Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 3

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5548369-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-2

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.

Prediction: the panel will find for ST that he was harassed by DEFRA, but not enough evidence to find he was harassed by EW(?) and SEEN.

Because...reasons.
And because it's easy to impose this on DEFRA/RPA because they can just absorb their small amount of punishment, pay off ST, they won't have to deal with him anymore, change their policies (because of the SC ruling, of course, not because of the tribunal), amend their processes re internal employee networks, then quietly go back to doing no work whatsoever, out of the public eye.

It seems to be a funny set up in the court. And in barring SEEN from simply telling the truth. They are getting either tetchy or upset at the idea that women might be afforded any respect or courtesy. To the extent voice cannot be given to reality, or women’s perspective acknowledged. Especially when it impedes men doing exactly what they want, and controlling all around them.

Unsurprisingly a lot of the trans folx end up in what they call a T4T relationship with another trans person as they are unappealing to straight men, gay men, straight women or lesbians

But is his new wife is also a TiM and works at DEFRA, how come they're not also so distressed and starring in their own case? Or here as a witness?

I agree, and also in light of ST's tendency to use a question as a prompt for a mini-speech, to make her qq as short and closed as possible, very focused on points like double standards and nothing ever being good enough for him; and to try to stop him from launching into his speeches.
Preferably in a firm but polite way, to prevent the J acting as a human shield to protect fragile little Samantha😏

It's funny to be making suggestions about NC should do her job - it's like we're sitting in front of the telly shouting to Tuchel to go 4-3-3 in the second half😁

Now that we're on a break, can someone who is observing answer a question? Reading TT, ST comes across as extremely sulky in his responses to NC, e.g. "I guess so", "Okay" rather than just saying yes.

Is this how ST is actually coming across?

Quite. The posts were so traumatising that he had to be off work for six whole months to recover, AND needed special adjustments when he deigned to come back, but his friend was showing him the very information that traumatised him?

So either he had a truly awful friend, which I’m sure we would have heard about by now, who was bullying him, or he actually WANTED to see the posts, in which case his WS is pages and pages of risible pish (to quote another poster from a previous thread) and he was on sick leave falsely.

Which is it? 🤔

If he/she has not provided a statement, I wouldn't think he/she would be called to answer questions? But IANAL.

Oh, and I feel sorry for Pete. I bet he’s taken a day off from Busy and Important Plumbing Work to be a witness to his manliness, and he’s kicking his heels all undeployed.

Is this snivelling man’s wife the TiM who bailed from this case on day 1?

I agree, but it would seem odd that if his distress were real, and they were also a TiM, they wouldn't have distress too. Quite aside from dealing with his narcissism at home.

Not sure we should be speculating about the identity of anonymous people.

I bet he’s sitting around in his pants.

they can just absorb their small amount of punishment, pay off ST, they won't have to deal with him anymore

This isn't a constructive dismissal case. ST is still employed by RPA & will remain employed whether he wins or loses.

Fair point, apologies.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I still think they will find for ST against DEFRA, but not SEEN.

I'm back and catching up - thanks for the entertainment everyone especially @myladydisdainisyetliving for the c&p. I can take over at 3 (or immediately, if you prefer).

I'm tempted to imagine Naomi and Ben in a pub somewhere with a pint each (do we know what they like to drink? Did I imagine Naomi having mentioned a g&t at some point?) discussing strategy:
N: so we're agreed, I'll wind the judge up so much that he rules against us at the first tier ET, but I'll make sure to get grounds for appeal along the way
B: and I'll do the appeal, and get us the binding win.

I'm sure that's far too Machiavellian to be the truth, though. Isn't it?

ST - it's not the people, it's the lanyards, the posters and what they want to change in the workplace, if I use the bathroom, how they are going to react, how they are going to report encountering me, a person wearing a lanyard like that its a visible symbol of someone who doesn't have my best interests at heart and most likely will not have the decency to respect me.

J - is it time to stop?

