Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread (follow on from Chair of SEEN is being sued)

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5031904-the-chair-of-seen-is-being-sued
TT substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Tempest (a TW) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene. Parts of the original claim against the co-chair of SEEN (Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley) and another party (Andreas Mueller) were struck out or narrowed. Another claimant, PQ, is no longer part of the case.

The hearing is in Leeds; the number of online observers has been limited by the court due to "capacity" and posters are reporting that requests for links are being declined on those grounds.

Also to note that Elspeth still has a garden in need of seeds and water to support the ability of SEEN to be an intervenor in this case.

Tinker Drizzle 💋

Freddie?

I thought it was your pets name and the street you lived on. Signed Kitty Bailey. Actually that has quite a nice ring to it.

I may be getting confused. Stormy Daniels was in my head somewhere.

Goldie Green. Not bad actually.

Agreed. ☝️

Thanks SP for putting it so well
"... hyperbolic doom mongering victimhood ..." 😂😂😂😂

Jack Bradford sounds like a good name.

Mmmm In my case it’s Bunty Wallis.

Charisma Captain (outing for my sibling on here......)

This claim

20. That is the background, and this claim is the culmination of that vitriolic response. [Tinkerbell Tempest] is engaged in campaigning litigation, the explicit purpose of which is to destroy a staff network for those Defra group employees who share the ordinary, mainstream and factual belief that sex is a matter of biology, not identity; and that sex, in its biological sense, sometimes matters.

But that is not the extent of his ambition. He also seeks — as he must, since otherwise Forstater dooms his claim to certain failure — a radical re-reading of Forstater to limit it narrowly to its own facts, and declare open season once again on any employee who dares dissent from gender ideology in any but the most anodyne (and preferably wholly silent) terms.

21. [Tinkerbell Tempest]’s campaigning ambition extends much further than employment rights. By destroying SEEN and silencing gender critical voices, he seeks to reassert the unchallenged control which gender ideology previously held over the manner in which safeguarding and women’s rights could be discussed in the whole of the Civil Service; in other words, not merely in civil servants’ relations with each other and their employers, but in the manner in which they do their jobs in the public interest.

Naomi's Intervenor's Opening Note is a great read.

We all better hope that this one is a slam dunk against Tinkerbell and his silencing attempts...... I can see that while its so remote to win - any hope of winning is worth funding for a true gender ideologue.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ql4lYtTLz3wuJks0e1-4mCuCpqByHTuX/view

Witnesses we can expect

i. For the Claimant: Samantha Tempest, Emma Dunn

ii. For the Respondent: Caroline Airs, John Calvert, Steve Moore, David Hallam, Nicola Bettesworth, Lorraine Adair

iii. For the Intervener: Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley

For those who want to plant seeds in this garden, Crowd Justice and Chair of Seen only women menstruate should get you there.

They are at 73k seeds, stretching to 90k seeds.

Mrs Meowy Lancaster 😸

When you take STs demands and apply them to other PCs.

You can be christian/muslim/hindu/atheist but you must not discuss it furthermore you can not speak or act in a way that discloses this PC.
You can be gay but you must not talk about it or disclose it.
You can be disabled but don't talk about it.
You can be trans but no discussion or open display.

Etc etc

What he is asking for is a protected characteristic not to be protected, instead silenced and shut down.

I hope the judge will be able to (and willing to) extrapolate to this conclusion. If not, then my faith in the human ability to reason is completely over.

Agree completely. And with the disabled one it would go further still.

You can be disabled but must show no signs of it or have any indicators that bring it to the attention of coworkers (that wheelchair can't come in the building)

And no mentioning access barriers and the behaviours or actions that damage your inclusion, or threaten your equality, because that equally is harassment of others who do not want to be confronted with your reality and needs in this way that conflicts with their desired reality and 'authenticity' and their expectation of you creating it for them. With their best interests at heart.

You should also be entirely accepting of anti disability badges and groups existing, that discuss and further strategies to reduce your rights, your access, but at no time have a group that discusses and furthers counter strategies and support to retain your rights and have them equally met.

This is the boat women have been put in.

Yes, that opening statement from Naomi is a cracker of a read.

I've been musing about the funding of C's case. It's not crowdfunded, C appears to be of modest means and although he mentions debt in his witness statement I don't get the impression he's remortgaged his house to fund this. I'm sure he'd have made a huge deal of it if he had.

A KC, even a regional rather than a London one, does not come cheap. It's a very long 3 week hearing. The bill will be huge. Never mind the legal fees run up over the last two years. There is somebody or some body with very deep pockets behind this.

If I were a member of a union I would be outraged if this is what my subs were being spent on.

Edited for clarity.

Oh I don’t know.

On Monday I have a medical appointment at a location whose postcode begins with TW. Obviously this is an insult to my GC beliefs and makes me unsafe. I demand that the postcode is changed to something less triggering.

Am so far behind and probably won’t even catch up today as I am busy , and I’m sure someone will already have covered my point, but it strikes me that all this blokes guff about living as his authentic self isn’t even a story that he believes.

If he was truly being his authentic self he wouldn’t give a shiny shit whether other people saw him as he sees himself. He wouldn’t care that some people believe (know) that sex is binary and immutable. Authenticity doesn’t require other people to be compelled to say specific words or ignore facts. That would be the opposite of authenticity.

He can only maintain the illusion by refusing to acknowledge the fact that other people have rights. I know this is only day 2 of evidence but if this tribunal finds in his favour then there is something very wrong goung on.

Actually tbf Tempest does seem to be a North East surname with origins in Yorkshire and Durham. So quite possibly it was his own to start with.

And, if ST loses, there will be even higher costs for him. Deep pockets indeed, for someone to take that risk.

Ashford? Can you still identify as a Tesco customer and avoid paying for hospital parking?

The issue always is with the 'authenticity' is that it requires others to create the stage and props in which to be able to see and believe himself what he feels himself to be.

Other people however don't exist to prop up someone's lovely inner self. And compelled belief and speech makes people angry, infringing their rights and wellbeing and equality makes people angry, and trying to rip their rights away in law makes people angry. And then they set up organisations like SEEN because they've been pushed to having to resist.

And then there's the hurt despair of why everyone is so mean and hateful. It's very hard to distinguish how much of that is sincere, how much is performative, and how much is tied up in a desire to control and punish those who say no.

People who know Jesus is their saviour are not unduly challenged by those of us who know Jesus is not the saviour of anyone at all.

Do you mean he might be liable for the other side's costs? Because I think the basic rule of ETs is that the parties bear their own costs unless there are exceptional circumstances. One of those is that the claim is so weak that it shouldn't have been brought. I know, I know. But it's difficult to see how a judge can make that finding at this stage of a final hearing.

Of course whoever is backing him might decide to try for an appeal if he loses.