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.

ST: If objections, raise a grievance, it's not a trades union

How do you think unions are formed? God this is so dumb.

I'm forgoing my afternoon nap for ST's drivel.

I am deeply unimpressed.

From TT:

NC: Not an answer, will try one more time. Won't be able to organise re their rights?
ST: Yes
J: In workplace
ST: Yes

NC: That's what you want.
ST: Have asked for abolition of seen so yes

NC: You don't want equality, you want dominance.
ST: No I just want to be able to go to work

NC: You talk - also in para 29 - about the likely reaction to EDW post, you mention CA 'light blue touch paper' and say DEFRA didn't take responsiblity and delegated to EDW.

I note that ST is very, VERY clear anout all the things he knows and remembers that might get other people into a bit of trouble, yet curiously vague when it comes to things he may have said or written that might get himself into trouble:

ST: Let me read paragraph [does so]

(he does a lot of 'let me just read through...'

NC: Not an answer, will try one more time. Won't be able to organise re their rights?
ST: Yes
J: In workplace
ST: Yes
NC: That's what you want.
ST: Have asked for abolition of seen so yes
😮

Well, full marks for clarity, ST!

From TT:

NC: Are you saying employers should never allow anything that causes a reaction?
ST: They knew categorically would be received as unwanted conduct, what about PSED

NC: Are you saying, never allow anything that might upset an employee?
ST: Not talking about upset, talking about unwanted conduct.

NC: Does that not mean anyone can shut down anything just by making a loud fuss?
ST: Ppl cd raise grievances etc but yes employer shd shut down, shd not create harassment

NC: You say ppl cdn't believe it, thought blip, and that it would quickly be shut down
ST: Yes
NC: You thought GC voices wd quickly be silenced
ST: Thought it wd be recognised as unwanted conduct and shut down.

NC: You thought GI was unchallengeable at DEFRA?
ST: No, that respect for colleagues was.

And his poor lawyers having to do this pro bono.

I seriously doubt that his barrister Helen Hogben is doing a three week Employment Tribunal pro bono. Her bio has not a trace of the LGBTQIA+ alphabet nonsense. She looks like a good experienced employment lawyer void of gebderwang.

https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/barristers/helen-hogben/

Wow!😧

Dear Samantha might want to have a look at the Combination Act 1799.
It was repealed, 1824 iirc.

Only respect for "special" colleagues, of course.

I also really doubt if counsel is pro bono.

NC: You paused for a long time?
ST: I like to make sure I'm going to give correct answer

I think she's asking you for your answer, your opinion, ST. Not the all-powerful, Man Speaks 'correct answer'.

I'm losing the will to live.

From TT:

NC: We already know 'respect for colleagues' means to you, silencing of GC?
ST: We have already covered

NC: And you had reason to think that this blip - this single expression of GC views - would quickly be shut down?
ST: Yes

NC: Bcs you had never seen any dissent from GI before?
ST: No, bcs assumed ppl wd be stopped from harassing colleagues in workplace

NC: The grip of GI on this employer was such that your manager undermined moderation decisions to remove your posts? p[missed]

NC: p2098 - a couple of your posts have been taken down and your manager says, can't see you have done much wrong here.
ST: Yes. What was Q?
NC: Undermining moderation against you?

My note: got my Bayeux tapestry ticket!

NC: You don't want equality, you want dominance.
ST: No I just want to be able to go to work

He's such a precious child!

Perhaps he is waiting for his witness in the audience to communicate the correct answer by coughing, gurning or demeanour?

@fanOfBen

My note: got my Bayeux tapestry ticket!

I'm still queuing for Tapestry tickets

My note: got my Bayeux tapestry ticket!

JEALOUS!!

From TT:

ST: Disagree, my line manager can and should follow up such decisions, so it's fine to give opinion.

J: I think section makes more sense if begin p2096. I think Q is, your line manager is saying doesn't agree posts shd have been removed?
ST: Yes

NC: p2061 - transcipt of video by Perm Sec for Trans Awareness Week Nov 2022. Have you ever seen a PermSec promoting a 'biological sex awareness week' - even a half hour?
ST: No

NC: Or anyone else in DEFRA?
ST: [pause]
NC: It's not a difficult Q - why the theatrical pause?
ST: Not theatrical - just thinking

NC: You would know and would have told us if anyone senior had promoted 'biological sex awareness week'?
ST: Haven't seen anything

My note: got my Bayeux tapestry ticket!

Enjoy, it's amazing.

I was in the queue from 10:01 this morning at the latest!

Bingo.

😂😂😂

J: I think section makes more sense if begin p2096. I think Q is, your line manager is saying doesn't agree posts shd have been removed?
ST: Yes

Judge does a lot of reframing NC's Q. Because he wants to ask a different Q or because he's not following the gist? Or because he wants it clear on the record? Let's hope it's the last one.

From TT:

NC: Nobody senior expressing support for SEEN and its aims?
ST: Haven't seen, no, but there are plenty of example of senior ppl supporting SEEN even if not saying so.

NC: For years before 2022 GI had been overwhelmingly the employer belief, and dissent silenced?
ST: That's speculation
NC: Pre Forstater, employers thought they could bully staff into silence?

NC: DEFRA thought GC belief cd be silenced? You thought this too, pre-Forstater appeal?
ST: I was aware of the case, because important to me.
NC: In your WS at para 7
ST: Yes