Thread by @nickwallis

This thread is Day 3 Session 3 of Morrison v BFF at Belfast Employment Tribunal.

Michele Devlin (MD), CEO of Belfast Film Festival (BFF) is being cross-examined (xe) by Naomi Cunningham (NC).

For the last session thread start here:

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1988613143103451283?s=20

Other common abbreviations:
PBS - Pride on the Big Scree
MC - Mark Cousins (BFF outgoing chair in 2023)
MTM - Marie-Therese McGivern (incoming co-chair of BFF in 2023)
LBD - Lisa Barros D'sa (incoming co-chair of BFF in 2023)
LM - Laurence McKeown (founder of BFF)

This disclaimer applies: ALL TWEETS ARE SUMMARIES AND CHARACTERISATIONS OF WHAT IS BEING SAID. NOTHING IS A DIRECT QUOTE UNLESS IT IS IN "DIRECT QUOTES"

This has been a longer than expected break. All the lawyers are in place, but the witness isn't. Judge and panel still absent

Witness is back. SD is not here now...

J is sitting
J has this document just come to light?
[a doc is being shared to the legal teams]
NC Ms D - the purpose of this doc - pls look at the top right 2nd page - it's the official 2022 Belfast Pride (BP) brochure. It mentions Rainbow Project which you said was a BFF

... event and it was in the BeanBag cinema -
MD it was in the beanbag cinema which we own
NC you hired the venue to them - it was not your event or it would say so
MD sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't
NC and your meeting with Pedro Donald on 5 May was not about PBS...

... it was about Doc Ireland
MD yes
NC why if PBS had been in the planning since Feb you only asked for the contact list on 25 June
MD think I asked for it before
NC so you'd asked for it before
MD I think we'd discussed it at meetings
NC minuted?
MD I think they are

MD sometimes they're not
NC if this was in the planning since Feb 2023 there would be plenty of documentary evidence you can look for overnight and bring in tomorrow
MD yes absolutely
NC the deadline for getting into Pride Belfast brochure was 15 June

MD if you say so
NC and there was no PBS advert in the Pride Belfast brochure - why was the deadline missed
MD it was SM's job to do it and she hadn't done it

NC you line manage SM don't you
MD yes
NC so there should be lots of emails from you chasing her saying that she needs to get on with it

NC as SM has it that after clearing up from Docs Ireland you suggested there should be an involvement in Pride Belfast and both SM and Mary Lyndsay said they didn't think it should happen
MD I disagreed
NC how did the convo go
MD we had an imperative to use the Big Screen...

... which cost in excess of £100k and I thought it was an optimum time to do something - it was easy - it had a ready made audience - and we had a window to use the screen

NC so sounds like there isn't much disagreement about the content of this convo - the difference is that they say this was the first they heard of it and you say this had been in the planning since Feb
MD seems to be yes

NC your account isn't that you aren't saying come on Docs Ireland is over we need to get cracking on Pride - you seem to be saying you were floating an idea
MD I don't accept that

NC there's all the difference in the world between how to utilise the Big Screen and having a plan to do a Pride associated event at end July
MD I don't quite know what you're getting at

NC in answer to the q about having a plan...
MD there was a plan in place! people's reluctance to do the work was also a factor...

[NC takes us to Mary Lyndsay's (ML) iv as part of the previous investigation]
NC
KP: The email, that had been sent out about the collaborative event, you had mentioned it had
never been discussed. Is this something you would normally have been involved in?
ML: The docs Ireland event had just ended, if an event was taking place 3-4 weeks from that, I
thought I would have heard about it, discussing whether this was a good idea to do or not,
given what was going on. It was news to me about this new event. I wasn’t aware of it. I would
have been part of the planning. I feel I should have been made aware of it, but that is a
different matter separate to this; but just to be clear it wouldn’t have been my role to send
out this email so I wasn't involved in this aspect.

