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.

R/uk is moderated and dominated by TRAs so that’s great.

From TT:

NC: You have no reason to doubt her sincerity, that SEEN is carefully impartial?
ST: Disagree, see g), they've said no such thing as gender or gendter identity, so I disagree

NC: p13-15 (int)
NC: blog post Nov 23, re impartiality and finding common ground. Can you read the 4th paragraph on p15.
ST [reading]

NC: Sets out what SEEN is about. Situation is, a belief system has been imposed on whole organisation and has become political, and wants return to impartiality.

Huge trouble with farmers for not making payments in a timely manner. It causes farmers huge distress.

From TT:

ST: Disagree, what they want is to be able to discuss trans ppl and that is not impartiality.

NC: p760 (int)
NC: 2 emails both from same person.
ST [reading]

NC: Speaks eloquently about the fear & institutional isolation GC ppl have, even 3 years post Forstater?
ST: It's weird IMO - doesn't make sense, talks about [?] as if 2 separate people

From TT:

NC: Do you agree with how I described it?
ST: Agree that's what she says
NC: This is what you and allies have worked to maintain?
ST: No it's not.

ST: I have explained repeatedly, it's only me here, explained that what I want is, it's what DEFRA say ...

J: I think we should stop this now
NC: I have 2 more Qs

J: You have questioned C motives for bringing claim and have shown effect on SEEN ppl, you have put your points, it is time to move on please.

How did this case even get to court?

His position seems to be - "I am a transwoman,The Most Vulnerable, and everyone who doesn't do/think what I approve is ok to do/think is a transphobe and must be banned from speaking about anything".

Is it normal for a judge to bully counsel like that?

From TT:

NC: I have just 2 more Qs and I suggest that it is not fair to stop intervenor.
J: Are they brief questions
NC: Yes
J OK carry on.

NC: Doc also speaks of anxiety created by your claim here and PQ
HH: J, you have said this is not the point here
NC: My final Q then.

NC: "Bullies trying to shut down a primarily women's organisation, acting for women's rights" is a fair way to describe you and your allies' conduct isn't it.

Just what I was going to ask, surely Counsel can ask as many questions as they want?

From TT:

ST: No this is about the workplace, and how trans ppl treated there.
NC: And this claim is the same. Example of EDW and AM.
ST: No, my right to bring after grievance failed.

NC: [missed]
ST: Judge this is too far.
J: Do you disagree with the Q
ST: Yes

NQ: No further questions.

J: I think we should stop this now

Did ST look upset again?
Ah I see what he said:
I have explained repeatedly, it's only me here, explained that what I want is, it's what DEFRA say

Sudden change in style to broken phrases, 'little me'.. it worked 😠

He's on tender hooks, like most people are when they're around unhinged individuals, he's reacting to Tinkerbell getting worked up and he's trying to placate him so he doesn't kick off.

NC: My final Q then.

NC: "Bullies trying to shut down a primarily women's organisation, acting for women's rights" is a fair way to describe you and your allies' conduct isn't it.

😍

Tenterhooks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenterhook

“Please stop this woman, judge!”

NC: "Bullies trying to shut down a primarily women's organisation, acting for women's rights" is a fair way to describe you and your allies' conduct isn't it.

Absolutely, Any woman who doesn't believe in GI and performs the required obsequiousness must be punished.

From TT:

J: HH we have not yet discussed if we have panel Qs, so we can break for 10 minutes to discuss then re-exam from you?
NC: My client needs a break now please judge - not well
J: Then definitely we will take a break.

[BREAK]

NC: Makes it harder for them to organise in defence of their rights?

ST: Not sure what you mean about rights - DEFRA sets policy, no network is going to change that

Hmm, he certainly thinks he knows his own, but doesn't want people he doesn't like to have any. And he's now confessed that he wants SEEN shut down and GC women not to be allowed to speak, or organise. Cold sick indeed.

NC: [missed]
ST: Judge this is too far.
J: Do you disagree with the Q
ST: Yes

Perhaps once we've finished for the day, someone who was watching, or in the room, might be able to fill us in on what the missing Q was?

ST: Judge this is too far.
A direct appeal for the human shield this time..

Yes please, at the end of the day.

well, we're at a break now, so if anyone can fill us in, please do!

The Question was - Do you think you should pay back all your sick pay.

Who is not well, I wonder? There was speculation that ST might become
unwell', but it's not him.

It’s Elspeth