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.

@ProfLargofesse you’ve given me things to think about.

Judge was retired - ETBB was updated in Feb/ March this year so he could have missed it. He’d be stupid not to have checked it when ask to make a ruling on pronouns. But maybe he made a mistake. How to row back now??

I’ll check his previous judgments to assess timings.

Everyone has clearly been disregarding NC as intervenor - she wasn’t part of disclosures, changes to issue list etc. He likely didn’t factor in her continued persistence on the issues.

He hasn’t given written reasons after a number of days because he realises his mistake.

Also remember the X factor - two panel members and they could be true trans. 🏳️‍⚧️ I’d love to know their names but no mention from anyone. If anyone knows please let me know.

He’s a first instance judge so would be stupid enough to unpick Forstater. He is asking questions that show Tinkerbell Tempest is unreasonable. Raising a grievance and asking the appeal person to go look for offence is ludicrous.

Raising a grievance and asking the appeal person to go look for offence is ludicrous.

He was a ludicrous CF when he asked for special fully paid leave because he had raised a grievance especially considering he is so fragile that now he WFH full time.

Ooh, interesting re timings. That sounds really likely. Also I expect the panellists have got used to trans activist-induced behaviour in the workplace and are blind to the impact of its application in the use of language in court. They will either remain convinced in that opinion or also don't want any kicking coming in the direction of their arses. Although what we have experienced so far suggests that panellists are often dodgy as all fuck.

Your point about the panel is also interesting. Will they have their names on show in court? Would an observer/ TT have access to that information? Not that I want us to go digging per se but, if anything, Charlotte Elve's digging around the fake prof (I think it was Elves) demonstrated that for open justice to really mean anything there can't be protective boundaries around people involved in making such important judgments. The Fake Prof was a total charlatan and had got away with it for decades. If it hadn't been for digging a lying toad would have held significant cards in a place were truth is supposed to matter.

I'm sure there are lots of different views on that.

I agree @ProfLargofesse the judge has had an 'Oh fuuckk' moment that he's screwed up on the pronoun direction. He knew the pronouns question was coming because Rs' opening note states that C and the Intervenor have already written to the tribunal on the question and it needs to be addressed on the first day. For whatever reason, he thought he knew the answer.

He's now realised he's got it wrong and after pressing by NC for a clear written direction has given himself the weekend to fudge it somehow. Luckily for him NC's not on until Tuesday and EW won't be on until after all R's witnesses.

I suspect NC will be asking for it first thing Monday morning for all that.😉

And 'bisim' as a word for an uppity woman or girl brings back memories! I've not heard it for years although when I've seen it written down it's been spelt 'besom' and so wonder if had unfortunate origins in witches' brooms!

Nah she was a crock from day 1. Shocked that everyone wasn’t admiring the emperors new clothing.

I have to give the women of Mumsnet full credit - once the scent was given it was Mumsnet that turned up the full evidence of fakery and a video of herself calling herself an employment judge no less.

If the people in judgment can’t stick to basic truths it makes a mockery of the entire process.

The Panel members are often people who have swallowed the ideology in their day jobs and when having to assess the ideology in law aren’t fit for the task. It’s just too unkind.

I suspect it was because he had seen things on SEEN he couldn't say he had seen.

He feels justified because there have been posts on the private SEEN network, that you can only see if you are a member, that he is offended by and believes SEEN should be in trouble for but is in a Catch 22 (SEEN...seen being very Major Major in an interesting way!) because he is not supposed to be able to see SEEN for his own good. If he did admit to seeing them he would, in effect, be harassing himself.

I think he has been persuaded, or persuaded himself, that these posts that he hasn't seen (but of course he has) will be produced in court and he will be vindicated. The fact that they aren't being produced is, in his mind, evidence of a hostile environment. They are the Shrodingers cat (couldn't find the umlaut thingie) of this ET.

The judges fudging has already started - he's said we are here to look at whether the employer did anything wrong, implication was to the claimant and stuff SEEN. He's probably going to rule that Andreas and Elspeth are not employees of Defra and not acting as it's agents. He might suggest he doesnt need to decide much beyond that, maybe with a bit of Defra didnt implement all the recommendations they said they would or keep the complainant well informed.

If the judge has any sense he will row back on "consequences" if Elspeth uses wrong pronouns.

As for Tinkerbell he'll be offended by anything on the SEEN network, he's already said there is nothing they are allowed to say.

