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.

If NC needs to put a question to ST along the lines of: it’s intolerable to you that any of your colleagues should ever even notice that you’re a man, isn’t it? would that count as deliberate misgendering? Because it’s not just the pronouns/address, is it, it’s the whole underlying reality which I suspect ST finds deeply offensive.

Maybe: "It’s intolerable to you that any of your colleagues should ever even notice that you are a biological male, isn’t it?"

From TT:

AL: We have had no detailed account of how it supports C case - wd have thought the WS would have been obvious place for that?

J: You might put it that, vague allegations about what something says then no need to look in detail? But then, C appears to be relying on it ... hmm
HH: It's been referred to quite a bit and I thought there was no objection to court seeing it

AL: I think referred to twice? HH: I think twice on Friday, plus now, and I do think that at some point the tribunal is going to say 'we need to see this to understand the evidence'

HH: I accept that if AL wants it in now to cross examination on - AL: This should not be put on me - my point is that you had opportunity to question C on this [he means, for the WS] and chose not to.

HH: [missed]
J: Is this document part of your case?
HH: Yes
J: Then why is not before us?
HH: The practicalities - the size -
J: That is not a good reason, we are put in some difficulty here.

HH: I say, AL can take it into cross examination - if not, I will deal with it in re-examination.
J: From R's point of view - you have seen it?
AL: Yes

J: Is it your view that the doc will assist the tribunal in deciding this case?
AL: I think borderline; C has made specific complaints about posts, and you have the list of issues. Does the tribunal need to see all the moderation systems?

Didn't take long to catch up on this morning.
Are they arguing about moderation from before SEEN went private? They can't pick and choose which part of the log to review.

Yes, from what I’ve seen I suspect ST would not be happy about that framing either, but maybe the judge would accept it. There may be tantrums ahead!

Some leeway for NC&co., but the idea that it is neutral to use somebody's preferred pronouns is daft.

Where the claimed gender ID of one of the parties is at the centre of the case, I think using 'they/their' should be enough of a concession to ask of anybody.

Very disappointing, and definitely and unfairly onerous, that professionals in a legal situation are warned not to use obvious and grammatically correct pronouns or titles.

'Deliberate misgendering' in everyday life - like walking up to a random transwoman in the street and shouting YOU'RE A MAN! at them - is uncalled for - accurate, but uncalled for.

In a court/tribunal, where people are operating as professionals under oath, there should be no such concept as 'deliberate misgendering'.

From TT:

J: Is doc all moderation decisions, or just those re SEEN?
AL: I need to check that - [short pause]

AL: The reality is that the significant amount of complaints are about the issues we have here, but there are problably other matters too.

J: Is it all moderation decisions, not just 'ours'?
AL: Yes.

J: What shall we do about this. If it is formally put before the tribunal, does any party object to that?
NC: Not from us.

J: Mr Line, any objection?
AL: I can't exactly object but at this point I think I would reserve my decision
J: I do always prefer that if there a doc that might be relevant, to have it. I appreciate the practical concerns.

AL: I think my concern is that this is a matter that has not been set out in evidence by the C -
J: That it's been referred to in broad terms?
AL: Difficulty I have is that we get the doc over lunch and then I immediately have to cross-ex on it.

AL: So 2 points - does doc goes in, and then also how it can be used and the position I am put in if it is immediately.

Example of NC kicking J arse and him not liking it is that when HH raised a concern about stuff being posted online he tried to reprimand, indirectly, NC and Levins. He asserts everything needs to be agreed at tribunal before becoming public but forgets that NC explicitly raised this on Friday and he had agreed that once the Witness had been questioned the WS was a matter of public record.

She reminds him she raised it on Friday and he harummphs out of it, then back-tracks on reprimand before he has a chance to check.

I think this reveals he has a tendency to ask 'how high' when C via HH tells him to jump.

This, along with lack of reasons for gender language direction, makes me think he is on notice re TRA from someone on the panel, at home, or behind the scenes at work. Or all three.

I don't think that will mean ST will necessary win the claims but it does unfortunately make it harder to argue for accuracy in ETs and if they can't be uncaptured we are doomed, I tell you. DOOMED!

I sense Tempest is claiming that any woman who disobeys his edicts or disagrees with him on anything or says 'no' is doing a genocide.

