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.

So I'm guessing that addressing the Claimant as 'shit for brains' would not be acceptable to the court.

I completely agree it's an unfair burden. But not insurmountable.

The threat of 'consequences' for slips is ridiculous, given the experience of previous tribunals shows trans participants being fequently misgendered by their own counsel. I can't think of one where it hasn't happened.

I briefly worked with a man who'd moved to the private sector and he pretty much had a nervous breakdown at the change in his workload. In his case, I think he was expected to do more than he should have been asked to do, but his response was not to negotiate, but to simply stop turning up to work. I've only ever worked in the private sector but have heard about the public sector and it sounds like it can be pretty cushy. DH contracted to the CS for a while, in IT, and told me stories about the people there who knew exactly how long they could take off before serious questions were asked and there was one person he told me about who spent much of his time at his desk asleep.

It's already happened in this one - not necessarily by their own counsel but by others.

I think this judge was clear that slips would not be penalised, leading to NC clarifying that she wasn't talking about slips!

Maybe we should have a sweepstake on what will happen next week. I don't feel sure what the judge will decide concerning what NC may say - but also, I'm not worried about that, because I'm sure she'll cope admirably regardless - but at this point I'd place a small wager on the judge backtracking from his request for EW to use neutral pronouns. The current edition of the ETBB is unequivocal (my emphasis):

19. Witnesses should never be compelled to use the trans person’s preferred pronouns. It should always be permitted for them to refer to a person how they presently understand or previously knew them (as in any case, eg a fraud where a defendant has used multiple identities). A victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence or assault by a trans person is particularly likely to describe the perpetrator in accordance with the victim’s experience and perception of events. To do otherwise, and place additional or artificial barriers on a witness, is likely to detract from their ability to give best evidence.

ETA and my impression of the way the judge has been asking clarifying questions of ST suggests to me that this isn't something he was totally on top of to start with, i.e., his request for EW to use neutral pronouns likely wasn't super well-thought-through.

Samantha, in a Humphrey Lyttleton voice...

Just 'hello', 'good morning', then 'you' and 'the claimant'. I be willing to bet if she said something like, 'Mr Tempest, we've been expecting you', he wouldn't actually disappear in a flash of pique.

I am going to imagine NC prefacing every question with “right, shit for brains, now onto…..”

I think it depends on whether or not she’s stroking a white cat when she says it.

Didn’t the fragrant Dr U persist in refusing to refer to Sandy Peggie by her name, even though SP frequently spoke of him as Beth?

The games these people play.

Sam?
Sam-not-wise?

Court might not like that either.

Maybe she calls him most esteemed senior trans identified member of RPA.

There has been a change of cast since last hearing in Nov 2025.

Anonymous person is out.
Elspeth is not guilty.

Robin is off the case.
No sign of Charlotte Elves.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6940286e33c7ace9c4a421da/1802467.24___2502512.23_Judgement.pdf

It is not 'normal' and 'polite' to gaslight women to deny their lived experience as the oppressed sex class to allow their oppressors to claim our oppression in order to cosplay unwillingly with men.

Would it be 'normal' and 'polite' to demand African Americans call Rachel Dolezal, a snow white anglo saxon white woman who wears an afro wig and tans her skin with bronzer as a black woman?

Well, would it? Should African Americans be gaslit to call Rachel Dolezal, a black woman? Have the courage and honesty to answer the question.

The oppressor does not have the right to gaslight and manipulate the oppressed to adopt the oppressor as one of theirs. Among people who aren't anti-women extremists, it is not considered normal for the oppressor to make demands of the oppressed to include the oppressor.

I know lanyards have been discussed earlier in the thread because they've come up at the tribunal, so I thought this story seemed relevant:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17yprvel9jo

I think every time someone sees Reform councillors in a news headline, they think "what awful bigoted thing have they said now" but I do think he is right that council staff should be politically neutral and lanyards should reflect this. I can Imagine the howls of outrage if they tried to get people to stop wearing rainbow/progress flag lanyards where I work though...

I'm really surprised that workers are permitted wear whatever lanyard they like. It's divisive & how often are we told 'they won't divide us'? It's far better to have one with your employer's name and or logo etc on it.

Elves replaced by Tinkerbell?

Morning all. Just FYI I’m not going to be able to c&p today at all. In fact I won’t be able to listen much beyond late morning.

Non-X users who can’t access https://x.com/tribunaltweets should be able to follow proceedings at https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets (note that nitter doesn’t work in Safari on my iphone but it does if I use DuckGoGo browser)

I can C&P from X today. First time doing this so please be nice if I fall behind.

Thanks, whatever you can do is much appreciated!

From TT:

This is the beginning of the second week in the hearing at employment tribunal Samantha Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency.
^Our Substack page about the case, including reporting of the first week of the hearing, is here https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments^
We expect the hearing to begin at 10.00am.
Tempest (the claimant or C) 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.
A reminder that our work is not a verbatim account or transcript of proceedings. We make our best efforts to report what is said and do so in good faith.

From TT:

A full list of abbreviations can be found on the Substack page. Today the Claimant (C) Samantha Tempest (ST) will be further cross-examined by Alexander Line (AL), barrister for both the Respondents.

^We are a small group of volunteer citizen journalists. We receive no payment for our work. We accept paid subscriptions to our Substack to fund necessary expenses including travel, legal fees and digital costs. Please consider subscribing https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments^

Is it correct that this tribunal is calendared to last three weeks? Has anyone tried to estimate how much it is costing in legal fees?

How does the panel get paid for their deliberations?

From TT:

[We are waiting for the session to begin]

[We begin - HH counsel for the Claimant is asking to be able to consult with her client, this is not usually allowed while a witness is mid-evidence so HH has to ask the court]

[The court is discussing releasing documents about the case and HH would like to talk to C about any potential privacy concerns re this]

From TT:

HH = Helen Hogben KC, counsel for the Claimant AL = Alexander Line, counsel for the Respondents NC = Naomi Cunningham, counsel for the Intervenor (SEEN)

[The hearing is on a short break to allow HH to take instructions from C]