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.

I'll be really interested to read Elspeth's witness statement to get her version of events and some insight into the impact this has had on her. Presumably, it will be available when she gives evidence?

The ET judgment with the non-binary girl "Haech" should also be compulsory reading for employers as to the dangers of employing a member of the rainbow brigade. Their self-obsession & liability to take offence means they are a potential thorn in the side for any employer.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf

It's the same core to every court case, the SCJ included. The inability to tolerate that others have the same rights. And an ongoing expectation that the law will work to force all others into NPC enablement.

Yes, I'm certain the distress is real, but the reality is that tolerating others' rights and autonomy is a necessity. And learning to do that would probably reduce the distress more than a court case.

Tempest complains that Ritchie Herron wrote an article for SEEN. Ritchie Herron is a well-known and vocal detransitioner who suffers from a lot of horrible physical problems following SRS. Known as TullipR (not quite sure of handle). He is also a civil servant. RH states he had been an absolute nightmare to work with, totally focussed on the trans bit. This will be very familiar to anyone gender critical who works in the public sector.

I agree. But do you think that will ever get to a point that people will do that? It just seems so impossible. I can't imagine fervent TRAs ever accepting that GC people have rights too, that we also have "lived experience". Forcing their beliefs on other people only worked when we had no debate. Where will they go from here, now that the landscape has changed?

It's a situation very often seen on the Relationships board; when someone's sense of reality is so distorted reasoning and negotiating and explaining never makes a difference. It's probably a case of strong boundaries, grey rocking that doesn't add heat, drama or uncertainty, and time.

Morning all. I'm WFTCHTJ, but won't be able to reliably c&p from TT today.

I believe it is customary at this point to do the usual "please stay within MN rules when discussing the live hearing", but as so few of us have observer privileges it seems rather moot. Basically, if you are a live observer, and following the live reporting, can you make it clear that you are commenting on what TT has reported and not what you have observed. We can comment on what we have observed after the judge has declared a break.

A master class of a whinge fest. Ultimately, everything should revolve around me and nothing is allowed that I don't approve of.

I'm trying to get set up to c&p but may be unreliable (RSI starting to flare just form yesterday though I've improved my ergonomics for today I hope; and possible urgent phone call). If I go quiet, please someone else take over!

In the interests of completeness (for now) as I am speed reading through them:

Intervener's statement (by NC) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ql4lYtTLz3wuJks0e1-4mCuCpqByHTuX/view?pli=1

Respondents' opening note: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r7dRXrLBTyCso6haWDwVtRF98oUDnM4g/view

Email reporting Yammer post:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11zTihLeKe5VECegwYoFdI4raxnBLwweq/view

ST's response:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18eppyoqQHFtpBGN3w6dVFhJQgzpI6SYG/view

Unfortunately I can’t c&p as I’m not on TwiX

I'm only a few pages in, but it's clear the Claimant is deeply vulnerable. However, as has been repeatedly said on this board, this vulnerability cannot be addressed by trying to force the world to bend around the vulnerable person if they cannot deal with some aspects of reality. It needs to be addressed by personal support and developing of one's own resilience.

I found this old post last night. Could we get a judgement that the Claimant's belief is not WORIADS?

That would be helpful in a judgment!

Paragraph 9 of his statement, about the struggle he claims with his male body and how his mental health is negatively affected if his colleagues don't affirm him, although the comments he quotes ('prancing around in little girl dresses') are arguably cruel (are they accurate!?), I think it demonstrates it's a him problem.

Does his car go 'meeeeeeeeee' when he drives fast?

It does get to the heart of it, doesn't it? What upsets him is any suggestion, however indirect, that his colleagues think he's deluded - but though we try to be polite about it, any adherent of any religion or none, almost, thinks the others are deluded. That's why Dawkins' The God Delusion caused such a stir - it drew attention to this fact that we don't normally mention in polite society. Neither, though, do we affirm everyone else's gods!

[Wonder what the delay is this morning?]

Ah, from TT's substack, don't miss the Claimant's opening note, which I think was missed above:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ztuDwvxTnbC2ybVXOGjLRl7uu1nKksPs/view?usp=drivelink

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments

Catching up but did anyone else clock “Mr Tickle” in the linked blog 😂

From TT:

We have been admitted to the court.
J Is anyone else puzzled as to why that other room is appearing on there?
AL Is that the observing room?
J Don't want remote observers to see that.
[to and fro in court room and feed has disappeared]
[WFTCHTJ]

We are back. Discussion of temperature in the room and air conditioning.
J We can adjust to a certain extent but have to contact eg Swindon for more control. If anyone is struggling, just say.
AL I'll do my best to keep an eye - can't see your pen but am doing my best. In
midst of X-exam can forget.
J I am refining my shorthand as I go...
NC Tribunal gave direction as to language used.[difficult to hear NC] Not asking for written reasons but asked to reduce direction so we know exactly what we are asked to do.

