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.

They know what a woman is when they want to tell one off, don't they.

From TT:

NC: And there are rainbows, trans flags? Your line manager had in her sig?
ST: She did yes
NC: And misquoting EA protected characteristics - 'gender' instead of 'sex'. It's a pattern, isn't it. And 'gender identity' instead of 'gender reassignment.
ST: Can't say - you have to ask HR

NC: I suggest that you haven't noticed because it is the water everyone swims in and has for years.
ST: Couldn't say

NC: Want to clear up one thing, re the big spreadsheet - we had problems yesterday trying to work out which lines the line numbers referred to, in your WS. You haven't had opportunity to look at it I think?
ST: no

NC: Can we agree that DEFRA had a lot of Yammer management / moderation to do? Surge after you reacted to EDW post?
ST: Lots yes but I think surge was earlier. Not down to me.

It shows exactly to the extent that GI sources make a credible and cogent case by which they reach their conclusions.

Maya specifically stated in court that she would not deliberately misgender a work colleague. I think it's fair to say at this point that this was probably a lie, but the judge accepted it, and this was part of the basis of his ruling that her beliefs were protected.

IANAL but I surely it's libel to claim that Maya commited perjury?

It's amazing the things he doesn't see, hasn't read, isn't aware of, needs examples of - but then not just sees things, but somehow senses that they are there, whether visible or not...

ST: TBH I don't see sigs - you don't read right to the end.

He doesn't read much right to the end does he? Not even short children's stories.

From TT:

ST: They said, 'light the blue touch paper' - they knew there would be a reaction - they cd have put policy to prevent it in place - they didn't.

ST: I don't agree that I 'roused a mob' as you put it.

NC: DEFRA had to suddenly make a lot of judgment calls?
ST: Agree a lot
NC: Some of them very subtle?
ST: Wouldn't have had to if they'd had a proper policy in place

what are you, 12?

Is it your opinion that Maya was telling the truth and would definitely respect the pronouns of a trans colleague?

Did someone try to set up a chess match?

🤣

It's coercive control. This is what men who are coercively controlling others do.

From TT:

NC: No policy wd be straightforward though. EG if policy is you will moderate out posts that mispresent others' posts - there would still be lots of discussion about what that actually means and whether a post did?

ST: But they should have put a prepared moderation team in place, they didn't.
NC: Not quite my Q - they had to make a lot of judgment calls, some quite subtle
ST: OK Yes

NC: I think you are saying they should have known there would be an outburst of heated posts?
ST: Yes, they knew what wd happen, and they just didn't prepare, cd not even agree who owned the 'all company' channel.

Zoonosis · Today 14:15

Maya specifically stated in court that she would not deliberately misgender a work colleague. I think it's fair to say at this point that this was probably a lie,

Really? You seem to be using the same sort of, erm, reasoning as Mr. Tempest. Someone says something and you clutch your pearls and decide that they meant the exact opposite, or something arcane, which only you can see through.

So it's your opinion that Maya Forstater would definitely respect the pronouns of a trans work colleague?

Liar, liar…..I would put money on him taking note of who does and doesn’t put pronouns in their signature blocks.

On reconsideration I think it does show. I have started a few threads putting GI pages up for discussion here. I enjoy trans Uk Reddit very much, and read the majority of external pages that are posted there. I have trans-identifying people in my extended family and I’m wide open to persuasive arguments on the subject.

My TT:

NC: It's clear they expected pushback?
ST: Yes
NC: But were caught on back foot by extent of it?
ST: Yes
NC: Fair to be caught out - they had expected staff to disagree like grown ups?

ST: Disagree - they knew what would happen

J: They knew staff wd not behave like grrown ups?
ST: They knew in March what would happen.

NC: Given volume, some moderation mistakes inevitable?
ST: They should have had proper policy and process insteadNC: Not quite my Q. Surely humans are fallible - some subtle judgment calls wd go wrong?
ST: They should have had proper policy and process instead

The point is that there were manifestations, including misgendering, which the tribunal, despite the side remarks made by Choudhury, considered but felt weren’t enough to remove her protection for her protected belief (or lack of belief in GI which is also protected). And the same happened in Bailey and Higgs. It’s an higher bar than you and Tempest appear to believe. Anyway, I won’t participate in derailing further.

Putting pages up for discussion here achieves nothing more than inviting people to agree with and confirm your own view point. I'd be more impressed if you were regularly engaging in discussion with people who don't already agree with you.

From TT:

J: Not quite the Q. Once they had the moderation panel - surely it's possible that sometimes mistakes might be made?
ST: Possible but shd be few and far between

J: And calls that you wd not agree with?
ST: Suppose yes

NC: So the existence of some over-zealous moderation does not amount to harassment? Unless it was always the case, and was not happening to other views?
ST: I think I've demostrated that it was not even handed

ST: Disagree - they knew what would happen
J: They knew staff wd not behave like grrown ups?
ST: They knew in March what would happen.

I wish I could be 100% sure which side the judge currently thinks wasn't behaving like grown ups.

Has he?

Righteous vision is an amazing thing. ST, Zoon and Layla Moran all have this wondrous gift.

That's 2 x 'Not quite my q' from NC already.
See? I knew she'd listen when I told her during the hydration break to play Rice as an attacking midfielder and Bellingham and Kane up front...😂