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'm a bit confused by ST's Civil Service career. He states that he got his 25 year service award recently, I assume in either 2025 or 2026, yet he states that he "went from AO to EO in 2 years and from EO to HEO in another 2. I’ve flatlined for the last 5."

So it would seem, if I am not mistaken, that he spent 21 years as an AO in another department prior to joining his current one where those promotions took place. No shame in that whatsoever. Not everyone wants to be promoted.

But as a very recently retired CS of almost 40 years, G7, who has taken part in more recruitment exercises than I care to remember, it seems that he has the expectation that he's entitled to promotion due to 'time served'. Nobody is. I've interviewed many people who thought they were absolutely lined up for it, but didn't pass the interview because they couldn't answer our questions or clearly articulate how they had demonstrated that they were ready to move up to the next grade.

And the higher you rise in the CS, the opportunities reduce. It's a hierarchy of grades. You need less SEOs than you do HEOs as the SEOs will be managing all the HEOs and the HEOs will be managing the EOs for example.

He hasn't flatlined, he just hasn't met the standard that other candidates for promotion have. As a member of both sifting and interview panels we only base our decisions on the evidence that the candidate presents on their application and at interview against the job description and skills criteria. If he didn't do well enough then that's his look out. Along with every other candidate that we have rejected over the years.

By the way, SEEN's solicitor has not been impressed by the claim made this morning in court that he was not allowed to show EW's old post on his TwiX account...
https://nitter.poast.org/JRLevinsLaw/status/2071607743186600157#m
I think it was ST's barrister HH that first made the claim it was not allowed, but the judge also backed it up.

I think so, think he said he joined RPA in 2017. So the flatlined time is 2021-2026.

It's often said here that people with DSDs don't support the trans movement, but clearly some do. I'm sure it's a PITA being born with SS, but she seems to be seeking victimhood (aren't they all?). "I'm a member too of a poor beleaguered group". But she's a woman, in every sense, legally and so on, is she not? Seems a good career move in today's CS, though.

What i do not understand about her is why in the world would you feel a need to go public about a condition like that.

Maybe yes if she was a top draw athlete and got excluded based on her DNA.

What I have noticed so far.

Samantha is a pathetic little man, emboldened by his new 'trans' identity, exploiting public sector trans-fawning, the obligation to conduct due process following his complaints, and retaining his natal sense of male entitlement. A complete lack of self-awareness bordering on pathological.

Samantha's claim has no basis in reality. He feels harassed by all and any expression of an opinion he doesn't agree with, and competing rights of free expression do not exist. It is also upsetting if he is aware that someone may inwardly have GC opinions.

Somebody is either acting pro bono or bank rolling this utter fucking farce. They must be as deluded as Samantha. I can't think of another theory. They couldn't have chosen a worse case or witness.

The Silence of the Transreddits is notable. Surely here is one of their brave heroines, telling it like it is, fighting back. And yet, silence. It strongly suggests that they know, deep down, just can't say.

“The silence of the trans”

there is deffo something odd about it

Trying to catch up with today after being out all day - but while driving I caught up on podcasts and by chance heard about EU funding for court cases to change domestic law in member states. This was a bit of a throwaway comment at the end of a very long tale about being sacked from the EU Commission for being a TERF. The whole segment starts here:

But the comments about funding are here:

So I'm trying to get the details out because what I want is not money and I don't want my job back and I don't want that. I want people to know that the European Union, the European Commission has been pretending to be working only on industry and economy and stuff like that when in actual fact what they've been doing is been erasing sex in law in the EU and they've been forcing this on EU countries and nobody knows about it because there are no press releases about it … 56:49 I want the commission to admit I want it to be made more clear that all of this that's happening in Europe a lot of it is driven largely by the EU commission not directly in a way that you can check out by via legislation but they're doing it indirectly and the two ways of doing it is by funding and supporting legal cases that they can keep their hands clean of. So this is a really really important fact. Journalists in Brussels don't tend to report on such social issues because social issues aren't supposed to be part of what the EU does. The EU does is supposed to be about free movement and markets and all that stuff. It's a very big deal. … The way they're getting non-binary into law is very funny because what they did was they brought the French railway company to the court to say you do not need a GDPR uh data protection with the data protection law you you only keep the data of people that is absolutely necessary. So they took them to court to say by asking whether I'm male or female when I buy a train ticket that's unnecessary collection of my data and also it discriminates against non-binary people and that's now in a judgment because they won that's now in a judgment and you know how it is oncethis language gets into law it's in the law and then you build on it and you build on it. So this is what they're doing but the second thing the commission is doing because you're saying to yourself well activists are bringing these cases it's nothing to do with the commission. The commission is giving the millions to the activists specifically to do this. So the commission is about to spend 10 billion on media and NOS's and culture and human rights stuff to perpetuate this like to the stars. You know it's going to explode through the roof. And they uh they are literally and Cara you'll understand this cuz you're a lawyer. They're they have given them funding pots that are literally called strategic litigation to change these laws.

Does anyone know how to verify this story about the funding of case law within EU states? Someone mentioned yesterdat that ST seemed to have a backer with deep pockets with the apparent intention of undermining the Forstatter judgment... Is it too far fetched that this funding might be coming from the back door of the EU Commission?! Sounds totally wild...

I agree most people with DSD a prefer DSD to Intersex and don’t want to be part of the trans debate.