J There may be slips. People don't always think. You said c consequences. It wasn't a threat. It's a direction so we all knew at start what was expected. There will be slips but don't want to be delayed c this. Anxious to make sure everyone gives their best evidence

NC I'm not talking about slips
J I understand what you've asked for
NC Could I finish my point. Need to understand exact parameters for me and my witness. Is it restricted to pronouns or go further?
J I'll put it in writing so no doubt.
AL One clarification from yesterday. P135

AL Doc is draft of email EW intending to send. To p157, re post appeared after the draft. Comments made after that. Text has differences from draft. Second sentence LBGT diverse etc all enrich our org - EW included those words
C Yes
AL And penultimate paragraph which inc
hyperlinks. reads - happy to discuss re understanding no ill will towards other groups etc. Additional lang included helps
C I would have to disagree. T people not going to work to debate who they are. Come to work to work. Doesn't belong in civil service. Political.

Al Your position remains same despite changes
C Yes cos is about t people in the org and not appropriate
J Which version of post did you see at the time?
C I believe I saw both versions.
J There wasn't a copy of the original post in the bundle
AL That's my understanding.
AL NC spotted that. Thank you. To p 193. NC may deal with this when it's her opportunity.
AL I'm not sure it's the original when posted. NC may take a different view.
AL As HH said, it says edited on it.
J On p 194 is a comment on this on Monday
AL I understand difference is
last sentence.
NC/AL/J [discussion re the details/changes]
AL I'm not prepared to say this is the one but that's as far as I can put it.
J Could this be clarified. Niggling we don't know what was posted and when.
AL EW might be able to clarify eventually.
AL We all agree p157

Completely agree that the focus needs to be on supporting people such as ST on developing personal resilience and acceptance of different beliefs. The alternative - preventing them from ever encountering beliefs they disagree with in the workplace - is just not practical, to put it mildly.

I’m only part way through the witness statement but it is fairly clear that ST’s belief should be tested as part of this ET to see if it is WORIADS.

I expect the Judge to find it is WORIADS. I don’t think that finding would be appealed.

I also expect this case to be Appealed as it is about manifestation of a belief in the workplace. Both sides of the GI and GC debate will want a clear finding in their favour. GI will want all mention at work of GC to be barred (not reasonable) GC will want equal right of manifestation of GI and GC at work.

From TT:

AL is the reposting.
AL [to C] Can we turn to p 228. First pg of dispute resolution notification form - the first grievance you raised.
C yes
AL Discussed yesterday if in your mind you equate transphobia with GC. You say, this promoted anti-trans (gender critical ) views. So

clear you treat these synonymously.
C Not synonymously. Can be crossover.
AL Not a slip, if you've don't it twice.
C I agree I obviously thought that. Overlap.
AL In your mind a high degree of overlap
C In this context yes I have to agree.
J Yesterday we discussed

J use of transphobic
J Was there a distinction in your mind at the time between anti-trans and transphobic
C One is fear of and one is anti...
J What were you thinking at the time.
C It was four years ago
AL There was meeting led by Sarah Homer and you left meeting

knowing the view was that EW post hadn't crossed any lines, but it was the response.
C There is a different email from Carly Malling
AL By attending 22/9 meeting you understood Rs position on EW post and dissatisfied with that.
C yes and yes
[missed]
AL post didn't name you or sent

Yes 😃 I assume she posted a picture of the Mr Men Mr Tickle. Did she not consider the optics? Tantamount to a misgendering. The fragrant Roxanne is a laydee!

From TT:

AL sent to you personally or misgender you.
C Not to me personally but frames TW as men and that is the message put across.

AL p230 You touch in grievance re implication - view gender is immutable automatically means re t people
C I ave caveats where might be okay in workplace, but implies t people are not who they say they are
AL That interpretation of EW post if you took it, is unreasonable one

AL She didn't talk c mental position of t people
C Didn't write that but if you say it it's contained [pause]
if you say that tw are not w because sex is immutable, gi does not exist. The inverse has to be that it says that tw are men. Like flipping around the everyone does/

doesn't have right to be offended point. It is absolutely saying that tw are not w.
AL p230 you refer to view that posts anti-muslim, for eg, not being acceptable.
AL You say that Forstater didn't mean gc people can talk about t people with immunity

C But by implication
AL You say not all gc views protected in law, just Forstater example in specific case
C I understand re Forstater it's capable of protection but people need to demonstrate sincerely hold beliefs for eg. Not all GC beliefs are same as may have been held

Imagine a workplace where everyone is who they say they are.

I definitely self-ID as a CEO on 250k, one of the ones who does sweet fa in terms of work just talks a good talk. I also self identify as competent at my CEO job.

No relevant skills or experience, no contacts (as that's how you get these jobs) naturally. But I self ID as such and my workplace and everyone in it must comply.