From TT:

J: Would additional time help?
AL: Wd have to consider that, but we already have the additional Emma Dunne docs; I'm not yet clear how much time I would need

AL: Would also have to know what the C intends to place on the document - to know what to look at and for.
J: I think the court has to see it, and we can then decide how to deal with it. Do we agree?
AL: Yes

AL: To note, the tribunal has been emailed - apparently there is some problem uploading.

J: What a difficult morning. It is 12.55 - we will take lunch. Panel will look at the doc - not what it proves, but at what it is like - and we'll resume when we are ready. Notionally at 2pm but cd be later while Panel consider.

[LUNCH break]

I'm wondering whether it will be helpful for NC to deliberately use the correct sex pronouns and see what happens.

J: What a difficult morning.

Mate. Try being a fucking woman saying no to a man.

I take your point but feel somehwat compelled to mention that I have seen discussions of The Archers split into posters having a fine old time laying into the characters with excoriating critiques and nicknames, and other expressing dismay and upset at how unkind that all is, to fictional characters. So it doesn't fill me with hope!

I think that when we start writing things down and using communication without tone of voice and body language it is very different to chit chat that disappears into the ether. It can be pored over, scrutinised, checked for wronghthink, links followed etc, and if someone has a few problems a la Dear Samantha they look at it all through their own somewhat disturbed lens. Hence we now have it's all about me.

"There must be no deliberate misgendering of the claimant". But slips are ok. Right. Can NC even say "do we agree that you are a biological male who identifies as a woman?"

Nowhere in that document does it say why the judge has made the decision he has. I don't think he's used to being held to account and having to explain his actions.

I thought the moderation log doesn't contain the actual words being moderated (think I heard this in some evidence last week) - it's an overview, maybe with a paraphrase, and may not even give specific reasons for moderation. Imagine it'd be more like 'comment deleted from x board for inappropriate language' or 'comment against EDI language rules' and the like. Which is why I thought they'd basically reduced it to just the numbers.

Be interested to see if there is more detail

Mind boggles that there are so many complaints that the excel log might be physically too large to look at on a 'normal' computer.

I guess that the HR team must have some sort of water-cooled multi-node distributed server cluster to manage it

The letter from the judge doesn’t actually quote any relevant text from the Bench book, which supposedly supports his decision.

It’s like answering an exam question by giving a reference to the name of the textbook your class used. And then saying, QED.

Isnt the Archers about farming? Seems more appropriate than talking about your sexuality or "gender identity".

I completely agree. People following this tribunal might get the impression that people are spending hours every day on Yammer/Viva Engage, but the reality isn't like that (well, it shouldn't be anyway!). I get the feeds to my inbox and I give them a cursory once over. Mostly, it is stuff that is useful for work, e.g updates about services that are down. But yes, I might see the odd picture of someone's cat.

When I work at home, I am focused on work pretty much all the time, but if I was in the office I would be chatting to people about their pets or about where they went for a hike at the weekend etc. The social groups on Yammer replicate that, but the expectation is that people don't take the piss, just as they shouldn't in the office talking about non-work related topics.

I've set up a new thread, please fill up this one first. I will have a lot of catching up to do this evening!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5548369-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-2

AL: It's not inherently offensive to you as s/o with GRC to discuss how the film was made?
ST: Makes out I am mutilating myself, some kind of crazy person

Such a delicate little flower isn't he. Does he realise other people actually exist for purposes other than just being NPCs in his own fantasy world? Everything is about him, even when it isn't he somehow manages to perceive it as some personal attack on his psyche.

And he's the only person constantly assuming that everyone else thinks he's crazy!

I gave up listening when the anorexic made an unconvincingly fast recovery and went straight into having a baby by donor sperm.
Ishoos have been shoehorned into the script and it all got a bit much for me.

The Archers is only nominally about farming.

It's about a multigenerational class conflict involving some of the most loathsome fictional characters ever written.

Yes, largely. It does cover all sorts of other topics though (some more effectively and more based in reality than others <side eye to writers who thought Justin's Christmas 'Scrooge' storyline a few years ago was a good idea> )

Also - were there any trans people in the Matt Walsh film? I can only remember professors of gender studies and gender affirming clinicians.