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.

Time for a quick brew

ST - I guess that DEFRA has worked with her to produce the post, which is problematic that they worked with her, they haven't considered how it will be received by other colleagues, it's all about how to draft the post and have completely failed in their duty to foster good relations.

Clearly all language should be approved by ST before it is released

And no one was allowed to point out that only women menstruate? It’s extraordinary how far men have been permitted and sanctioned and approved in what they decide is acceptable or unacceptable language.

AL - it's right to say the GRA is a pc but gender identity is not
ST - in those precise words, it's not

Can you suggest a revised wording where by GI is a PC?

Wandering bundle... Who is taking it for their next username?

This is incredible. It is a parallel universe version of reality. The thing about GI being protected characteristic. AL is just letting him speak really. I don’t even know how it is going to go when he is pressed by someone (NC) who is not going to stand for his nonsense.

He reminds me of someone I knew. Her brother was divorced. She maintained he wasn’t really divorced as his ex wife was the one who instigated the divorce. So, the ex wife was divorced, but her brother wasn’t. She was a very nice person other than those ‘opinions’ though. Not like yer man on the stand.

The moderation dealt with that by saying it was possible that gender identity might be protected as a belief. That has never been tested in court but - and it's a big but - it probably would be if not taken to the extreme belief that ST holds.

Well, now we know. Listing the PCs in the 'Equalities Act' (sic) = harassment.

It seems clear to me that ST is a coercive- control kind of person, and he needs to be able to control everything. Everything everyone says, thinks, does, means, believes, everything. I'm glad I don't have to live with him! (or work with him)

It also occurs to me that people like that are, on the whole, deeply unhappy people who can't like anyone else because they don't like themselves.

It's not an excuse, just an observation from someone who used to live with one of those people!

From TT:

The second part of the afternoon session is expected to resume soon. Earlier coverage, abbreviations, background information, pronoun direction in the QT.

It was noted previously that HH didn’t interrupt at all over the claimant’s testimony - what’s the betting she’ll interrupt NC like billy-o tomorrow?

Possibly, if it were ever tested in court, but how do you put boundaries on a belief, and would you do this for some believers but not others? It's a minefield.

To be WORIADS the belief must not conflict with the rights of others.

I agree, and also have experience.

Quite, he doesn't seem like one of those people our friend Bailey insists is so much happier post transition, does he.

Well, that ought to put GI right out of the running for WORIADS, you would think!

I suspect the judge wants a smooth running process, with some vaguely interesting arguments, and nothing that would lead to appeal.

Instead he has got an aggressive claimant, an interesting argument, dodgy bundles, and an intervenor who won't back down.

If an organisation brings a trainer in and the trainer gets it wrong, then they bloody well should inform anyone trained incorrectly how it was wrong and what it should have been. They don't need his permission to do that.

The thing about GI being protected characteristic really.

Maybe two years ago I had one of those mandated training modules on human rights. It claimed that GI was now understood as equating to gender reassignment. So this ‘understanding’ has been circulating a while now. I never could find out where the training module came from but every single faculty member of the university was compelled to view it.

Ending up with a lot of misunderstanding of the EA.

Just to remind everyone, that's two "you know whats" in a row,

Tinkerbell's problem is that he knows he is not female and if anyone says something that in any way recognises that he is reminded that he is lying to himself. He has to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance by controlling what he hears and sees.

Sorry for plopping again, what is this massive document that has not been produced, a list of complaints? Which complaints? Covering which areas? Thanks!

The document is an excel spreadsheet of complaints - all complaints but said to be mainly around these issues.

its an excel sheet which was used to log moderation decisions for the intranet site /Yammer. The egocentric bloke claims that moderation decisions were biased in favour of SEEN.