Y'know, I'm rereading the judge's 'is it time to stop' and wondering if he was thinking to himself

'Oh, look what you've done now - you've set her off again! I warned you the last time, Cunningham, but would you listen? oh no, you had to ask ST another a perfectly reasonable question, didn't you, knowing damn well that the result would be a Speech from the Dock, and tears! FFS!

and then he said the next bit out loud
" is it time to stop?"
while thinking
'dear God please make it stop!'.

Just speculating..
😂

Careful not to cut yourself on those straws

Someone upthread highlighted the great point about ST considering actual neutrality a hostile stance; in that same vein he considers pro-trans to be a neutral stance.

From yesterday:

"AL: You would broadly describe as pro trans
ST: About trans people, yes"

SEEN are not a respondent.

After reflecting on @BettyBooper's earlier comment I suspect we can now see NC's strategy and if correct it's blindingly brilliant.

C is suing DEFRA and RPA for harrassment and creating a hostile environment etc. The main thrust of the claim that they did this by not shutting down SEEN and when SEEN was not shut down by not ensuring he didn't see anything that would hurt his eyes.

As intervenor for SEEN NC does not have to take the same approach she would take if her client were a R and we have been judging her approach against those previous instances.

I haven't got time to look back at all the testimony of today and yesterday, I think she has succeeded in getting ST to forget the main thrust of his claim and end up agreeing with most of what DEFRA and RPA have done, and she's got him to do this because of a trap of his own making.

In his testimony he has qualified his view significantly to claim he understands the distinction between sex and gender and that sex sometimes matters because that has been the advice because of changes to recent corrections to Stonewall law but Stonewall law was in place when he was claiming to be harassed.

By qualifying he has changed the argument, because in their actions DEFRA had been adopting those qualifications themselves. So if he agrees there is a distinction between sex and gender, and that sex sometimes matters he has to, therefore, agree with DEFRA's approach because his PC is related to gender not sex.

If he is claiming it under his PC of trans he has to accept that this means he is a man with the PC of GR. Which he has more or less agreed if I remember correctly. If he acknowledges also that sex and gender are different, as per his obvious training in rehearsal pst FWS, and that sex is also a PC he can't actually claim actual harassment or hostile environment by DEFRA and RPA continuing to establish opportunities for equal space for discussion of the PC of sex.

He wants DEFRA to create a space where he is able to be trans freely, and by that he means to be accepted both as trans because he needs the PC of gender reassignment because the PC of sex doesn't apply, AND be treated as a woman in every respect. And logic must prevail here that you can't command both at the same time when it comes to claims of harrassment because of a specific PC when that specific PC exludes the other PC by its very nature (unless he was claiming harassment because he was a man, which he can't do of course, but actually might have been a better approach!).

At no point, for example, as NC draws out from him, have DEFRA told anyone to 'misgender' him? At no point have they told any group they must exclude trans staff from their networks, all they have done is ask SEEN to be sure to have their settings on private so you have to join and been sure to moderate posts and make requests on behalf of ST re sport etc.

What ST is left with is the numbers game re moderations but that pretty much fell by the wayside yesterday.

So NC's game in her questioning is sleight of hand. ST thinks she is doing one thing, challenging TRA ideology and his adherance to it, when actually she is undermining his grounds for a claim against DEFRA and RPA because he is, apart from the few moments when he remembers, agreeing with their actions.

Perhaps the J is tetchy because he already knows there is no substance to the claim?

Naomi genuinely can’t understand how so many rational people swallow this crud.

She wishes they weren’t so stupid & so incapable of rational thought.

No one wants to lose a case because a panel can’t follow logic and is biased.

Well stated and i totally agree.

Could the wife be the anonymous additional complainant who has dropped out rather than be quizzed at the tribunal?

(Probably wrong to speculate.)

You're probably right, and this is a problem for her. She's an ideologue which prevents her from being able to fully understand her opponent's point of view (crucial if you want to actually address their argument), means she sometimes prioritises her personal desire to attack or humiliate the trans person in front of her over actually winning the case, and - crucially - she's incapable of seeing when, how or why other people might perceive her behaviour as crossing into plain aggression or bigotry so is incapable of fully avoiding making herself look bad.