The chair of SEEN is being sued.

[PriOn1]

We can’t post Crowdfunder links here, but there is now a Crowdfunder entitled “Chair of SEEN sued for saying 'only women menstruate'by Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley”

Text from website:

Who are you?
I'm Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley. I work for an arms-length body to a government department (part of the Civil Service) and love my job. I'm also gender critical, and chair of a governmental department SEEN (Sex Equality and Equity Network). SEEN represents those who are gender critical in our workplace.
What can you tell us?
The way I describe the case is restrained by my situation. I am writing this in a personal capacity, but am still employed and must comply with my employer's code of conduct and the Nolan Principles of Public Life. This places certain restrictions on me.
I’ve given as much information as I can, but I hope that what I set out below is sufficient to understand what’s going on.
So what happened?
I work for an arms-length body to the main government department. The case has been brought by a claimant who is an employee of another arms-length body. The claimant is taking their own employer, the government department and me to court.
Among other matters, the claimant is suing the government department for allowing our departmental SEEN network to exist (on the basis that the existence of the network has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment for the claimant).
What is the SEEN network?
SEEN (the Sex Equality and Equity Network) is an official cross-governmental staff network. We also have networks in three government departments (including the one being taken to court). SEEN is known as the gender critical network and is the only civil service network that clearly treats sex and sexual orientation as concepts defined in the Equality Act, which should never be conflated with or replaced by ‘gender identity’.

Is it normal for tribunals to have this degree of chaos, or is it a particular feature of sex and gender related ones?

I think it's even worse than that. Sure, you could come up with a different set of terms for the gender-identity belief side — indeed, that's what nouns like "demiboy" are all about. But all this is highly asymmetric. Those believing sex is real and important to them need nothing at all from gender identity. But
the self-belief of being trans is strongly dependent on the pre-existing classification of men and women: the claimant in this wants not any personally chosen pronouns, but very specifically to share pronouns with those who believe sex matters.

Sorry, being flippant - instructing NC (and witness) to either use preferred pronouns or gender neutral seems to suggest that gender critical sits below gender identity

J - the tribunal will use preferred name and pronouns, C has pc of GRA. As to the Intervenor and witness we understand their position and accept that we
cannot compel witness to use specific pronouns, we ask the Intervenor as far as possible to use gender neutral language, we appreciate that this will be difficult, accidental slips may happen, but deliberate use of the wrong term or misgendering will be seenas inappropriate.

NC - can I be completely clear. My witness can use correct pronouns but I cannot?
J - we are asking you and the witness to use gender neutral language,
NC - so is that they/them
J - so they/them and C
NC - I may need to take instruction, can I have your
reasons.
J - will give full reasons at the end of the hearing.

The (anonymous) complainant in Andreas's case settled - but Tempest is bringing in here tweets by Andreas.

Yes NC has been largely ignored despite direction from an earlier judge that was not to happen. And Tempest's barrister is again claiming late disclosure when Naomi says they had the documents earlier.

Can someone tell me what WFTCHTJ means? I wonder this at every tribunal 😄

Oh I see what you mean now slackjawed, you're quite right. Was worried I'd somehow ballsed up the clarification.

Waiting for the conference host to join

Edited to add it’s an automated voice that repeats this phrase every 30 seconds

Waiting For The Conference Host To Join. It’s what you hear over and over when you’re in the waiting room waiting to be let in <preens with new-found knowledge>

Thanks both 😄

From TT:

We are waiting to be admitted. There may be a short delay.

I wonder how did the other claimant settle?

From TT:

AL There will be further disclosure. I object re future docs, but that's a decision for tribunal for later.
J Extremely disappointing that all of this is happening today. Management orders and listing made a long long time ago. I'm conscious that everybody is doing it

J and it's really disappointing.
AL If there are further docs you will need, don't want to waste your time further.
J Generally, if there's a doc likely to be material I'd rather have it than not. Don't want something out there that we won't see.

J I really do want to get on with this.
J I've had a request re Tribunal Tweets. They have made request in past for docs. We are extremely stretched - parties can provide docs better than us. My concern is c Witness Statements no provided until witness given evidence.

