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.

One day there will be a cult Netflix series about Naomi and her court cases and they will ask you for episode titles and poems and graphics to accompany it.

Also the insinuation from HH that NC somehow 'leaked' ST's WS to TT and should have asked for his permission first - when NC pointed out she had explicitly asked the tribunal if it was public and been told it was, the judge treated her as if she was a time-waster
nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets/status/2071545400448741855#m

There has been no order. At NC's request for a written explanation and clarification there has been a letter, which was not addressed to her.

Only a wee tiny micro worm. Maybe it was a medically enlarged transmans clitoris. Hard to tell.

Points 2 and 3 - look who it was addressed to…. Yes there was a letter https://x.com/jrlevinslaw/status/2071529931280900565?s=46

Naomi was totally ignored when it came to sorting the bundle - ignored from the case I think. She had her own 900 pages. Ignoring an intervenor isn’t a normal bundle issue.

That would be unfair.

All the other trans folk don’t have to prove anything beyond performative pronouns so since it’s all based on whatever you say you are you are I am ok with her lumping in with the rest.

Does not mean the Tribunal has reached or expressing a view on transgender….

There’s the law and there’s the appearance of the law and it appears here that the Tribunal is expressing a view on the transgender debate. If the C wins, despite the very 🦇 💩 beliefs on view about his right to control everyone else in the workplace, that will be shocking. But I would assume, going by this letter, it was because of the panel supporting Genderism.

Btw, question to anyone familiar with the issue, is the letter correct in saying this directive to not use correct pronouns is in line with the updated Equal Treatment Bench Book?

Thanks for this. Given the content, a copy should clearly have been sent to the intervenor. It does kind of give reasons, but they appear totally inadequate for such an extraordinary step.

Directing NC to use the claimant's name or gender neutral pronouns is pushing hard against the limits. Directing a witness in this way goes against the ETBB in my view.

On point 5:

ST claims that the moderation was unfair and this is evidenced by the number of posts removed. More TRA posts were removed or edited as a result of moderation than SEEN.

There is nothing within those numbers by themselves which establishes bias or favouritism because, of course, the moderation could have been a reasonable response, we don't know.

Claimant did not refer to the log of moderation decisions ie SS of doom (Shoom) in WS nor in evidence in chief (I know, WS rather Scottish court but you know what I mean) so Excel sheet was not entered into evidence in the bundle.

HH claims thought it too unwieldy.

Panel decided to take a look and decide on its merit. AL asserted that it should have been mentioned in WS and he doesn't have the due familiarity to ask questions.

Panel decided to admit as evidence. Not sympathetic to AL needing more time but allowed him to continue his cross today so he can review the docs overnight.

The Shoom (SS of doom) became relevant to some questions yesterday and it is clear ST is very familiar with it and knows what log lines refer to even though little content present in doc itself.

It is perhaps evidence of no evidence but I don't think that's the reason it was allowed in.

It does demonstrate, perhaps, that ST has had too much access and been gaining further access to material he should have no sight of for various reasons not least his own claims of finding it harrassing when off sick.

What it led to yesterday is much tedium as J had to try and work out if what ST was saying was evidenced in the Shoom at all. Largely not.

So in my view it took up unneccessary time in the ET and shouldn't have been admitted as it was was a log rather than content so could not confirm or refute ST's claim either way sufficiently.

Thank you. Interesting.

Was it not that the Judge made a ruling and NC asked for reasons.

This letter was to confirm the ruling/ order/ direction?

JR Levins put this letter on his/their TwiX on monday morning 9:43, so how did he get it?
Since it was sent by email, I think it is possible that the intervenor side was CCed.

I'm not sure what the distinction is between order and ruling but J threatened consequences if correct sex pronouns were used purposefully rather than by accident. I think consequences must mean contempt of court?

He made clear it applied to NC and Witness so NC asked for reasons and clarification which he said he would give later. The letter doesn't explain his reasons for compelling a witness to use C's preferred pronouns and just reasserts that in his view the bench book guidance allows this, which it doesn't, and doesn't substitute for what might reasonably considered a reason. He doesn't explain or give reasons why it is 'respectful' to do this given that it only respects C not NC or witness.

I think the issue is that the letter wasn't addressed to intervenor not that it wasn't sent. It starts Dear Claimant and Respondents.

This is not in line with the ETBB for two reasons.

If gender is an issue in the case - then the court shouldn’t compel pronoun use.

And it explicitly says to never compel they/them use as it’s too difficult. Quoted up thread but around page 196/197/198 of the ETBB.

Aim of all this is to get the best evidence of witnesses. Stopping Elspeth speaking normally about something she knows to be true is not serving justice. Also not taking into account her autism.

It also curtails NC’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

I’d put in a recusal application for bias at this stage.

Deliberate misgendering and they/ them as pronouns is strict adherence to the rules of gender ideology. It goes against plain speaking and truth.

It’s just the continued disregard to treat Elspeth and SEEN who have been harassed and threatened with legal action for years as serious intervenors in this case.

Not even addressing the document to the person who asked for the clarification and to whom it was directed.

It’s a course of dealings.

I wonder whether AL will think it's worth spending much time on the ModLog/Spreadsheet of Doom this morning.

ST calls it 'a shambles' in his own WS (p44) with missing data and inaccurate dates. But then of course goes on say that this shambolic inaccurate record proves the moderation was uneven and biased.

Schroedinger's Spreadsheet indeed.

ST is keen to get it before the judge before his time runs out and said expressly he thought the judge would find it helpful. The judge is reluctant to have to deal with a giant spreadsheet but thinks he'd better. Unless there's a gem in there I think AL will demonstrate as quickly as possible that it doesn't add anything much to either side of the case and hand over to NC. Here's hoping.

Yes I saw that, but I wondered if there might be formal reasons for only addressing the 'primary parties' of the case directly? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. It might be unusual but I find it hard to be sure about that.

Intervenors should properly be addressed by the Court.

😄
Astonishing is lawyer speak for ...?

I wonder if - having had to sit through several days of ST whinging about who liked what post, bemoaning that when X said Y they really meant Z and everyone involved should be punished for not having them hung drawn and quartered, and that GC is a belief the mere existence of which should never be uttered lest he disintegrates, and his employers shpuld walk the plank for allowing such posts to meet his delicate eyes, even if he actually only saw them because he went looking for them - the judge would make the same ruling about pronouns again.

Claimant did not refer to the log of moderation decisions ie SS of doom (Shoom) in WS nor in evidence in chief (I know, WS rather Scottish court but you know what I mean) so Excel sheet was not entered into evidence in the bundle.

I don't think this is right. Unless I've misunderstood and it's a different document he does refer to it in his WS (para 118, p44). He gives numerous quotes from it with row numbers. He goes on and on about it.

Maybe this was intended to add a veneer of even handedness?

I've just had a random thought, did he say something like he hadn't read My Body is Me from cover to cover?
I mean really? It's not War and Peace, no wonder he hasn't been promoted.
Wonder if the judge needs a copy? Should it be in a bundle?😂