Cheeky fucker! Ex CS here and I’ve seen plenty of work shy useless pricks as well as lots of dedicated hard working people too but this useless, selfish article takes the biscuit!

Could the judge just 'fess up and admit he's made a mistake? None of the respondents witnesses have given evidence yet and crossing ST hasn't required sex specific pronouns. Is it too late for him to row back?

I'd happy to contribute to a pair of steel-toe-capped pointy stilettos for NC to use when arse-kicking.

I'm that fed up of bloody men who treat women as NPCs.

That's what I think as well.

Useful. But the claim is also about hostile and degrading work environment so does that not go beyond utterances but to the process employers undertook with regard to grievances? Given that he won an appeal within those processes which was, in effect, disregarded after review does that not allow broader concerns than reasonableness or not ofmutterances?

I think so too.

Agree.

Is there anyone here who has had to sit through one of the a:gender webinar presentations by Emma Dunn, who is appearing as a supporting witness for ST?

I know I've read comments before, but can't remember if it was on here, about the very performative crying she always seems to do at the same points in every presentation. I do wonder if she'll try that when she's being cross-examined - and what NC's reaction might be!

Thank god I'm retired to I don't have to sit through nonsense like that anymore...

J covering themselves in case ST doesn't realise the break is over "because no one cared enough to come and find me even though they knew I was vulnerable and scared I might accidentally see a lanyard "

This reminds me of the Sheffield hospital case.

Re the panel members.

Employment Judge Robertson
https://www.judiciary.uk/appointments-and-retirements/regional-employment-judge-retirement-robertson/
Employment Judge Stuart Douglas Robertson retires with effect from 1 May 2025.
As someone said upthread perhaps he is back on a day rate?

Ms J Lee

Mr Graham Corbett

Perhaps this guy?

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/blog/out-of-the-shadows-part-3-%E2%80%93-the-legal-services-consumer-panel

Graham is Senior National Officer at the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), and a Member of the Employment Tribunal Panel. Formerly, he was Deputy Head of Legal Services at the PCS and a civil servant at the Department of Environment and Transport. He previously chaired the Departmental Trade Union Side for negotiations and was a senior lay representative at the Civil and Public Services Association.
Location: West Yorkshire

I suspect he made such a dog's breakfast out of the case he decided to exit and left HH holding the bag. Or there wasn't enough oxygen for both RMW and ST. Maybe the bat shittery quotient was exceeded. In any event, RMW has been underwhelming in other cases we've covered.

Naomi made the point that the Judge would have had biased training. If Graham Corbett is PCSU that could be Tinkerbell's union - and is one of the unions currently being sued over its polices on gender.

Can someone check this Graham Corvett out, I dont use linkedin. uk.linkedin.com/in/graham-corbett-1572aa50

Why yes I may have had an assist from AI (I'm not wasting actual brainpower on this man)

What we’ve SEEN so far…

He walks in all steady
so sure of his plan,
sure they’ll accept
the story he ran.

But the women look once
and the moment goes thin,
they see what he hides,
what he holds in his skin.

He says he’s a woman.
They see he’s a man.
They say it out loud,
and it breaks his span.

He tries to recover,
tries to command,
tries to reshape
what they understand.

Their voices stay level,
their footing stays firm,
they won’t twist the truth
to soften the term.

He hates their calm stance,
their clear, steady scan,
the way they refuse
to rewrite the man.

He hates SEEN for its clarity,
hates SEEN for its stand,
hates SEEN for the truth
he can’t counter or brand.

He clings to his story
with frantic demand,
lashes out at the women
who won’t play in his sand.

His world only stands
if they all keep the pose,
if they praise the emperor
and all his new clothes.

But SEEN doesn’t fold.
SEEN doesn’t close.
SEEN speaks what is standing
and strips what he chose.

He storms off in a fury,
at the women, so mean,
swearing he’ll punish
the bitches of SEEN.

He drafts wild complaints,
sends threats in a stream,
demands they be silenced
for their awful blaspheme.

He files mad petitions,
rants at the board,
insists SEEN be shuttered
for truths he abhorred.

They call him to witness,
he strides in with flair,
convinced he’ll be lauded
for justice laid bare.

But each calm question
strips off his veneer,
he raves about “insolence”
and “women interfering here.”

He shrieks “they’re conspiring”,
he snarls “they’re unfair”,
he pounds on the table
demands they “declare.”

The judge just blinks slowly,
asks “Sir… are you well,”
and he rants into chaos
as the clerk rings the bell.

I recognise those names — were they not on one of the other ET panels?