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’m not so sure about that. With the recent FWS, men (even with a GRC) have to be removed from women’s prisons. Organisations, which are meant to be single sex, are supposed to be for that sex. So, not even a man with a GRC is exempted.

There may be circumstances where it is not a problem, such as a car maintenance class, but in many circumstances single sex is for reasons of privacy, dignity, fairness and safety.

Many thanks to both of you💐
I love the way cometh the tribunal, cometh the women prepared to step up and work really hard to make it accessible to the rest of us.
Shout out to....
no, I won't name names cos I can only remember two usernames and that's not fair to all the others, everybody's input is much appreciated

I've got to step away again - sorry I got my ears pricked up by the mention of MN and was in a rush to discuss here! Please carry on.

Agreed, I was wondering how the 'it keeps appearing in my inbox' explanation would work here

Lol fair enough. Highlights the issue if normalising it being acceptable for men to be able to access female spaces though. When that’s taken away they feel like the world is falling out from under them. If they’d been told no from the start all this nonsense about “erasing our existence” or being from “erased from public life wouldn’t be a factor.

I've ploughed through the witness statement, and I'm absolutely flabbergasted that multiple lawyers appear to have thought there is enough substance there to warrant an ET (famous last words). Towards the end, there are references to "The various acts of discrimination I have experienced". These include:

People wearing SEEN lanyards within ST's range of vision;
SEEN existing;
People saying that sex is binary and immutable;
People saying that sex matters.

It reminds me so much of the Haech Lockwood case. Let's hope it goes the same way.

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

That sounds like literal annihilation, doesn't it?😏

From TT:

AL Do you dispute any of those things were done.
C Sarah and Bettesworth were done. Not sure c video message - don't have reason to argue about them.
AL Accept these are egs Rs have done to promote inclusivity for t staff like you.
C No. Comments made, but no consideration

given to impact on t staff, to include and assure us we were safe - no, absolutely not.
AL You appeal decision. Janet Hughes is decision maker on the appeal. [to JH decision letter] She upholds your appeal.
C Yes
AL p 659 Reads c providing open platform to share GC belief

department is not adhering to its policies. But this is erroneous. There was never an open platform
C Disagree. 602 clearly demonstrates no such mod in place - from CM. Clear unmoderated since conception. No one deciding who is responsible for it and how run. Users - staff -

using it as they see fit. No formal guidance support or mod of the groups. I can give egs of missing data. Mechanics of what they do with that are missing. Open platform doesn't create safe environment for t colleagues.
AL You haven't mentioned existence of Yammer use policy

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

So C didn't want to just block links to MN, he wanted Defra to find out who was making comments there.

Hmm, reminds me of another TW who demanded that MN reveal the identity of a poster.

The whole point of FWS was to establish if sex, woman and man in the EA2010 meant biological sex or legal sex I.e. women plus men with a GRC. FWS only affected the c10,000 with a GRC.

I agree holding a GRC means ST has a biological sex (male) and a legal sex (female) the Judge has chosen to respect STs legal sex in a legal setting. As a barrister and legal professional I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask NC to use they/them or Claimant, ST etc. My issue is whether it is right to ask the intervenor EDW to do the same as pp have pointed out she is giving evidence under oath.

I know people won’t agree with me and I don’t want to derail this thread. I am happy to debate this if someone wants to set up a separate thread.

From TT:

in place since 2013. We talked c that yesterday.
C Other views. eg John Calvert talks about no formal moderation
[Discussion c which doc/finding doc being referred to]
AL I think C is going to make point para 7. I thought he was talking about another part of doc.

C [reads] c JC believes re Yammer and Intranet there was formal mod process. I disagree there was actual system re how to mod comments consistently.
AL We started with JH view of being open platform. JC isn't denying the existence of a mod process. He uses the word 'formal'

AL reads c system being changed around 2022.
J Where is it in doc
AL [reads] EA team retains role for Yammer related issues within EAg. Introduced process after complaints increase for a single point of contact.
AL Greater formality to process was created but was a process

C There was a process to escalate a complaint but not what to do with the complaint. No one responsible to mod or manage group re inappropriate posts. Not appropriate for IT professional to make judgment calls etc. That does not sound like a proper mod process - but

IT professionals struggling to deal and this tagged on to IT professional job. I agree with JH.
AL Defra responded by Principles of Communication and the moderation
C Six month gap before policy came into play. Not applied fairly between GC and T staff. Policy not functional

My original post was in response to someone who wondered why the judge was referring to him as a she. I just suggested it might be because he had a GRC and in law, just in law, he was a female. Because the tribunal was a legal setting and the judges was just treating him as a legal female. My comment had nothing to do with biology or the SC clarification, just the GRC, it was just a suggested reason as to why the judge had decided to call him a her.

