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.

That's claptrap, she has a fine understanding of his batshitttery.

Strongly disagree with you. Just an emotional analysis not a legal one. @ProfLargofesse is correct.

Yes Zoo isn’t exactly free of bias themselves.

Just a thought from previously heard statements from the claimant. Didn’t he say that Occ Health and the Defra doctor had passed him fit to return to work with the reasonable adjustment of working from home? And that he didn’t have any mental health condition and didn’t take antidepressants until 2024? If so, what was he off sick with for six months? Ah, probably work-related stress, just answered my own question. Defra are pretty good at supporting people, in my experience.

ST - it's not the people, it's the lanyards, the posters

What everyone else experiences and what ST experiences are definitely completely different realities!

@ProfLargofesse That makes sense to me, except why was the first thread titled 'Chair of SEEN being sued'? All this time, I thought SEEN was part of this, too, not just as an intervenor.

He's frightened that he'll be "recategorised" as a man, how can that be so? He IS a man, so he'd be categorised correctly.

I'm hoping that the judge will see through his huge double standards. He wanted to say whatever he wanted and to have support from senior management, but pretends to think it reasonable that SEEN and GC women should be silenced and not allowed help from senior employees; or anyone, for that matter.

Hahaha @Boiledbeetle

Yes he said it was stress related mental health illness

Someone went round the London offices taking down SEEN posters. SEEN were accused of taking down other networks’ posters, but I bet a million pounds that they didn’t.

Because they were, but the claims against individuals have been withdrawn/settled.

This thread began when that was the case, but the case against SEEN was dropped a month or so before the ET began -- that's a legacy thing

Yeah maybe, but she does all right, doesn't she? Very successful, highly regarded in her profession, The Times Lawyer of the Week for Meade v Westminster and so on..
I wouldn't worry about her reputation if I were you, I think she's doing fine.

Thanks. I wasn't following the first thread as closely as these ones.

Her point is it’s not the belief itself, it’s the expression of the belief, which was of course specifically ruled by the judge in Forstater to be an area where GC beliefs might still be seen as harassment (and has been the grounds on which other GC claimants have lost cases, where their behaviour rather than their belief has been seen to be the problem).

ST is neither stupid nor unadvised.

Tempest sued Elspeth as a respondent in her own right, and that was withdrawn but SEEN were allowed to intervene, and the anonymous claimant “PQ” (granted anonymity in court unlike ST) was suing Andreas Mueller of SEEN, and that claim was settled by DEFRA and he was dropped I think.

Not so successful for Sandy Peggie, was she, with her behaviour specifically highlighted for criticism by the judge

Do you think what he's been saying is reasonable? And why?

Darvo

Because they were, but the claims against individuals have been withdrawn/settled.

The claims against individuals have been withdrawn not settled.

I trust if her appeal succeeds, given that it was such a crap, inaccurate dogs dinner of a biased judgment, a bit like Maya Forstater’s first one, you’ll be totes ok with that @Zoonosis

Ok I wasn’t sure how it worked with Mueller, I thought it was part of the settlement PQ agreed to.

Tinkerbell’s original case was against Elspeth DW and Andreas Mueller, co chairs of the Defra SEEN, plus his employer RPA, and Defra itself. As he and the two co chairs did not share an employer he wasn’t able to sue them, but carried on against his employer and Defra. SEEN got permission to intervene to stop Defra rolling over.

Mysteriously, shortly thereafter, another trans person came forward to sue Andreas Mueller, as the trans person and Andreas worked for the same employer. The claim was mysteriously almost identical to Tempest’s claim.

That claim against Andreas was withdrawn earlier this year.

They all work for various organisations in Defra Group.

And I trust you'll be equally okay if the appeal loses?

Yes but has has been argued many times before the manifestation by itself is not the issue, it is the manner of it. What the courts meant, of course, is that there will be no protection for you if you rage at an individual in work or on workplace discussions sites, swear at them, or go aroun wearing Swastikas and heil Hitlering.

ST and his advisors are trying to claim that landyards are the GC equivalent of a a Swastika but I doubt that will stand, although who knows!