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.

Her most recent FOI, a few weeks ago.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/laura_brown_4

Her website says she's not worked for some months due to mental health issues, on the page 'My life as a sinister obsessive trans rights activist'.

I sincerely hope she is able to access the help that she needs.

For shits n giggles?

You can see him putting himself forward as some sort of spokesman/leader- well, as he says himself, the senior of the group. Also wind him up and watch him go and complain about it while others can get on with actual work..

Oh! Before he wanted people who had posts deleted/moderated? to be reprimanded in some way, ‘as the behaviour was shown to be there’ (paraphrased). Then it seems that some of his own posts were borderline, and now it’s suddenly inappropriate to judge people,.

It seems there was a network of people gathering info and sending it to him for his grievance basket. The Race Forum they mentioned, SEEN were invited to give a presentation to the network. Am I right in thinking he was off sick at this time? Autumn 2023? And yet he still knows what was said in that meeting. He did say Emma Dunn fed him info, along with at least one other colleague.

He’s grubbing around looking for offence:

1. From third party employers
2. From people outside his org
3. From decisions at Cabinet office level
4. From closed groups
5. Breastfeeding groups
6. Menopause groups
7. Austistic women in the workplace groups
8. Likes on posts - by hovering over
9. People sending him material of things he couldn’t access l
10. Neutral Children’s books that are nothing to do with gender issues

As soon as Tinkerbell steps out of line - oh no I didn’t know anything I’m just over here trying to exist innocently.

No wonder he needed six months off he was so busy trying to find something. Worst he got was women bleed from their vaginas…. Little menstrual jealousy there my biological sir?

Shame on all the enablers that have brought him here.

And on one hand, his poor wife, on the other she supported his likes campaign so she’ll have to endure this misery.

I put it on a tshirt.

T-shirts. Get your shirts here.

From TT:

ST being shown a laptop with a WS
Discussion between AL and NC

AL: You have the laptop with the excel sheet. Your WS as well. One thing I wanted to clarify Lotus Eater's comment- you say the reference to LE removed
ST: Yes

AL: Broad point that comments were frequently taken down unfairly, comments made by trans allies. Unfair in comparision to GC comments. Does it just show there were more inappropriate comments by you and allies

ST: Would like to make a few points. Caroline Ayes email from the time. She notes sympathy of employment tribunals to GC views and threats of harassment claims Beginning of faming for moderation policy. GC comments rarely moderated, content never the issue when taken down

ST: GC given leeway as posted in open to everybody SEEN network and taken down due to breach of process such as including a link and not because of the content. Trans people and ally comments- GR not taken into consideration. Taken down for very minor policy breaches

"She notes sympathy of employment tribunals to GC views"

Considering the social landscape at the time this was all unfolding - was the sympathy in the room with us?

I would pay good money for a recording of NC reading it to the Tribunal.

I bought 10 copies of MBIM when it was published, the author kindly signed several for me at the conference at UCL in Feb 2020. I give them to young children and babies of family and friends. They are beloved books.

He doesn't seem to be able to get his head round the fact that the disparity is due to the fact that the comments by SEEN followed the rules. His comments and those of his allies did not follow the rules

From TT:

ST: The policy under which GC posts given leeway. Sigificant power asymmetry between GC collegues and T people and allies. T people/allies expected to log, SEEN people went straight to senior people and threatened complaints on the basis of discrimination.

AL: Elspeth emails refers to direct discrim, you were also alleging harassment through grievance process
ST: Diferent using the grievance porcess amd going straight to senior amangement and senrior HR people.

ST: I was not threatening HR, I was raising a grivance, they were threatening.
AL: To eradicate SEEN and GC expression
ST: That is what I was asking for in the grievance process and it was accepted as appropriate.

Sound really poor

He’s trying to give the impression that Elspeth and SEEN blackmailed HR into deleting trans positive posts by threatening them with something. Does not recognise that the nastiness of the posts by trans people towards GC people was truly horrendous. I wish AL could ask his question again about it just shows that more comments were deleted on one side than the other because of the horrible content of those comments.

He can't.

Because he is not capable of grasping that other people are as important as him.

This entire case makes me feel like I'm going mad just reading about it.

These people have personality disorders; it's written in giant neon flashing text you could see from space.

I’m glad that AL raised that because it did seem like that point was being skipped over. I imagine it will feature in submissions. Hopefully Naomi might return to it.

"It's not fair" - I can see the judge getting extremely frustrated by this; claims of bias without evidence, and risk of the tribunal degenerating into a pool of "who's the real victim"

This.

Actually, didn’t NC ask for a book to be admitted right at the very beginning of today’s proceedings? Was it My Body Is Me?

We all know what many trans rights activists and their allies feel is appropriate to say to GC people.

His only evidence so far is "because I say so". He must be an absolute nightmare to work with/manage.

I'd like to hear an example of the worst TRA comment that was moderated and STs opinion of the worst GC comment he's seen. I think it would be enlightening.

I hope Naomi makes much of that!

From TT:

AL: Comment in bundle, email from July 20, 2022, about a posting by Elespeth, expressing GC views
ST: Idea of claiming discrim not new, many examples of use to pressure HR

AL: Pressure exerted by Elspeth and SEEN
ST: Yes
AL: WS, examples given to make you point about uneven moderation
ST: Yes

AL: Gives examples, reference to right wing commentators
ST: Yes

AL: Further comment- back door attack on women's right via trans rights. First one removed, legitimate as it links SEEN to the right
ST: Does not link to SEEM, would have been left up if the other way round as not targeting a specific person.

ST: Top clarify, comments do not directly mention SEEN, when SEEN publishes comments relating to trans people but not naming specific people, it is left up.
AL: Is your position a comment should not be removed where there is a strong implied connection betwen the right and SEEN

Yep. A constant stream of vicious, petty, and obsessive attacks on women, often criticising their physical appearance, age, etc.

People who identify as righteous, and therefore think attacking people is justified.

They perceive disagreement as personal attack, and that is why they respond with personal attacks.

To a sober, objective observer, it is quite instructive.

From TT:

ST: My position is uneven moderation. Not for me to judge principles of communication. All decisions must be equal and they are not
AL: Another example, hate speech being protected under the characteristic of protected speech

AL: You cite this connection of hate speech and GC belief as something that should not have been removed. ST gives these examples of unfair moderation- they are appropriate.
ST: Some of these should have been removed. Some SEEN posts blizzardy not removed.

AL: Pro-trans comment to Andreas saying is belief is scientifically inaccurate. This is undermining his belief
ST: Challenging, no undermining. Should be acceptable if the opposite way of challenging T people acceptable.

AL: Borderline email sent to a manager, consistent approach to SEEN.
ST: Not taken down but the borderline email does not say anything about it being acceptable under the policy. Misleading line manager into believing colleague has breached policy and further action may be taken

AL: This is consistent. Not uneven
ST: We are going round in circles. T people/ally comments taken down for slight infringement, ie disrespectful tone. Emails to stop colleagues sending any messages of support not even.

ST: My position is uneven moderation. Not for me to judge principles of communication. All decisions must be equal and they are not

Sorry, mate, that is indeed "judging".