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.

I imagine ST pictures themself like Erin B in this scene “Whose number moderation outcome do you need? PG born in the Flume, drank the Hinckley water, now has a brain tumour line 200 on tab 2, disgracefully was allowed to continue to think things I couldn’t control

Can’t see it mentioned in ST’s WS.

I bet he’s got fucking ugly shoes an all 🤣

Dear God! What an afternoon.

It is extraordinary to think that there are so many people in this world who believe that ST has every right to consider all aspects of how society operates only from the perspective of his own PC.

It is endlessly frustrating for us feminists that no one gives an equal shit about the protected characteristic of sex.

But that is why we have the feminist cause in the first place, ain't it, and that's what's so depressing is the entitlement of men like ST is still deemed acceptable behaviour. And those who might say it is not acceptable behaviour must not say so. Never. Don't breathe a word or there will be consequences.

Notes on today are:

NC is being unfailingly polite with J so I suspect has a read of him. It is not her usual approach ie in previous ETs she has been willing to challenge J on points she deems more important than their response/ guidance etc. I don't think it is because she is an intervenor. I think she has understood that kicking his arse can, perhaps, wait until absolutely necessary and might be a distraction in the moment from pointing at the batshit nonsense of ST.

When ST was playing his get out of jail free card (sooo rehearsed) that some men want to join breast-feeding and menopause groups as supportive partners to 'their' women I wanted desperately for NC to ask why he didn't set up a male support network then? Why he was policing a women only group rather than setting up another for a different purpose? But then, of course, she is not here to test his answers against all logic only to further expose how madie uppie his claims of evidence are.

The repeated 'I've already answered this question' is such a knee-jerk defence so he can prevent being made a fool of by reading aloud how the none of the comments made by SEEN make any such declaration. I worry that the judge is meaning that when he commented about repeating material but it could equally mean that he's well aware the evidence does not support the claims and that thought policing isn't really possible within an ET. They might not have said it M'Lud but they bloody well THOUGHT it.

I also wished NC would point out that it is about transwomen in women's sport not transmen in women's sport. But that wasn't important, she got him to make clear that when E requested equal banning of discussions of sport from a:gender he couldn't give a rats ass because celebrating a winner is allowed by law. What guff.

At times I think ST misread the tone and manner of J comments to NC and thought he could borrow the J's authority.

I have loved reading your live reactions and thoughts. Thank you all.

I know that’s not quite right, but it amused me

Its amazing that Tempest is a man seeking to ban a group for alledegly "seeking to ban a group".

Wham Bam, You're Still A Man

Also works on this podcast service, no app required
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/women-are-real/rachel-rooney-ATzKNmUwEYF/

I wonder how ST is coping with the steady rollback of the inclusion of trans-identified men in women's sport?

From the context and the bits that were read out, I thought part of this afternoon's discussion was this entirely reasonable post, but we haven't seen EDW's statement yet.

https://x.com/JRLevinsLaw/status/2070429863329112097

For non-X users:

https://nitter.net/JRLevinsLaw/status/2070429863329112097

The majority of ST's evidence only exists if we accept ST's reinterpretation of words and sentances which most people would read as meaning something entirely different. And from books he hasn't read and meetings he wasn't at. How on earth has this got so far?

You forgot things he didn't want to see that he saw, that made him so distressed that he had to go off sick, where he couldn't see them, so he had to get someone else to tell him about them so he could get more distressed and angle for more sick leave.

@myladydisdainisyetliving I suspect that it was a fairly innocuous statement with a hidden meaning that only ST could ‘discern’.

Which is why we will need forever more to ensure that the law is not changed to disadvantage women and girls.

In terms of how this got this far there is no gatekeeping to access a tribunal. Even if an employee has no case they can still go to tribunal and in most cases be heard. In very rare cases where the judge feels the employee has basically no chance of success they can make a deposit order.

Also going to tribunal doesn't cost anything (other than legal advice which is not mandatory) so many employees who have the hump with their employer will try a tribunal claim.

This is why it is such a mess at the moment with such long waits.

Bugger me, @myladydisdainisyetliving , that's such a reasonable, measured and perfectly sane statement from EDW.

ST is trying so hard to find reasons to object, but I'm not sure "It's Not What She Says, It's What I Think Sh Means" is quite the compelling legal argument he thinks it is.

The repeated referal back to blind belief and following of law and rules when it enables his beliefs is so starkly contrasted with his belief in none of this mattering when it doesn't suit him. As much as wanting the judge to make a judgment on how something may or may not affect his emotions, regardless of what it actually said in reality.

It's the subliminal Bananarama defence.

🎵 It's not what you say, it's the way that you didn't say it 🎵

Thanks to all the C&P posters. This bloke is totally insufferable and I pity his colleagues.

He has.

It's not what you say it's the way that you thought it

It's not what you say it's the insane way I imagine what you are actually thinking, even though I'm so wide of the mark I'm currently on the moon, why yes the one made of cheese, when you say it

What will Emma Dunn's evidence be likely to focus on? That sex isn't binary because something about "intersex people exist", therefore the SEEN network's stated aims are discriminatory?

Or will she talk about how traumatised ST was by coming into contact with facts that ST doesn't approve of?

Also, I'm bored of ST and his unwavering self-absorption. I'll be much more interested to hear Elspeth's perspective.

I disagree that 'genderist' beliefs are protected in law, strictly speaking. They've not been found WORIADS.

Will this court decide to Grainger test them? That could be interesting.

Just caught up. What an afternoon. Massive thanks to Team C&P.