However, logically I can see how some people with some types of DSD may have gender dysphoria potentially because the medical profession has historically tried to play god.

We aren't an EU state any more. For the EU to interfere with non-EU states' law would be even more sinister.

My understanding is that they have the list, as you say, and the excel is a report of headlines, so to speak. They have access to some but not all because where the moderation decision was to delete the post, unless the original poster kept a copy, or it was screenshotted, or retyped into a report (they seem to have had access to the two posts mentioned in the appeal review) it is gone and the excel wouldn’t be the place to store it anyway.

The excel isn’t really about the content per se but the claim ST is making that more TRA comments and postings were moderated away than SEEN ones. It was a mistake for the panel to allow it in because there isn’t enough information to satisfy the question of whether moderation could have been said to be reasonable or not, and if not prove some kind of favouritism.

I kinda think the other panel members felt it should be included because they are siding with ST but the judge could see what was coming and had to sit through interminable questioning based on a list rather than actual content which can, therefore, not properly establish whether the moderation was fair or not.

Someone would need to trace all documentation ie emails etc to find any particular examples referenced in more detail but the idea that a half remembered thumbs up from AM in response to a deleted article (and all comments and reactions) is fuckin ridiculous.

it was ridiculous to include the spreadsheet. It made everything much messier and the Js tolerance for messiness is clearly limited! He’s not going to blame himself or the panel for the wrong decision obvs but he seems to be taking it out on others and NC might catch it ramorra.

First thought is conspiracy theory. The EU has pots of money generated and available to further social changes. The charity sector and NGOS can. Tap in to this but it is very hard to secure.

There is no fund that i am aware to assist individuals, in whatever political pursuit they night have.

I think it's more that he cannot abide that others are allowed to break the pretence. It's all about control. If anyone is allowed to not play along the whole thing is poisoned for him.

I guess it's the other side's version of the chocolate covered shit hidden in the chocolate box. Once you know it's there all the chocolates are inedible.

What a piecemeal day ending in anger from Tinkerbell shouting out about how everyone should be chastised snd investigated for liking innocuous posts.

I am very uncomfortable at the tone the tribunal has taken toward the intervenor.

1. Pronoun decision against NC - breach of express ETBB.
2. Failure to give reasons in the pronouns letter.
3. Letter only addressed to C/R, not intervenor.
4. Chastising JR Levin re-posting something in public domain - no cause for censure.
5. Admitting the spreadsheet of doom because it looked like it would support Tinkerbell’s case. (Happy to be corrected).
6. Not properly addressing failure to consult & include intervenors in bundle / issues list discussion.

Because she's turned it into her profession, courtesy of us tax payers, because those in charge have shit for brains and are happy to wase our money on grifters like this women.

There’s a quote from Penelope Keith in today’s Times:

“I get so booooored nowadays,” she replied without pause, “with everyone exposing themselves and saying, the reason for this and the reason for that is that when I was two, I was hit by a worm or somesuch.”

I wonder if ST got hit by a worm?

I have heard anything up to date that can verify the claims but this is from a year ago.

It sheds some light on the EU's funding of the Alphabetti Squad, but I'm not sure how unbiased the channel is.

I agree.

Although I keep thinking about the SS of Doom (shall we call it Shoom?). If the panel wanted it in because they are inclined to believe ST as credible and believe Shoom is useful evidence for him it went in exactly the opposite direction.

Any reference to it yesterday demonstrated it is no evidence at all beyond confirming C’s claim re numbers of moderations which nobody is questioning.

I’m very interested to know how AL will handle it this morning and if he’s had to spend all last night trying to connect items on the list with anything material.

I’m very interested to know how AL will handle it this morning and if he’s had to spend all last night trying to connect items on the list with anything material.

Remember this is the Claimant's evidence: DEFRA should be asking Samantha which of the lines show evidence of bias.

Googling ST also only brings up stuff from our side - this does seem increasingly weird.

I hadn’t forgotten that but to prepare AL will have to know, to the degree it is possible to know, what ST might testify to when questioned. I am hoping he will lead to there is nothing material proving your claim in this evidence but he will have to know that is the case tl get tjere.

Is it Naomi's turn to wind up ST into a seething frothing hysterical witness today? Is it? Is it? Is it?

Yes what I found very interesting about the shoom was that Tinkerbell was very familiar with it. He knew what it was, where to go, why you couldn’t see a like (for which to hang the bastards!).

So why did he have access to the moderation log because I am sure there is a lot on there that should have been redacted.

Why did his lawyers let him talk about it in his witness statement and not put it into evidence? (there are thousands of pages, what is one more shoom)?

Assume both Rs lawyers and NC hadn’t seen it at all.

Hardly a fair tribunal process.

The enabling goes all in one direction. Tinkerbell, so afflicted by testosterone and his manliness, he seeks to punish all women and Andreas.

I wonder if she ever had to actually prove she has the condition? I don't see that it is a technical requirement for her position to have a DSD. And some of her statements about the condition are a bit strange.

1. As I said previously, I find this ruling astonishing
2. I wasn't able to follow proceedings yesterday. Has there been a letter or was it an order?
3. Since the ruling was mainly aimed at NC and her witness, this seems astonishing
4. Again, this is astonishing. Something that is already in the public domain doesn't become restricted or privileged just because it has been included in the bundle
5. I don't know the history on this. Why do you think it should have been excluded?
6. I'm not surprised by this. It is rare for lawyers to face any consequences for spats over the bundle