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.

Corbett is one of the lay panel members - so not the judge but still influential.

One of the people viewing said they had a good view of the lawyers, so they should be able to say if Charlotte Elves is there (her pic if anyone needs to see it https://www.outertemple.com/barrister/charlotte-elves/).

I think Corbett left PCS in 2009, although he now seems to do tribunals, Legal Services Consumer Panel and possibly part time at a university (please can someone check his linked in entry). Another reminder that PCS is being sued by Fiona McDonald (Why I am suing my trade union will find the garden) and that it's attempt to have the indirect discrimination part of the case struck out failed.

He is the Union side lay tribunal member.

Like Sara Morrison’s trial, if there is opposition to pronouns, hostility in the room to sex realist positions or quick decisions against either party always worth a gander at the lay members.

Was it Higgs with two recusals? In Morrison - there was clear bias in the room before the case got going.

No, she's not. Not sure if NC has a junior or will prep with the solicitor.

Yes to all this.

The PCS is captured. Soarsa who’s only skill seems to be dressing up for Halloween 🎃 every day of the week - was recently senrior of PCS Proud and Chair of Civil Service LGBTQIA etc. So that’s what is coming from the Tinkerbell end of the conversation.

Hold that in balance with Elspeth saying that sex realist views are part of the reasonable views in society and I think the Civil Service is very captured. Fiona’s case is that the PCS Union is too.

Yes that is what I had picked up - but wasn’t sure as not in the room.

Earlier in the thread it said he had only been in CS for about 10 years half of that AO/EO (2nd and 3rd most junior grades). He isn't going be living the high life on Alpha pension from that with it's state pension age retirement age and 1/42 accrual rate

A wider point, this is one view if a very disturbed individual (plus supporters), please do not assume the whole of the CS isn't like this. We are stretched thin with rounds and rounds of cuts and headcount reductions and recruitment bans.

The last time we gathered to protest the Senedd taking no action with regards to the SC's ruling, there were a lot of PCS flags being waved by the anti-women mob that gather to shout us down.

Although that has nothing to do with the lay member, he's representing a Union that's not only captured but take's part in anti- women rights demo's, so there's a possibility that he'll be not unbiased.

The Civil Service is part of the patriarchy. Gender balance is improving (they'll be including all the males identifying as female) but the improvement is recent and too recent to have had much impact. www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-diversity-inclusion-dashboard/civil-service-diversity-and-inclusion-dashboard

A wider point, this is one view if a very disturbed individual (plus supporters), please do not assume the whole of the CS isn't like this. We are stretched thin with rounds and rounds of cuts and headcount reductions and recruitment bans.

I might rail about the useless Public Sector but someone must being doing something right otherwise it would have all fallen apart years ago. The last thing those that are doing the job need is to have to carry deadweight along with them, because if the deadweight reaches critical mass they will become to much of a drag for those who are doing the work too cope with.
Employment law, Unions and DEI have made next to impossible to get rid of people who are useless at their job. The CS is facing cuts because they've spent years wasting money on employing the unemployable. The country needs to lift the burden off the PS/CS and give it the freedom it needs to sort the chaff from the wheat.
A case like this should never of happen, the CS should not of had to jump through so many hoops for this grifter. Who's employing whom here.

Although I'm always happy to hear NC cross examine someone, I'm not clear about why they've been allowed to intervene.
The Claimant has produced a 'poor me' witness statement, but as far as I can see the case is 'I asked by employer to keep me safe and un-harassed, and despite them taking some action, I'm not satisfied and still think they allowed me to be harassed.'
The Respondent says 'we followed procedure, investigated, etc. and made reasonable adjustments to ensure he wasn't harassed - we did our job'
As its an employment matter, I don't really see why going into the ins and outs of what it was the Claimant felt continued to harass him is that relevant.

Actually, have I answered my own question here? 🙄

@crabbyoldbat SEEN are allowed to intervene because Tinkerbell wants the employer to disband them and discipline Elspeth and Andreas Mueller. It's defamation to say someone harassed you when they didnt.

He is claiming that allowing SEEN to exist at all and that in of itself is harassment permitted by his employer.

As he is alleging that SEEN, which is a group and not a legal person that represents the interests of GC people employed in the CS, they, that is SEEN have a very specific interest in arguing that SEEN is a lawful group.