NC so claimant is clear that she didn't hear about it till June and ML hadn't heard about it either
MD that's not true
NC so they're lying
MD no I'm not saying that - they may have forgotten and we had convos about using the Big Screen and the Belfast Stories site in the warm summer months

NC so the two team members who would expect to be involved
MD they would have had convos about how to use the screen
NC specifically PBS
MD convos about utilising the BS in summer months with ready-made audiences

NC but nothing had been done about
MD we had permission for the site an event licence and the use of the site
NC so - generic
MD we could have put teletubbies on - it didn't matter.

NC this was a period of downtime after the festival - you and SM were only full time members of staff
MD yep
NC and you both went on holiday, so the BBF was effectively closed
MD not at all we had BFF people on site
NC but it was not realistic to gear up to Pride Belfast...

... at the end of July was it
MD not at all - a phone call to the screen people and the person working on it ready to go...
NC Okay - things might change after you bring in a load of documentation pertaining to PBS from Feb to June in tomorrow, but the only doc evidence we have

.. [sorry earliest] about the BFF's commitment to Pride is this request to reach out to the LBGTQ community
MD it's the only piece of paper we have in front of us
NC and SM did not want to send the email
MD no she told me she didn't want to because [orgs] were annoyed at her
NC she was anxious
MD no
NC You say she agreed to it - is more fair to say she acquiesced
SD object - C specifically said in evidence she agreed
NC I agree she did but I want to put to the witness that it was in context more of an acquiescence but I'm happy to move on
J do you [MD] have anything you want to say
MD [shakes head]

NC she was concerned about pushback not long after being at the centre of a lot of abuse
MD is was in April
NC this is June
SD july
NC july - so it wasn't long ago and SM told you she was worried about the inclusion of her name in that email. And her name is v prominent in this email, next to Pedro Donald
[some argument] - so what are you doing here - he's not going to be v happy about is he?

MD he was fine about it. SM told me there was nothing transphobic in her speech, it had all died down and blown over
NC what convos did you have with PD about this?
MD two convos. First time he was okay he was more concerned after
NC are you saying after the first email he was fine about it
MD he hoped it would be okay. Some groups came back with positive responses and supportive responses

NC did you discuss the email with him before it went out
MD I think I might have had a phone chat with him. Yes
NC on an email of this nature you'd normally use bcc so people wouldn't see other peoples' email addresses. You look baffled.
MD some times we do and sometimes we ...

... don't so people can see who else is invited - we often know each other.
NC but if you open copy people every recipient can reply all
MD yes

NC let's look at the drafting sent to various members of the board on 5 July after som negative responses had come back. Let's read it "Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Firstly apologies to everyone included in our email circular - I
had thought I BCC’d everyone - when in fact it was CC.
This was a genuine mistake. I have specs but will be going to
specsavers tomorrow for a revamp of my prescription !"

MD yes and if SM had sent the email it might well have been bcc'd
NC so when you look baffled earlier you were being completely disingenuous
MD no
NC doing this put SM at risk here didn't it?
MD no you could argue the opposite. it was potentially a way showing how we could all work together with SM being a part of that
NC so it was a gesture of support

MD yes
NC are you sure - bearing in mind you're on oath
SD the C's own evidence is that is was a gesture of support - you can't build a separate case from the C's

J I'll allow the q
MD could you re-ask it
J was it a gesture of support
MD yes

[we come to the end of proceedings for the day]

[Discussing how to get the docs from BFF which MD has said she will bring - J allows MD to speak to her legal team even though her evidence has not ended]
[judge rises]

I'm going to shoot off and try to write this up a little more quickly than yesterday. If you want to read it and haven't yet already and you can afford to do so please consider a one-off donation to my tip jar:



which will see you get...genderblog.net/donate/

all newsletters, including the ones related to this tribunal going forward. Thanks to everyone who has made a donation to date or engaged with these threads.

It sounds like there's at least another half day of evidence from MD tomorrow before MC is the afternoon witness.

Oh and if you want to read the live tweets from the first two days, they have been put on the live tweets section of the GenderBlog website.



See you all tomorrow.

🧵ends.genderblog.net/live-tweets/