From TT:

J Direction to provide them with docs that they seek - bundles and lists of issues agreed. If there's a problem we can talk about it, but would hope no problem.
J There is a hard copy and I will remind them of that. TT are asking for electronic acccess as they are accessing

remotely.
AL There is a TT rep here.
HH Can I think c this in break.
J This case has attracted some interest cos of principles. We need to have mind to open justice. Issue for us is simply our resources and use of staff. I'm going to ask parties to do this.
It's a perfectly

reasonable request but the tribunal has other things to do with resources.
NC I was trying to indicate wish to speak. Something you said re false impression. You said extremely disappointing re late disclosure from everyone, but not us.

From TT:

NC/J [ to and fro c disclosure]
J If I wrongly impugned you re this I apologise.
J Can we start.
C [affirms]
J You should have witness statement [WS].
HH Make tribunal and observers aware. C has issues with her vocal cords which affect breathing and volume able to speak at.

<note the camera has not changed angle so we are not observing the witness box, but we can hear the claimant>

So much of this is poor admin. I know it’s really important to get it right and that it takes 000s of hours but the J has lost a day+ of tribunal time.

HH Make tribunal and observers aware. C has issues with her vocal cords which affect breathing and volume able to speak at.

That wouldn't be issues related to trying to disguised a male voice, would it?

Maybe C has had actual surgery on them?

What an unkind thought! 😛

From TT:

HH Name
C Samantha Tempest
HH It's Mrs Tempest, isn't it?
C Yes
HH To WS. It may be I have an electronic version.
HH / panel re version.
HH Sorry. Don't know how that happened. Best to use one with all the page numbers. My version is dated 12 June. Everyone else seems to be

HH working to 2 June version.
J [Asks C to look at para 21a] So we all have the wrong copy,
HH Yes
J We can use this version we all have on screens
HH My number of pages is 53 pp rather than 52
J Please confirm no other changes other than pg nos

HH My instructing sol say he doesn't believe so.
J It's difficult enough for this witness to give evidence without all this. Absolutely appalling.
AL I have version you and C have. Shouldn't be too many problems.
HH This updated version shared with Rs on 12 June.

Sounds chaotic!

J It's difficult enough for this witness to give evidence without all this. Absolutely appalling.

It is not clear why it is difficult for the witness - is this a reference to their voice?

Are the bundle issues all coming from the claimants side?

From TT:

J [to C] Using 52 pp WS dated 2 June.
HH Para 122. My pg 47
J May be our 46
HH What was the correction?
C I was threatened with half pay but never ended up with half pay
[They agree WS]
AL - [to C] Q c your employment status. You refer to RPA as employer. RPA exec agency of

Defra
C Yes
AL Not a body existing because primary legislation creates them.
C I don't understand the terminology. Natural England as arms'-length bodies, non-departmental.
AL [to J} Nicola Betsworth has hyper link - re departments administratively distinct, created as exec

agencies
J Surely not disputed re C's employment status. R said you are employed by Defra not RPA
C My employment contract is with RPS
AL Do you accept you are employed by DEFRA
C Accept DEFRA is main body by I'm employed by RPA.
AL Do you accept there are a large number of

From TT:

groups within Defra covering a range of interest.
AL Agender - a staff network, various networks, AuHD, faith and religion, specific religions
C Not sure c religion
AL They can be cross gvt or specific areas
C Yes
AL There is guidance for setting up networks within defer

DEFRA [defer was autocorrect] and across departments.
C Not aware of guidance.
AL [to doc ] Setting up networks, requirements, setting up committee, chair person etc. Signed off by EDI team. There was Defra-specific guidance.
C Yes there is guidance but I've never

seen it before.
AL [to doc] Setting up employee network. Started as women's network and now is PCs. [reads] A powerful way to include D&I.
C Accept appears to be cross-gvt guidance. Not seen before .
AL Do you accept it's to help towards D&I across gvt and Defra
C In part

So online observers are not only unable to see the Claimant, they possibly can't hear the Claimant either.

So much for open justice. At a suitable juncture when the judge things have calmed down a bit, can someone observing ask the clerks to draw the camera angle to the judge's attention and say it doesn't seem to be in the interests of open justice to be denied a view of the witnesses giving evidence.