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.

How did this person get to a tribunal on this basis?
Its clear that there is a network of like minded individuals, as there are references to ‘I was informed’, and somehow this lucky chap was selected to be the one to lead the charge (auto correct wanted that as ‘charade’ more apt).
And the coordinated processes against EDW and AM, plus solicitors letters suggest someone is stumping up the cash.
But how on earth has a trained lawyer looked at the evidence and thought this was worth a bash? Are they hoping for a rainbow hero’s badge or something?
Someone is seeing the relentless March of the success of the organised women’s cases and thought ‘oh I’ll have some of that’.
My mind is truly boggled.
Flabbergasted.

It's come this far because his employer bent over backwards to appease him and gave him a ridiculous sense of entitlement, because his solicitors are crap and will have given him rubbish advice and because the judge at the earlier hearing didnt have the sense to throw it all out.

Elspeth has asked for 90K for her legal costs - and a reminder that chair of SEEN sued for saying only women menstruate will find a garden with space for plants.

I have the same question. I have guessed that it is because ST won't settle and has someone to pay the lawyers.

Thank you for the C&P @FarriersGirl .

I was able to watch this afternoon. ST was increasingly combative as the afternoon went on. His voice got louder, his language even more hyperbolic and he interrupted counsel at least twice. TT haven't been able to capture all of it, there was so much and it was repetitive, but he went on and on with his victim narrative. Using words like hunt, root out, provocative, inflammatory.

I wonder how ST is coping, mentally and physically, now that he's had hours of his 'best' answers are coming back at him challenged, or even contradicted.

Being cross examined must be tiring, and it has been uncomfortably hot. So I wonder what state he'll be in by the time NC gets to him - even more angry and argumentative? or exhausted and not very well?

Or is he so full of righteous trans indignation that he can go on and on and on without tiring?

As others have suggested I think the general assessment is that he has the arrogance to think he can relitigate Forstater and is, perhaps, being backed with that end game in view.

it would make sense given how much has fallen by the wayside (the cases against Andreas and Elspeth were dropped) the legal team changed (hence the chaos) and the goal posts shifted to employer.

The aim being to get to a ruling which undermines the idea that GC position is WORIADS.

Even if it can’t legally undermine the EAT ruling it would be enough to wreak havoc on all those who really want the law to be wrong.

Someone (apologies for not remembering who) pointed out his solicitors were issuing legal unsound advice publicly. Being a trans ally seems to rot brains.

Just finished my post tweeting G&T and need to make Mr Baker's dinner in a few minutes.

My impression is that the Judge is bored with 'somebody made a social media post, someone else made a rude remark or gave a thumbs up emoji on it'.

Bored might be the wrong word but I think he's finding it tedious.

I like young Alex but he does seem to fall into the trap of arguing with the witness. And that's like mud wrestling a pig with a bonker witness - you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Project Let Them Speak is going well though. Bonkers statement after bonkers statement.

My worry is that the judge has the empathy deficit common in men. There is a man complaining (ST) and it was not taken seriously enough/immediately remedied.

And I'm married to an amazing man, have raised two amazing sons, but men's voices and views carry so much more weight.

I don’t understand how there’s so many men that feel the need to control women like this but then I look at places like Afghanistan, Iran, religious far right in America, far left pretty much everywhere and am reminded what all those men have in common is the the urge to control women’s free will and wonder why people can’t see that same behaviour in men like the claimant in this case

Ive got a lot of catching up to do but this dude seems like a sky is red and anybody who disagrees is a bigot type of person.

As an attempt to relitigate Forstater and Higgs, though, this must be one of the worst possible cases they could have picked. Maybe it is the Good Laugh Project, although not like them to keep quiet.

I think he was represented by RMW working pro bono. Don’t forget all this happened over 3 years ago, the landscape was very different then.

There was a point when the judge asked him if international days were celebrated, and he said not so much nowadays. The judge had to ask him again if they were celebrated at the time he took this case to court. There have been quite a few instances of Tinkerbell describing the situation as it is now, rather than what it was like back then when trans ruled the world in the Civil Service.

We are well attuned to the gas lighting victim narrative, but do you think it will have come across like that to a neutral observer or someone who isn't familiar with the TRA playbook?

The kerfuffle at the start of the last bit was NC complaining that ST’s witness was (I think) taking photos of NC’s screen. The witness’s phone was flashing with notifications. Judge suggested she put the phone in her bag.

I've just caught up.

In summary everything is transphobic.
Nothing can be said, thought or done that makes me sad. And I get to decide what people mean with their words, think with their thoughts or do with their deeds.
Even though everything makes me sad/invisible my wonderful ally friends will hunt out even more offending material and send it to me.
Let's just make up protected characteristics and pretend it's the law, if that gets corrected, you've guessed it, transphobia

Im sure there is more, but bloody hell I just couldn't continue

ST's other issue is that he doesn't want to be reminded that society is becoming more aware about autogynaephilia and has views on the subject.

I seem to recall something similar happening in another tribunal, can't remember which one. I don't understand why these people don't have some kind of sanction on them for disobeying the rules of the court. Is it because it's a tribunal, not criminal court?

Thanks again @Justabaker for everything you and the team do. You’re so fab.

I too got the impression the judge was fed up with the minutiae, Alex L said there were so many allegations and he was doing his best to address them. Guess judge just has to bear with.

Just an aside, is it ok for the witness/complainant to address the judge as “judge”?

Do any other observers have more detail on this?

It was in Sandie Peggie. Dr Upton’s posse sat directly behind NC and she had to ask to have them moved. Don’t know why they don’t use privacy screens…

Wasn't this Sandy Peggie tribunal where supporters sat behind NC where they could see her laptop screen?
Edit: crossed

There is no point in even breaking down any of what was said today, I'm now just glitching to 'bonkers'.

No one can have any views, beliefs, life experiences, autonomy or needs that in any way does not entirely enable and centre C.
Anyone writing anything anywhere that C disagrees with should be not only deleted but disciplined
No one may detransition, talk about it or raise awareness about it.
No one may mention women, women's rights, women's needs and issues, or access needs created by GI regardless of impact on coworkers and workplace - there is no space for common ground or balance.

The intolerance is boggling.

There is of course no capacity to recognise the oppression GI causes every woman or gay person in the workplace who is not a subscriber to GI beliefs. This is entirely dismissed because does not centre and enable C.

I'm starting to see why certain well known people jumped ship, and have every sympathy.

A PP asked about what sort of costs whoever is backing ST would have to find. I reckon at least £100-150k to the end of this hearing and could be more.

I wonder if he was initially backed by his union (if he has one) in the early stages. But it dropped out and since then the tab is being picked up by an organisation with a lawfare agenda. It might explain the change of lawyers and all the shenanigans with the parties to the action.

Yes, ‘judge’ is now the expected method of address in the Tribunals. Changed a couple of years ago from sir/ma’am. The correct address for members is still sir/ma’am I think.

ST does seem to have a thing about Andreas Mueller doesn't he? Interesting that the second claimant in this case (known as PQ), who dropped out, was also the protagonist in Andreas Mueller's case and agreed to settle that one. He clearly knows he can't win these cases, but is happy to let someone else put their head above the parapet. He was granted anonymity in both cases.