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.

Andreas Mueller has been very clear that the claim has been totally dropped. They tried to get him to sign some non-disparagement clause as part of an agreement but he refused.

Would that be the judge whose judgement included entirely made up law to support his clearly biased position?

Do you mean the judge who has been wholly discredited by ignoring the law, misquoting case law and using AI to write his judgement?

Cross post 😁

I think it will go up to the next court. And obviously I wouldn’t be. But you can gloat about Sandie Peggie, who won some of her points, when she loses, otherwise you might end up looking like all the people who crowed over the first Forstater judgment, FWS earlier rulings etc.

Zoonosis · Today 13:54

Her [sic] 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).

And what, in this case, would have crossed that line? Absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zip.

ST is neither stupid nor unadvised.

He's not half as clever as he thinks himself to be; as for being advised, he's got Aethelred vibes - he's poorly advised.

Also don't forget SP won the harassment case against NHS Fife - that sometimes gets overlooked!

It has never actually been established in court that "manifestation by itself is not the issue". The specific example the Forstater judge gave was that misgendering was not protected, and later cases have backed this up as cases involving misgendering or intent to misgender have invariably been lost by GC claimants. Interesting you think that's an equivalent to heil Hitlering - and somewhat of a misunderstanding of the law, since Nazism is explicitly not a protected belief.

Shh, don't made Zoon sad, by reminding us that Judge Kemp made up a whole bunch of random stuff in his homework, revised it multiple times and still couldn't get it right, and in the end the totes-non-biased powers-that-be handwaved it away as totes fine, as long as Judge Kemp actually made it up himself and didn't delegate his homework to ChatGPT

Kristie Higgs, etc. Bailey, Forstater etc all included the claimant having manifested their protected belief in a way that offended people. And they still won against their employers. It’s a high bar to say they don’t get protection under the EA because they expressed their protected belief in the wrong way.

Those are all the excuses you lot came up with to ignore a judgement you didn't like; however the judgement has not been discredited and still stands.

Maya did “misgender” though. Aren’t you aware of the details of the case?

ST is neither stupid nor unadvised

Opinions may differ.

I'd say ill advised rather than not advised.

she didn’t say the judgement was discredited, she said the judge was discredited.

It was considered a protected act for Allison Bailey to talk about the cotton ceiling in a way trans rights activists found offensive. Think on that.

Yet!

She won on some counts and lost on others. If she'd won wholly there wouldn't an appeal, would there.

ST is advised by solicitors who apparently got one of the SC judgements wrong.

Just in case it was missed due to Righteous fluffy clouds, remember that even in Zoon's beloved Kemp homework, Sandie Peggie did actually win her case against NHS Fife.

Discredited in this context meaning "some people disagreed with him" which is the normal state that all judges permanently exist in.

Belatedly acknowledged, perhaps someone’s asked Claude.

I think the claimant is suffering from Red Queen Syndrome, to quote,
”All the ways about here belong to me”, which the queen as a chess piece can then move any which way she chooses.
I’ve followed most of the Mumsnet’s TT commentaries for the recent NC and similar cases and without a doubt this is the most bizarre and taxing. Thanks to the transcribers and commentators. I really can’t hazard a guess how the judgement will fall however again the ‘judgments’ biased or otherwise are being called into question, time these tribunals were presented and judged as fit for purpose. Did I read right that at some point the claimant was referred to as ‘it’ , Freudian Slip ?

His point is that SEEN should not exist. If a belief is lawful people who share it must be allowed to connect with each other. To say it’s all about the way you express your belief but - actually there’s no acceptable way to express your belief - won’t fly.

And he has explicitly said there’s no way to express that belief that he would accept.

Any chance posters could stop suggesting Clarkson be called into this in the hopes he’ll embarrass DEFRA, he’s a violent, racist, misogynistic oaf that doesn’t have any regard for women’s rights and only has influence because he’s a ‘celebrity’

The judge in the Sandie Peggie case had his judgement ridiculed by other lawyers, rather a lot of quite eminent lawyers.