Another anonymity request denied

[fanOfBen]

This is the "Chair of SEEN sued for saying 'only women menstruate'" case - RMW for the Claimant, Mrs Samantha Tempest, argued inter alia that ST would be outed as trans if the anonymity order were not granted; unfortunately, as Naomi Cunningham pointed out, ST had already published their photo along with the info that they're trans on a bulletin board where 20,000 people could read it...EJ Johnson was not impressed.

Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley (whose page still needs plenty of gardening) encourages people interested to read the legal argument at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mRKgm3j1O5e3BgDIeuESpaaJEZ2kA2/view?usp=sharing

Looks as though the denial of the request is not the new part, actually - the judgement says sent to the parties on 7th Jan so I guess that's the new bit. It's worth reading. As in the other case, one of the issues was whether GC activists are really a likely source of danger. There are three quotations given as evidence of the existence of a threat, and the judgement says the claimant was unable to provide any more. They are impolite, but to consider them threats at all is pushing it IMO. I think only one would have been deleted if it had appeared here (though I have no reason to think that any of them did) - it uses "it" to refer to ST.

ST had already published their photo along with the info that they're trans on a bulletin board where 20,000 people could read it

Yet he wanted anonymity.

These cocks in frocks are not all that bright are they.

Good old Bob, never fails to talk utter shite. It's a pathetic attempt to appeal for undeserved sympathy.

I really think that in the case of someone d caught on CCTV, several Police bodycams and the phones of members of the public calling it in, that an axe murderer captured wandering around town, brandishing a bloody head would have the same ridiculous attempt at "mitigation" pleaded by one of these chances.

Oh noes! If the press and jury know that she to be a man! Bigotry! Prejudice! Most oppressed ever! Unfair trial...

I realise that things have moved on with a settlement now agreed.
But I did learn a lot from this case. In particular I can see why the chair of SEEN asked to be included as an Intervenor in the case after the case against them was dropped. Effectively they wanted to be able to make a case to the court and included in things so that the government department and the claimant would not decide things without regard to the needs of SEEN. Looking at this part of the anonymity judgement that was a good call.

17 = the Civil Service Departments were happy to just throw the dice on this and see how things fell (what the judge decided). No arguments.
18 = The Intervenor presented evidence - including that the ID of the claimant as trans was already widely known.
So a good call by SEEN.

'17. Mr Line on behalf of the respondents adopted a neutral position in respect of the claimant’s application for a Rule 50 Anonymity Order. The respondents neither support nor oppose the application, did not challenge any of the evidence from the claimant or the Intervenor and made no submissions in respect of the application.
18. Ms Cunningham for the Intervenor opposed the application.

I've just Googled "Samantha Tempest" and found a scantily clad animé 'adventurer'

Found 'her'

Jesus. Where's my eye bleach?

Yes, I got the anime character too. Coincidence?🤔

Good news, @fanOfBen, and thanks for this update, Including the wonderful little fact that this anonymity-seeker had published his photo, along with the info that he was trans, on a bulletin board where 20,000 people could read it!

Elspeth's email to supporters on 11 January makes some important points about the refusal of Tempest's application for anonymity:
.... these applications are often granted simply because respondent employers have no interest in resisting them. Indeed, this application would have been unopposed were it not for SEEN and your support.
... We opposed the application because we strongly believe in the principle of open justice, a principle that should apply to all. Furthermore, we think it is usually implausible for a transgender person to assert that their biological sex is a secret (which was one of the arguments put forward by the claimant as to why anonymity should be granted).
It is also important that claimants are not emboldened by the opportunity to hide behind a veil of anonymity in order to bully their colleagues and attempt to dictate policy in the Civil Service via the courts.

There's still a lot of gardening needed, so all contributions will be welcome.

Don't be transphobic. You can't tell a transwoman by sight, don't you know? 🤣

Outed my arse. 'She' is outed every time she walks down the street!

@Retiredfromthere

I realise that things have moved on with a settlement now agreed.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that this case is settled, though that would be great... Are you sure you're not confusing this case with Eleanor Frances' case, which is (unless I'm confused) unrelated except that both involve a SEEN?

Careful, I think there are several different Samantha Tempests around.

It is also important that claimants are not emboldened by the opportunity to hide behind a veil of anonymity in order to bully their colleagues and attempt to dictate policy in the Civil Service via the courts.

I agree with this point whole heartedly, it's time it was rolled out across the board, not just in court cases, but for every complaint that gets made that ends up creating real problems for people. Nobody should be banned, sacked or end up with a NCHI recorded against them on the word of an anonymous troll.

This case is not settled.

I'd regard some of the comments as offensive. The legal action is also offensive since it is claiming that the mere existence of the network is a threat.

Anyone who knew the complainant could have outed them, there is no reason to believe any perceived threat to them came from colleagues rather than other people who knew of their trans status.