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.

Bit of a contradiction here. He says he would rather die than be placed on a male ward having already shared that his life has been recently saved whilst (presumably) accommodated on a male ward.

Bit of a stretch to call 2014, and pre-transition, "recently"!

Trying to put the slippery slope into words,

If you are forced to accept parts of one employee's obvious fantasy as real doesn't it undermine your ability to reject other parts of their fantasy?

If parts of one employee's fantasy are supported at work won't they end up thinking that other parts of their fantasy are also endorsed?

So is his argument: my post contained “x”, but no “y” and was deleted with the reason “x”. Her post contained “x” and “y” and was deleted but the reason given was “y”.

Therefore it’s soooo unfair. If “y” is a bigger breach, surely you just give the best reason to delete, not all of them. Moderation’s a thankless task as it is.

@SlackJawedDisbeliefXY Maybe, but maybe not until the government issues a Certificate of being Napoleon to anyone who lives as Bonaparte for two years and can get a doctor to sign a letter saying this identity is likely to be for life.

Alexander Line really isn’t having to work too hard as the respondents barrister here. All he has to do is show the court that the Respondent followed their own procedures wrt grievances and DEI and the law and that the Claimant has no grounds in law. Which, to be fair, based on my quick skim of the Claimants statement, is clear on both counts.

Makes a change to be honest after other tribunals to hear there are employers that can do the basics competently.

i think NC will not have to rip him to shreds, he has done his claim massive harm.

Not that it had much merit in the first place.

the fact that the judge sometimes repeats back to C what he has said, sometimes rewording, suggests the judge is secretly incredulous, i have seen this in a tribunal i was a witness at.

I've only skimmed ST's witness statement so far but there does seem to be an issue with a grievance appeal having been upheld, but then not acted on, which at first glance looks as though it would have been upsetting - the appeal shouldn't have been upheld, from the looks of it.

The witness statement reads like so many of the me-railers we get on threads here. Totally unable to consider another persons experience or viewpoint.

The upheld Appeal recommended actions to the respondent that were simply unlawful.

From TT: MN now being discussed and a post by @Sinnerboy !

From TT:

AL To p 545 please. Edd Parry was dealing with your first grievance. You send him additional material and provide a link to a Mumsnet thread. Your Witness Statement [WS] - pp of bundle relating to Mnet thread you rely on is 337.
AL You also cite in your WS p 1542 - Mnet SinnerBoy

AL makes reference to SEEN - is that where we are taken to via the link. Is this showing what you would access if clicked on hyperlink.
C Think so, not certain. Would expect a lot more than 2 entries.
AL These are the refs you give us in your WS
C Yes
AL Hyperlink at 545 and 337

😂

From TT:

AL Mnet is external website, Rs have no control
C yes, but Defra controls what found on own website
AL Mnet posters are anon
C Whether an individual would be anon if attempts made to id individuals I can't say.

<note and this is why my data protection complaint to Leeds ET is important!>

AL 554. Email 1/12 from EP. Reads can't do anything cos nothing specific to Defra and all posts anon. He refers you to whistle blowing process. Correct he can't take this forward.
C I don't strictly agree. If this was a post re farming subsidies there would be attempt to see

Thanks @Propertylover

I can't believe this is in court. Days and days of argument over whether an employer should be punished for allowing a group to exist and say / post legally ok things
And whether the group should be punished for saying things that are legally ok
All because them being allowed to exist and say things upsets ST's emperor's new clothes bubble.

The only possibility offensive thing I can see was said is about him prancing around in little girl clothes, and I can't figure out who said that,if they were in SEEN, or if it was said to (rather than about) ST. The rest is literally "it upsets me to be reminded that other opinions exist".

All the heart attack and marriage backstory is irrelevant and designed to emotionally manipulate.

@MyAmpleSheep I love this, thankyou. MN humour is so so good.😊

So C wants DEFRA to curate the outside world as well?

