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.

Bizarre but not at all bizarre in the Stonewall context of course. I think this was handled well by the J in the Phoenix judgment. I shall see if I can locate...

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Joanna Phoenix Respondent: The Open University Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal On: 2-3 (Tribunal reading days), 4-6, 9-13, 16-18 (19 October Tribunal rest day) & 20 October 2023, deliberations- 30 October- 3 November 2023, 13-15 November 2023 and 7 December 2023 & 4 January 2024 (in Chambers) Before: Employment Judge Young Members: Dr B Von- Maydell Koch Mr C Surrey Representation Claimant: Mr B Cooper KC (Counsel) Respondent: Ms J Mulcahy KC (Counsel) and Mr Z Ansari (Counsel

282 "We find that a network cannot have good or bad faith aims, it is the members who set out the aims that have the good or bad faith when setting out the aims. We find that there was no evidence of bad faith by the Claimant or Jon Pike on behalf of the GCRN. We find that the GCRN was launched with prior notification of a researcher in HWSRA. We find the Claimant did consult Professor Earle who worked in the arena of health, wellbeing and gender but it is the case that she did not consult any other colleagues across Case No: 3322700/2021 & 3323841/2021 66 the OU working in health wellbeing and gender before the launch of the GCRN. However, there was no requirement to consult others and the WELS/RSSH statement’s suggestion of the lack of prior notification was seeking to imply that the Claimant and the GCRN behaved in a non collegiate way which was not the case. Neither was there a requirement for the GCRN to have engaged in conversation with RSSH about what purpose of the GCRN would serve. It appeared somewhat patronising to us, that the RSSH believed that they should have had a veto over the GCRN because it was in the HWSRA. We accept the Claimant’s reason for choosing the name gender critical in the title of the network. It was a name that reflected the true nature of the perspective the GCRN was researching from. It was a reasonable and appropriate name to choose."

I haven’t been following this in detail but have got the gist. If people can’t discuss anything without it being thought of as transphobic, then we get health and safety problems and more incidents that could have been prevented.

The claimant has a medical condition, I believe, so they should be made aware they are safer in the men’s toilets (if it’s traditional standard suite with a gap below and above the door and partitions for health and safety) or the accessible (with a working and reachable pull cord alarm) than a fully enclosed universal toilet design.

The real consequence of men wanting to use the same toilets as women and vice versa is the ‘solution’ is that we end up ‘updating’ provision from cubicles to enclosed rooms for complete privacy. Or have unregulated ‘gender-neutral’ private cubicles. So any occupant at their most vulnerable will be at risk. Changing design is not a neutral act.

From Hansard, Monday 1 June 2026, The Minister for Equalities:
‘in the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so that they are fully enclosed’.

It’s not transphobic to point out all the above out. I think it’s common sense for health and safety of everyone, particularly for those vulnerable with medical conditions. The change in design will also affect incidents of misuse happening under less supervision (which affects women and children more), and the ability to ventilate and keep the toilet hygienic, reducing disease spread.

This can all be corroborated with incident data, academic and medical research.

Yes, I was also looking for the dates the Phoenix case was being heard. Defra might have been aware of it in 2023 and the judgment was Jan 24.

This is where DEFRA has fallen short. They’ve allowed online forums for employees to discuss contentious issues without putting in strong guardrails. The moderation system has been laid over the top as an afterthought and doesn’t have clear processes or record keeping. As much as ST is a nightmare, DEFRA has failed him and their other employees.

If it had been properly run, it would be very easy for DEFRA to disprove all his allegations and grievances. It’s not like it was unknown that employees had wildly different opinions on the GC/GI issue.

Well the continued spreadsheet stuff was very tedious. The only point of interest was when AL had to ask the judge to stop C's witness (sitting diagonally behind him) from making audible reactions during his cross examination. AL said he could hear gasps. The judge said they weren't audible from the bench but issued a general reminder that nobody should be making noises, even inadvertent ones, in reaction to the proceedings.

The claimant has a medical condition, I believe, so they should be made aware they are safer in the men’s toilets

I think his answer to that would be another variation of it says it's about safety but that's not what it really means, it's just transphobia and trying to erase my existence. He can't go across the doors of the gents without disappearing.

Thank you!

It wouldn't have mattered to Tempest how it was run and moderated. His objection is that SEEN was allowed to exist

I need to make a coffee ready for when Naomi starts!

Old Emma Dunn - can’t keep her mouth closed.

As a tax payer who is funding her non job I’m pretty appalled to be paying her to disrupt legal proceedings.

Yes Emma you have a vagina and gonads. Well done. Go do something productive with your life.

"It appeared somewhat patronising to us, that the RSSH believed that they should have had a veto over the GCRN because it was in the HWSRA."

It is incredible that this even needs to be said...
Just looked at RSSH's latest projects, they've got one on pain in "women and other people with a uterus" - does the "women" include TIMs? Are the "other people"=trans-identified women only included as long as they still have a uterus, considering so many have to have hysterectomies? What unuseable data mess will this research about this important topic generate?

Can anyone explain why ST was being cross-examined on a spreadsheet that he didn't create or add to, of the contents of which he had no first hand knowledge, that should not have had in his posession, and wasn't put in evidence?

If it was evidence of bias then the claimant (or his counsel) should have put it in evidence with the opportunity for a DEFRA witness to speak against it and be cross-examined on it.

I just don't get how ST is being asked about the spreadsheet.

7+ years of abusing women who understand what women are.

It’s incredible Tinkerbell and Emma have so much in common beyond their XY chromosomes.

Their worldview is so tainted by their desire to be accepted as a woman unconditionally- any dissent needs to be quelled.

We are paying for Emma because it seems a:gender is her full time job and she’s civil service funded.

Thank you!

It was referenced in ST’s witness statement and DEFRA witnesses should be given the opportunity to be cross examined about the SS when they take the stand.

Someone should ask Maya why, if "TERF" is such a term of abuse, she had the word blazoned across the Sex Matters stand at the recent ARC conference. You can't have it both ways, Maya.

If it's evidence of bias then HH should be asking those questions of DEFRA. ("Isn't it clear that because <this> post was deleted, and <this> one wasn't, you are biased against the claimant's point of view?" "No, because <this> post broke the rules and <this> one didn't." DEFRA can explain more clearly anything that needs clarifying on redirect.)

Bias or neutral - is a question of fact, for the panel to determine. The claimant's opinion - which is the only thing the claimant can be asked about - regarding that bias isn't probative.

So I still don't understand why the tribunal spent so long permitting him to be examined about it.

She's on X you can go ask her yourself.

I don't think there is evidence of that, only that ST's team have not asked for such material that might evidence in more detail the moderations under discussion.

Thanks everyone for amazing threads that I have just caught up on in time for NC's appearance this afternoon. 💜🤩

Tea is made, waiting for the lovely NC. 😁

It's a bit like the word "queer". It originated as a slur, but got reclaimed, and now Q sits contentedly in the middle of the alphabet of alphabet people. In any case words themselves aren't offensive, it's the offense intended by the speaker that counts.

But I think you know that.

I suspect it's somewhat like reclaiming the word queer, or the n word.

Somewhat different to use it yourself from when someone threatens to decapitate you for being one.

But I agree, just ask her, I'm sure she'll let you know!

Alert

2.05pm has been and gone...