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.

From TT:

C I accept in this email she is taking a step back to frame them as recommendations, but not how letter sent to me was framed. She is not recommending GC staff be punished for views but Defra has to provide safe and inclusive environment for t people but no legal

need to provide platform like Yammer. She is leaving it in HR's hands.
AL She says it's reasonable to point out if recommendations she has made are wrong. And NB does that with you - p 782. Email to you 6/4 - formal note setting out HR actions and considerations.

AL She had also spoken with directly about the approach going to be taken
C I couldn't be certain c timing of call but I did speak to her re recommendation.
AL If it helps, AB's WS tells us when conversation happened. Before this email.

AL p 782 Recommendation 2. Other than rec 2 and 5, R partially accepts or puts in motion re things recommended.
C No, lots of things we didn't agree with. Eg rec 1 I don't agree they continued to engage with and update me.

AL rec 2 - She gives reasons why HR unable to accept recommendation. All employees with PCs are able to equally engage. Eg a group with a PC can set up a network.
C I believe that is Defra policy. Also all colleagues who share an interest. That is a dangerous position to take

Elspeth's post can be read here:

https://nitter.net/i/status/2070429863329112097

Thank you.
The post should be projected onto the tribunal room wall, to remind people what brings them all there....😠

From TT:

AL Why is it dangerous
C PSED to foster good relations. Some networks could be lawfully create, like religious beliefs anti-homosexuality. Allowing to base a network around beliefs is dangerous to workplace.

Networks should be formed around what brings us together not what separates us.
AL Excluding other people
C It a group causes another group to experience harassment I would say it should be considered.

But it all you have to do to form a network is to have something in common you don't even have to carry out an impact assessment.
AL reads from proportionality from communication principles
C Don't think communication principles achieves what they need to. We disagree

C on what constitutes harassment. Numerous t people saying we feel like this but no investigation c what risks, are there problems. Defra HR unilaterally vetoed outcome of G via JH and my attempts were dismissed out of hand. G found discrimination was found. Two points

C of view are incompatible. Something is wrong.
AL It was not dismissed out of hand. Recommendation can't be followed through cos give rise to discrimination.
C But that's not what was found. Not what the second appeal found too.

[My note: I'm confused - was he saying that people should, or should not, be allowed to form networks around religions, even if the religion in question was, say, anti-homosexuality? Anyone with audio access able to comment at some point?]

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/ah1n15rj/etbb-july-2024-february-2026-update.pdf

It is not to do with a GRC or otherwise. The SC confirmed that the GRC is a paper exercise to validate trans people but since nothing has to be done to actually change sex - where sex matters it has no consequence.

Pronouns are not a legal matter - they are compelled speech. Judical guidnace should only be interested in serving the purposes of justice not affirming identiies.

In terms of non-binary which is not anything in law (and since we are binary an acutal practical nonsense) judicial guidance as at March 2026 has this to say:#

1. Increasingly in recent years, “non-binary” has become a popular identification, though this is not a legally recognised social category. (The definition of sex in the EqA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary)

Non-binary people often wish to be referred to by non-standard pronouns or by pronouns in a non-standard way; namely, “they” to refer to a singular person, which many people find linguistically confusing. Judges should exercise their discretion whether to use these non-standard pronouns, rather than referring to the person’s biological sex/gender, depending on whether they believe it will achieve best evidence.

Witnesses should never be compelled to use these pronouns. See also “Recommended terminology” within this chapter.

He’s just re litigating Forstater isn’t he? Has nobody informed him it’s already settled law that women can be openly GC in the workplace?

[I'll go offline for a bit now but can come back to continue c&ping at 2pm; however, if someone else fancies a turn, be my guest!]

From TT:

J There is a danger of repeating points. Last exchange has been had a number of times. Not a criticism.
AL Apologies.
J We will resume at 2pm [reminds witness not to discuss case in break]. I am required to keep saying it - it's not directed at you.

And in relation to contested pronouns - which clearly this case is about:

17. Typically, it should be unproblematic for the judge to use the trans person’s preferred name and pronouns (“he/she” or “they”), regardless of whether they have obtained a GRC.

However, where one side’s case hinges on the recognition of the biological sex of the trans person as crucial, and the other side on the recognition of their chosen identification, judges need to be careful not to let the choice of gendered pronouns give an appearance of bias, or that there is a predetermined conclusion. If possible, using the individual’s name instead of a pronoun where these pronouns are contested, or alternatively, the gender-neutral pronoun of “they” may help minimise offence towards, or the undermining of, an individual’s personal identification, while also not validating and giving it undue weight over the perceptions of others.

18. There will be other situations where the judge may decide not to use the trans person’s preferred name/pronouns to ensure a witness can give best evidence, eg a female rape victim may find it incomprehensible if the judge and others in court refer to her biologically male attacker as “she”. In the end, it is for the judge to ensure that a proper balance is struck between respecting how a trans person, as with any person, wishes to be addressed (within reason), and enabling a witness to give best evidence/recount events as accurately and truthfully as possible.

Compelling speech of a witness is not in the interests of justice.

There is no legal basis to force pronoun use. The very Court recognise that. A GRC has nothing to do with forcing wrong sex pronouns.

No I’m saying the judge is showing respect for a GRC by using legal sex pronouns.

I think the judge agreed earlier to give NC a written statement of the position re pronouns?