Once again I’m following a tribunal thanks to the sterling efforts of TT and the C&P queens.
Do we have access to the disputed post of July 22 ?

The legal arguments have to take a back seat when it hinders the administration of justice. There are a million ways to argue that would be one of the (many) exceptions to the application of a GRC.

Amongst people who aren't anti-trans extremists, it is considered normal and polite to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns.

There are no anti-'trans' extremists. 🤯

Except this is a particular tribunal case which centres on the issues raised by choices of pronouns. If ever there is a forum in which “normal and polite” may have to give way to accurate and specific, this is it.

if the claimant was fighting a speeding ticket penalty we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

The other thing that comes across so, so clearly from the WS is the unconscionable waste of time and therefore public money that this whole thing has caused. Senior people caught up in grievance and appeal processes have been distracted from actually doing their day jobs - it's not just the HR teams, it's directors from across DEFRA.

I am getting old skool Madonna vibes…… “ like a veeegan…..” It’s the same making a point that you have already observed and moved on from.

From TT:

[pause while they let people from the hearing room into the court]
J Note that there are more people in at the start than as the hearing goes on. Not expressing any view as to why that is.

J Communication issues in hearing room.
AL To JH decision letter, p 657. Date is 16/2 - but at this point the Principles of Communication were in place and effective
C In place and being used at this time

AL JH recommendations. Letter copied to HR Dir for consideration. First time Defra aware from HR perspective what recommendations were. Accept?
C Yes
AL No feasibility study re recommendations before they're made

C They had been talked about. Janet spoke to NB
C No right that JH made recommendations without considering NB view of how would work

AL Don't know what discussions were
[they agree there is a record]
AL Accept JH didn't speak to anyone from SEEN before making recommendations
C Don't believe so but don't know what she did or didn't do.
AL If recommendation of JH followed through would effectively shut down SEEN

C Stop GC views being expressed in workplace and effectively shut down SEEN, yes
AL Yes, if you can't express GC beliefs a GC network can't exist.

Not giving the claimant a reason to appeal on the basis the Judge was transphobic for not using the correct pronouns for their legal sex is assisting the administration of justice.

Appalling behaviour by DEFRA management to create a Mumsnet account in his name and refuse to switch email notifications off.

From TT:

AL Ill-thought through. Would place Defra in risk of not allowing GC people to be accommodated in the workplace.
C No. I think there is - Eg MacCrief. I'm no lawyer I can't understand why safety of t people in workplace isn't a legitimate aim.
AL [discussion of case - McCreath?

C eg of code of conduct re use of pronouns
AL But your case isn't c use of pronouns
C But parallel can be drawn. Not a lawyer.
AL No, but parallel...This is specific case of one person not using pronouns. Your care is all expression of GC cannot be uttered on any basis.

AL False and tenuous
C The concept is the same. GC belief results in exclusion of t people. Result is same, cos categorises tw as men. And that's not too far from misgendering.

SEEN policy pushes back c preferred pronouns and inclusive language. It's along the same lines as MacCreath.
AL I shall disagree with you on that.
AL To email JH to NB. NB wants to discuss recommendations which she sees as problematic re law.
AL Her response - but as I say I

AL am not a lawyer which is why they are only recommendations. [= JH letter]
C I agree email gives that impression. But my letter said were sent to director for implementation.
AL JH is starting to backtrack on strength of recommendations as she realises they are problematic

You appear implicitly to accept that the administration of justice overrides the existence of a GRC, and is the real goal here.

I can accept a judge using they/them to remain neutral - but not preferred pronouns, which is not neutral.
Everybody else should be allowed use grammatically correct pronouns.
To require/request them to do otherwise seems unfair, and places an unfair burden on people who have sworn to tell the truth.