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.

Presumably ST is fully supportive of the SC FWS judgement, and the EHRC code of practice that helps orgs to understand it, because it is the law after all.

NC: It's essential bcs of consequences of G-ideol that those who dissent can do so, to find other collegues and defend their rights? ST: Not how they get rights, that's up to the policy and law of the organisation.

The time lag between the claim being brought and where we are now is notable........making this particular claim a relic of its time, and also showing how far we have progressed.

It's one of his get-out clauses. See also, I've answered that already.

.

I think he's going to run into FWS/Supreme Court soon - he keeps saying that if it's the rules, if it's the law, then the sort of behaviour he condones (censorship etc) is OK. Can he entirely ignore this restated set of rules that say his view of himself (I am woman) is not shared in law or in fact?

From TT:

NC: It's essential bcs of consequences of G-ideol that those who dissent can do so, to find other collegues and defend their rights?
ST: Not how they get rights, that's up to the policy and law of the organisation.

NC: You don't accept that worker have the right to organise for collective rights, as a general principle?
ST: You are taking my words out of context, and I've already answered the Q.

NC: Would you say that female staff can't organise but men can?
ST: No - if men can, women can.

J: In your words - SEEN should not be allowed to organise as a network in the workplace?
ST: Because SEEN is being organised to remove and limit trans ppl's rights and inclusion in the workplace.

He's clever, isn't he, the way he jumps onto a passing ice-floe like the law, or what is appropriate in the workplace, or policy ...
I'm glad it's brain-the-size-of-a-planet NC dealing with him

I'd really like to see the mental roadmap, or flowchart, in NC's head! If he says this, go here, if he says yes, go here...

Also from her bio she is married to a man & lives in London.

J: In your words - SEEN should not be allowed to organise as a network in the workplace?

that's up to the policy and law of the organisation.

Organisations don't have laws. However, the UK does. Wonder if he knows the difference between a policy and a law?

Only proviso would be that they stay within the agreed testosterone limits and doping rules generally, I suppose.

Oooh is J for Judge,

Yes

And yet more - women are saying things, but not out loud.

NC: Para 29 of your WS - last sentence. You say you'd love to know how they expect this to be protected and tolerant when they say a protected characteristic doesn't exist or is lying. Can you show where SEEN have said this?
ST: I've explained. Consequence of what they do say, is, what I say there
NC: So you are not saying it's said in terms?
ST: Not out loud, but that's the consequence.

😁

NC: You said, this humanist post doesn't deny existence of religious ppl but GC denies humanity of trans ppl.

No, it doesn't; it simply disputes their claims; claims which have a direct and negating impact on those with the protected category of 'Sex'.

Slimy fucker. That is all.

From TT:

NC: You've said quite a bit about 'denying the humanity' of trans ppl, that GC belief does that. Mr Line took you to p219, can we go back to it. This is the humanist post.

NC: Said to have much in common with EDW post. You said, this humanist post doesn't deny existence of religious ppl but GC denies humanity of trans ppl. Who has said this?
ST: Their posts. Partic Andreas M.
NC: How?
ST: Have already said a lot about his posts.

NC: How does EDW post deny your humanity?
ST: Have already said lots.
NC: How does EDW post deny your humanity?
[missed reply]

NC: Can you show tribunal where?
ST: ALready said, it's not the words on the page it's how it's received. Attach on trans ppl existence. Directing ppl to orgs that oppose trans ppl's existence.

NC: Can you show tribunal where? ST: ALready said, it's not the words on the page it's how it's received. Attach on trans ppl existence. Directing ppl to orgs that oppose trans ppl's existence.

It's not the words, it's my feelings....😪😪

And again - it's not the actual words

NC: Can you show tribunal where?
ST: ALready said, it's not the words on the page it's how it's received. Attack on trans ppl existence.

Also, according to his own logic even straight gc people might have gay loved ones, so should be allowed to join because of that 😉

I always find this argument (“I’m not an ideology it’s my existence!”,) which is an extremely common one here on MN and in other online spaces, frustratingly and disingenuously made in bad faith to avoid the issues, and I realise at that point I’m not going to get a reasoned response. But the person I’m talking to isn’t under oath, so that’s different.

Everything that isn't prostrating at the alter of gender ideology denies the humanity of trans people according to ST.

It must be exhausting being so perpetually offended.

It seems clear, his employer did fail to protect him from his drama llama imagination.
It's not what they said, it's the what I imagined they said it that counts.