From TT:

AL To p 545 please. Edd Parry was dealing with your first grievance. You send him additional material and provide a link to a Mumsnet thread. Your Witness Statement [WS] - pp of bundle relating to Mnet thread you rely on is 337.
AL You also cite in your WS p 1542 - Mnet SinnerBoy

AL makes reference to SEEN - is that where we are taken to via the link. Is this showing what you would access if clicked on hyperlink.
C Think so, not certain. Would expect a lot more than 2 entries.
AL These are the refs you give us in your WS
C Yes
AL Hyperlink at 545 and 337

AL Mnet is external website, Rs have no control
C yes, but Defra controls what found on own website
AL Mnet posters are anon
C Whether an individual would be anon if attempts made to id individuals I can't say.

AL 554. Email 1/12 from EP. Reads can't do anything cos nothing specific to Defra and all posts anon. He refers you to whistle blowing process. Correct he can't take this forward.
C I don't strictly agree. If this was a post re farming subsidies there would be attempt to see

if person could be id'd. I feel he could have suggested minimum of blocking this website so can't access via work or look to see if anyone accessing information.
AL Principles of communication were later updated. Restricting references to external websites.
C Links
J You mean

links
AL Yes I do
AL Mnet here is discussing cross-government SEEN, not Defra SEEN.
C Looking at dates, that would be right.
AL Edd :Parry's decision re your G. He doesn't uphold your complaint. Dept has to ack GC belief is recognised under EA. That is correct

Normally the CS are good on following G & D procedures, particularly if going to ET.

It goes back to Polkey which (happy to be corrected) is about unfair dismissal. If an employer doesn’t follow their own procedures then they can lose a claim even if the outcome would have been the same if they had followed a fair process.

CS is a large employer who is supposed to act lawfully, so there is an expectation by ETs the CS follows lawful procedures.

It’s one of the areas HR add value by minimising the risk of losing ETs for not following procedures. The SP ET highlighted when HR reviewed the suspension they recommended it was lifted because the correct procedure had not been followed = managing risk for NHSF. The cabal of consultants and nurses who objected didn’t understand the legal risk. This is why they are potentially personally facing an ET rather than their employer.

From TT:

if person could be id'd. I feel he could have suggested minimum of blocking this website so can't access via work or look to see if anyone accessing information.
AL Principles of communication were later updated. Restricting references to external websites.
C Links
J You mean

links
AL Yes I do
AL Mnet here is discussing cross-government SEEN, not Defra SEEN.
C Looking at dates, that would be right.
AL Edd :Parry's decision re your G. He doesn't uphold your complaint. Dept has to ack GC belief is recognised under EA. That is correct

C Have to ack it's a protected belief.
AL Reads - department has to respect and ack gc belief
C The belief acknowledged and respected, yes I agree
AL He then says the dept had no choice therefore but to reinstate original post - EW's July 2022 post. Which is what your complaint

ah, @myladydisdainisyetliving just noticed you're back. I'll stop and leave it to you for a bit but let me know if you want a break!

C Whether an individual would be anon if attempts made to id individuals I can't say.

Is ST saying that they think DEFRA should have got MN to identify posters? Please tell me i am misunderstanding.

So he says he's distressed that he encountered gender critical views on his employer's chat forum, but then he deliberately sought out Mumsnet to distress himself with the gender critical views here?

From TT:

was about.
C Yes
AL Didn't break Defra Code of Conduct
C That's what he says
AL No choice
C Don't agree. To state they have no choice is inaccurate.
AL He says GC believe in itself isn't harassment
C That's where we disagree

AL Is he saying you can express gc belief in way that isn't harassment
C Yes
AL Different from your position - that no expression of GC because it will always be harassment.
C Yes
AL He lists things that have been done. Finkelstein video message, article by Sarah Homer, NB email

@myladydisdainisyetliving You are absolutely right to pursue the breach of GDPR.