It would be unwise to leave that issue to the defence council.

It prevents the defence council caving in and settling out of court, with an agreement to close or fetter lawful expressions within SEEN.

Also it tests the concept of “manifestations of expressing a protected belief further, although Higgs case has settled that matter since this case was started.

He was suing Elspeth and the other secret trans was suing Andreas. Last minute swerve to drop them and only go for employer but after years of abuse and harassment Elspeth needs to be represented properly.

The Civil Service were legally forced to allow SEEN - they’re not supportive of GC voices - if they are allowed to row back on free speech here it further harasses sex realists at work.

he doesn’t represent the union or unions in general; he brings a union officer’s perspective and a union officer’s experience to adjudications between employer and employee. He’s still expected to judge fairly and according to the law.

The problem with all members of these tribunals is that the Judge and the union person are both likely to have had "training" from Stonewall that was not in line with the law - and may not have had any updated training since then.

Anyone know anything about Ms S Lee as the same may be true for her. Anyone know her full name?

Hopefully the judge keeps up with the law and the tribunal can be impartial, we'll find out.

agreed - the cuts is what I was getting at upthread. We think these organisations are operating as they did historically. But im coming to realise they’ve been hollowed out and seem quite dysfunctional to me. Then on top of that all this nonsense staff network stuff - it’s quite unbelievable to watch as I’ve always been in the private sector in companies very passionate about their work.

The panel members are one from the trade union side and one from an employer/business background.

The judge is the one who makes the decision in consultation with the panel but he can ignore the panels views completely, in both fact finding and case law.

It is for the barristers to provide the judge with the relevant case law and from that he must scrutinise the case law presented to him and determine how that applies to the case in front of him after he has determined the reliability of the witnesses, and any disputed facts.

Regarding his length of service, his witness statement says:

"129. Part of me feels I should leave the Civil Service for my own wellbeing but the other part of me feels like why should I be the one hounded out of what is a decent enough job. I recently got my 25 years’ service award. Why should I have to give up such an investment?"

Ah, a job for lifer, I would how many of those 25 years he was on the sick for? 😂

"a decent enough job"

If only he were doing one.

No, the judge cannot ignore the panel's views completely on fact finding. Case law, yes, fact finding, no.

The judge is the final arbiter on legal interpretations and points of law, but the judge cannot overrule the panel members on decisions of fact. Decisions are made by majority, so the two lay panel members can potentially overrule the judge. If the lay panel members decide that a witness is credible, that is decisive even if the judge doesn't believe a single word that witness said. If the lay members decide that the claimant has been harassed, that is decisive whatever the judge thinks. It is rare for the lay members to overrule the judge, but it can and does happen.

The Judge decides, really? Is that a Scotland or NI difference? I'm sure in some earlier case we learned that the Judge was the legal expert but the decision was made by the three panel members equally.

If it was Corbett, based on his union background, who convinced the Judge there was no need to allow EW/NC to use correct sex pronouns, and now the Judge has read the ETBB and realised he's been embarrassingly misled, that could lead to some interesting dynamics. Pity we don't get to overhear the panel's discussions!

25 years working for same employer.

Decide you are trans. Hear nothing but cheers and hoorays.

Maya and the early legal vanguard gives hope. People call the one sided ideologues out. Some minor dissent is allowed. But everyone is captured.

There is some Civil Service push back. It’s no coincidence that Eleanor’s case was settled for a big sum

www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/dcms-dsit-revise-gender-reassignment-policy-discrimination-settlement-eleanor-frances

Tinkerbell doesn’t like it one jot that people with real life views exist - his first wife divorced him so as not to enable his fantasy, he lost friends and they likely tired of his me me me life. Covid stopped him prancing in the office in his lady dresses. And now some young woman, a lawyer no less, has the sheer audacity to suggest sex is binary.

This is somewhere where Tinkerbell has never had to brook any dissent. All he had was affirmation or cheers. Getting the group hidden and closed wasn’t enough. He had to go look for offence. Knowing some people somewhere were secretly of the opinion he was a man in a dress 👗 was absolutely intolerable to him.

His troubles started the day the Civil Service knew they were going to get sued for harassing people with sex realist views.

He wants to silence all of the women who know he is a man. That shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

Thanks a lot! I remember that.