Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 2

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5546841-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-follow-on-from-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 existence of the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN). 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.

I will also 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. The claim originated because she said "only women menstruate" and a search with her name and those terms at the usual gardening website should point you to her plot.

'Gender neutral' is not flipping neutral!

Unless the court has decided that 'non binary' is somehow neutral.

Using the terms of one belief system to apply to others who don't share it is not 'neutral'.

From TT:

Still WFTCHTJ, no idea when we will start

Were in, it is very quiet

Discussion of ST correction, will be in re-examination. Missed other elements as sorting sound out

J: Finish off harrasment allegation- concerning Civil Service Race Forum event. Promotion of inivisible women
ST: Forum about more than that

@OhBuggerandArse yegods that video is terrifying. You could seem the female lawyer's discomfort, it's excrutiating.

Exactly, I think that is what they think, and it’s what a lot of people think.

And yet she thinks the people disagreeing with her on trans all do it because they lack empathy and that turns them far right or something... (from the comments)

Fucking hell. That's horrifying. I don't think I could listen to the full 40 minutes without breaking things.

I wouldn't have been able to say anything other than "You do realise she is a he with a penis don't you?" On repeat in her position.

It really is.

Deleted a post as hit send rather than delete as not complete or relevant - sorry

Yes, I think the whole missive smacks of dictaphone to clerk for speed rather than any investment in explaining beyond very surface rationale.

No, although that is indeed horrifying and fascinating.
The NC post I was referring to was one mentioned here yesterday along the lines of disagreeableness being a superpower. I wondered if it meant NC was preparing an application of some sort.

Which person?

I hope so.

The pronouns issue in this instance cuts to the heart of relevant issues, imo.

From TT:

AT: Were you part of the CCRF
ST: No
AT: SEEN were invite to speak
ST: Yes

[ ST: Event within DEFRA for people to attend
AT: How diod you find out abut thongs said geiven you went there
ST: Collegues at the event
AT: You have not specifically complained about the event
ST: It has been made clear I cannot complain about events from other agencies ]

[My note: I saw the above, then I didn't, not sure what's up!]

AL: Separate issue, link to Emily Quinn TED Talk. Refers to bundle. Comments moderated and removed unfairly.
ST: Yes
AL: You would broadly describe as pro trans
ST: About trans people, yes

AL: You think they shouldn't have been removed
ST: Yes
AL: Refers to bundle, this article (Faith and Belief, Chris Hobley), second para refers to philosophical beliefs including GC and ethical vegans
ST: Yes

AL: This was an intro to the two networks posted to the intranet
ST: Yes
AL: Comments in your pleading a response to the publishing of the article.
ST: I don't know what your referring to

ST: I think these comments were the introduction to SEEN article
AL: These were around at the same time
ST: Yes

AL: Can see from the email from Sarah Nally, November, moderation in relation to comments by named people
ST: Yes
AL: There is reason given for the comments, examples such as link to external website or word, or misrepresenting the article. Justification given for removal

ST: Moderation not applied evenly, would not have been so moderated if GC.
AL: Not all resulting in removeal, eg Ella Therese link to Agender site (sounds went). Pro trans comment not moderated out

ST: One comment not being removed does not mean it was not uneven, full moderation log needed. Part of overall continuous patern
AL: Will come to that later. This shows the moderation by relation to objective standards.
J: We have had this before.

My note: sorry for delay, I have weird feed issues!

About bias, maybe?

It has been made clear I cannot complain about events from other agencies

I bet.

The person who writes under the name Gyll King. Let’s say she has some very controversial views on all sorts of subjects on X.

She did a FOI specifically to show anti-trans bias in the moderation of the Yammer posts - she does not say when exactly but she wrote that piece IW linked to only this month:

"Tardy moderation … but not balance
Defra group's shared HR eventually tried to address the ongoing controversy over the SEEN Network by introducing a complex system of private Yammer groups (although “gender critical” material kept breaking containment) and setting up an Intranet Moderation Panel that offensive content could be reported to. However, as one of my Freedom of Information requests showed, membership of this panel was self-selecting. People put themselves forward to join and weren't required to declare conflicts of interest, nor were there any measures in place to ensure a range of views or backgrounds. I also found that the odds of trans-supportive material being removed were nearly four times higher (9:1) than the odds of “gender critical” material being removed (7:3). "

For someone who claimed to just want to quietly go about his working life, he seems to go to a lot of effort to be be kept in the loop about things he might be offended by. Not controlling at all...

Yes, it was linked much earlier in this series of threads. There is also a thread about these FOIs which Laura herself posted on at the time and made some bizarre accusations to women on FWR. As I said, Willoughby is no doubt reading MN and probably got it from here.

From TT:

Sound is in and out here

J: Refers to bundle, clarifying which comments were moderated. Dates do not line up.
ST: In Jan 24, recommendations of Occ Health Report. The comments from 2023.
J: Confused as dates are wrong. Comments several months before this. Doesn't matter but wondering if you can help
ST

ST: I can only suggest dates have been muddled up.
AL: WS of Caroline Ayers. Reference to term 'borderline'. Some posts before communication rules circulated were borderline of acceptability but concerns sent to poster's manager. Some of these were yours
ST: Yes

AL missed
ST: Its saying the posts breached policies indicating wrong behaviour even though not against the rules at the time
AL: It brings the comment to the attention of the line manager and employee
ST: Yes, but they have not done anything wrong. This letter says they have.

AL: There were comments made before the new rules moderated after the rules
ST: Yes, but they should have been moderated according to rules at the time.
AL: Still appropriate to send the latter
ST: Inappropriate to judge people against future standards they couldnt know about.

If he is so distressed by GC content, why do his colleagues keep sending him things that will upset him?

He must like it/requested it or he would have definitely put in a grievance about those colleagues deliberately trying to upset him.

It’s linked here at the end of the first of these threads, on 25 June.