

SD you were asked if you knew the allegation against SM by xxxx amounted to GM did you
LB no I am not an expert

SD you were taken to an email and it was suggested it was "somewhat over-heated" and you said there were other incidents you were aware of - were you aware at

... the time you saw the email what the other incidents were
LB outside of the rally... [didn't catch it sorry]

SD no further q's judge
J thank you LB that's the end of your xe and re-ex so you can go back.
SD I think Moyra Lock is very short witness we could maybe fit them in
NC ML will be very short indeed. Both witnesses will be short - can we carry on with both
SD I agree...

... but I can't see Mr McKeown atmo
J asks someone to find Laurence McKeown - MD leaves to get him.
SD calls Moyra Lock (ML)
[she is affirmed]

CE to xe!!

from Nitter
SD you were asked if you knew the allegation against SM by xxxx amounted to GM did you
LB no I am not an expert
SD you were taken to an email and it was suggested it was "somewhat over-heated" and you said there were other incidents you were aware of - were you aware at..

I take it the allegation by XXXX is the Caleb X complaint?
If so even LB didn't buy it... it was 'somewhat overheated'.
But all the other allegations were fine?