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.

No, the barrister was DEFRA's and trying to show that DEFRA was even-handed between different groups of employees; effectively trying to get Samantha to agree that there were appropriate processes in place.

ETA - clarification has happened upthread

FWIW googling "Samantha Tempest" with site:mumsnet.com , and custom time set to cover the whole of 2022, finds no hits. Of course it's possible that google search is missing something, or that there were posts naming ST but they've been deleted.

Got it. Don't blink etc. etc.

Thanks for the insight @myladydisdainisyetliving that the Claimant came across as batshit as he sounded in the transcript.

Very much in the zealot mould.

is Tempest very young, @myladydisdainisyetliving ? His testimony seems batshit, but also quite sincere. Like his admission that he had, in fact, no idea whether GI beliefs harmed GC people, right after insisting that they didn't. It's like he has no world experience and has spent his entire life in the echo chamber of r/transgenderuk

He can't be that young if he was already being upset by SEEN in 2022...

Of course, the fact that we haven't yet heard about anything done to him that could conceivably actually be harrassment etc. (as opposed to what seems like harrassment if you think that means someone not agreeing with you) doesn't necessarily mean nothing was. We'll see.

Based on the picture I’ve seen I would say he could easily be in his 50s or even older.

Google has thrown up this rather strange FOI request:

Mumsnet posts by Defra group staff - a Freedom of Information request to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - WhatDoTheyKnow

I have tried to find a picture but looking for images of Samantha Tempest gives a load of anime type stuff and also a page called 'Samantha – CoverGirl of the Week (August)'...is that the right person?
(don't want to link in case I break a rule)

It’s difficult to be precise because Tempest has only briefly appeared on camera when they moved around the court room. But Tempest is nearer 50 than 20.

All about the RPA, 'an executive agency of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Payments_Agency

I'm just catching up. The claimant is quite extreme!

"J: Your proposition is that the mere articulation of GC belief is discrimintory?
ST: Yes, it erases transgender ppl"

Claimant has stated this several times now. Will they be asked for names? Which TG people have been erased? How?
Or is it a false statement...

And not to mention the tired old trope 'she said X but we all know she meant Y'.

I've actually been wondering about the 'simply stating you hold XX belief is inherently offensive' before now. Say I said I was an atheist. By definition that means I don't think there is a Christian God, a Muslim God, etc. So to state that I am an atheist could be offensive to those who believe there is such a thing - I'm essentially stating I think Christians, Muslims etc are wrong about what is, to them, quite a fundamental thing.
Does this mean people shouldn't be able to state they have such a belief? Would someone saying they are a Christian (and therefore that I am wrong about there being no God) be offensive to atheists?

I mean, obviously not - the world can't work that way. But this is the Claimant's argument - that no-one can state even the existence of a belief that might be offensive to anyone else. The opposite of a diverse workplace.

Christ on a bike. Just looked as this person’s history of FOI requests. And ploppers think we are the obsessive ones.

It “erases” them qua transgender, perhaps. Except it doesn’t. What it does do is demote transgender from exalted special external status to just another protected belief about one’s self. Which I actually think is fair.

J:Your proposition is that the mere articulation of GC belief is discriminatory?
ST: Yes...

Operation Let Them Speak reached a high point today!

I'm hoping NC will dig a little into what ST means by being erased. It's such obvious hyperbola.

Wow, reading that MN thread from 2022 which gives contemporaneous accounts of the Yammer threads in today's proceedings is both surreal and enlightening.

Oh to see NC's bundle of copies. I bet they have so many coloured tags they look like bunting. Can't wait.

Crikey, there's four pages of this nonsense!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5240240-freedom-of-information-requests-about-seen-and-mumsnet

So he's claiming bullying and harassment because his employer allowed a work group that he didn't approve of to exist. Seriously 🤯
How did this even get this far?
Bonkers

I remember that thread and recognise some usernames on this thread from it. It described the posts on Yammer, and was critical of some of the behaviours. No names were mentioned.

If you search that thread and Yammer, you’ll see posts like the one I’ve screenshot. I can only guess that criticism of the behaviours felt like a personal attack to the claimant.

How does the judge get to that conclusion given that the SC judgement has said a GRC does not make a man a woman (or vv) for any purpose covered by the EA2010?