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.

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]

🎶He doesn't want to answer the question, because he doesn't remember what he said last time 🎶

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

So... NO!

If you have to imagine something that isn't happening to make the narrative fit your pre-conceptions then that's a you problem.

So you don't take your employer to a Tribunal!

ST: That is what those words would have you believe, but it's not what people experience.

😥

From TT:

NC: My specific Q was, can you take the tribunal to the particular words in the post that deny your humanity?
ST: It's the whole post, not specific words in it.

NC: EDW WS, para 78-80 - pls read and then I will ask Q

NC: Clear here that SEEN is respectful of trans colleagues and acknowledges their rights?
ST: That is what those words would have you believe, but it's not what people experience.

ST: Refer you to the bundle - let me check - [doing so] - p1415 where EDW is asking for TW in sport to no longer exist in workplace also that G-identity does not exist, and does not need to respect pronouns, and can misgender by mentioning sex.

"Mumy, mummy, they're coming for me........."

ST:

I 100% believe that he does nothing else.
Empty the dishwasher? pah!

NC: The post about half way down, Tanya Iglesias 8.57am - says that attendees must share the LGBT network and allies belief that TWAW, TWAM etc

ST: Yes

NC: And it's v clear that ppl only welcome to join if share GI belief?

ST: It's EA not DEFRA

NC: But you do agree that network excludes GC?

ST: Doesn't say you can't join - just that you understand the network view.

"NC: Would you agree that the sun rises in the East?"

"ST: No, that would erase the very real existence of the other points, it's Cardinal-Pointophobic."

The first mis-gendering that.

ST: G-identity does not exist, and does not need to respect pronouns, and can misgender by mentioning sex.

Don't mention sex, pleeeeease......😥

Much as I love Naomi God I want this shit to end.

No, he sounded resigned to a slippery witness who would never agree that they have grasped the analogy.

From TT:

NC: You say, no need to respect pronouns - where ?
ST: misunderstands Forstater - [further, missed]
NC: There is no suggestion there at all that SEEN is advocating for never using preferred pronouns.

ST: Yes there is, EDW discussing with Caroline A that she wants to misgender ppl, eager to do it. CA said no but EDW keen to.

J: It's 4.30 ...
NC: I only have a few more on this topic?
J: That's fine.

NC: Do you mean p855?
ST: Yes

NC: Will ask again, neither SEEN or EDW have ever said ppl should routinely use correct-sex pronouns. Only that a blanket prohibition on doing so not be imposed?

ST: Caroline says she wants to misgender people.......

ST: Refer you to the bundle - let me check - [doing so] - p1415 where EDW is asking for TW in sport to no longer exist in workplace also that G-identity does not exist, and does not need to respect pronouns, and can misgender by mentioning sex.

Do we know what EDW actually said yet?

J: It's only 4.30........😩

NC: I only have a few more on this topic? J: That's fine.

From TT:

NC: I have rather lost track of my Q and perhaps should have taken your steer on the time, judge ...

J: Indeed. We will end for the day.

J: Just want to put out that we are perhaps re-covering some ground.

NC: Re the spreadsheet - I wonder if I can ask C to look at it - alone obviously - before tomorrow?
ST: I don't have a laptop, only a phone

J: Ah that won't work then. OK - till tomorrow.

[END]

Over for today.

ST: Refer you to the bundle - let me check - [doing so]

He does a lot of this. Time wasting? Wanting to be sure of what he said before in his WS? If it really was as damaging to his existence as he claims, he wouldn't have to look it up, would he?

My bum has gone numb.

Oh yay it's over for the day!

Is there someone else who can c&p tomorrow?

😆😆😆

Interesting that there have been no interventions by HH during this testimony and very few by the judge. I wonder if they are realising how fragile he is?

ETA: Imagine if JR had been the complainant's lawyer. 😨