Maybe it’s like sex: solo or in pairs is fine. When it’s done in groups it’s a bit sketchy.

I feel sorry for SEEN people being up against such bigotry. He is absolutely determined they should not exist, never mind the law, never mind policy, never mind any other consideration except his. Breathtaking arrogance.

My apologies, I misunderstood your point, but I think I improved it! You said that avoiding a successful appeal because the judge is found to be transphobic is furthering justice. Avoiding an appeal is only furthering justice if the original tribunal was just. The judge should concentrate on making sure his tribunal is run justly, which may or may not mean respecting a GRC. Respecting a GRC for its own sake might be very unjust. The GRC is subsidary in every respect.

Thanks @ItsCoolForCats - very calm and reasonable, it says a lot about the C that they have reacted so strongly to it.

This evidence is so contradictory. Im lost as to what ST wants. Is the position that ST thinks people who hold GC views not only not talk about their beliefs but shouldn't even say that they hold these beliefs

If this is successful which I very much doubt it could lead to all staff networks being shut across the civil service. Because everyone will have some point of difference with others.

The Judge can do what he wants - what he can't do is compell a witness - it undermines the interests of justice which is what they are here to serve.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/ah1n15rj/etbb-july-2024-february-2026-update.pdf

19. Witnesses should never be compelled to use the trans person’s preferred pronouns. It should always be permitted for them to refer to a person how they presently understand or previously knew them (as in any case, eg a fraud where a defendant has used multiple identities). A victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence or assault by a trans person is particularly likely to describe the perpetrator in accordance with the victim’s experience and perception of events.

To do otherwise, and place additional or artificial barriers on a witness, is likely to detract from their ability to give best evidence.

I have said I don’t think the judge is correct requiring witnesses to use neutral pronouns as they are under oath.

It is clear the claimant finds any expression of GC belief to be distressing, offensive etc. pp have said claimants and witnesses are given support by Judges because it is stressful giving evidence. The Judge has exercised discretion to use preferred pronouns or neutral language in court to aid the claimant to put their best case. Thus avoiding giving grounds for an appeal.

As I have said this should not extend to witnesses under oath.

There are ways not to use pronouns e.g. using claimant, employee, ST etc. so there is no compelling someone to use preferred pronouns.

I think NC read all that out to the judge at the beginning and he got very tetchy with her.

I'm interested by ST finding SEEN lanyards offensive - I wonder how many GC people find progress pride lanyards and paraphernalia offensive

I think this strengthens the argument for lanyards being plain or just the name of the organisation e.g. civil service, nhs etc.

Just from what I'm reading here (I'm not watching), interesting choice of words/phrases in recent exchanges:

(my bold)

She is not recommending GC staff be punished for views
^^
Eg a group with a PC can set up a network. 
C I believe that is Defra policy. Also all colleagues who share an interest. That is a dangerous position to take
^^
Allowing to base a network around beliefs is dangerous to workplace.

C It a group causes another group to experience harassment

[this last one is very interesting, almost putting the 'harassee' into passive voice. When did harassment become something that is experienced passively, because those feelings are 'caused' by something or someone else? Why not say: 'one group harassed another'? Or, 'I felt harassed'? Everything I've read so far in this exchange reads as though ST doesn't want to take responsibility for anything, not even for feeling his own feelings]

ST clearly has punishment on his mind. And I strongly suspect his world view includes only himself. I imagine there are people who live like this, but they wouldn't usually manage to keep a job, unless they never interact with anyone.

I agree to some extent. He did say witnesses should be neutral but Naomi has correctly asked for that in writing.

Here he is not not concerned with Elspeth or Naomi - people who know sex is binary and that very point is recognised in law - who are to be put under pressure to not say the normal linguistic turns of phrase such as

'He is delusional and has been harassing me over a benign post'

they have to self censor and try to remember who has what identity and to apply a plural to a single individual.

So they have been brought to court, put under pressure and now are unable to speak clearly or give best evidence.

Everyone is going to correct sex/ mis gender Sam. It is inevitable. Because no one can keep up the lie. It happens in each of these tribunals. So as Sam will take the hump over basic ordinary things - there will be no detriment to him - but lots of detriment to Elspeth and Naomi.

This might not be a popular view but having any networks, online platforms, champions schemes, allies, lanyards all seems inexorably to lead to this kind of inter-community warfare.

Whoever coined “bring your whole self to work” was doing the devil’s work.

Agree.

I have just read the ST witness statement and the words calm and reasonable were not at the forefront of my response.

The language and arguments used really felt as though I was reading something written from a five year retroactive time warp.

Language has been clarified, laws have been confirmed. It adds nothing to keep chewing on the same dry bones.

He will be tetchy when this goes to appeal and a cause of appeal is that he has compelled a witness to adjust their evidence and constrained them. And also hampered an advocate to do their work in a case that demands forced speech from people and total denial of their protected belief.

But on we go. I just wanted to be clear a certificiate of legal sex doesn't force people to mis-sex you in pronouns.

Also if someone referred to me as a Mr. I would not be publically erased. I am referred to in a collective as guys etc and I have survived. Because my personhood isn't a delusion belief that is challenged by simple words.

People I know in life think I shouldn't work, I shouldn't behave in a certain way, I should wear certain clothes etc. They think my children shouldn't exist because I needed medical assistance to have them.

Yet I am here and I am still a person. So are my kids. Funny that.