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.

I suspect that as he hadn't answered properly it was a repeat of what Naomi described as her final question.

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.

NRFT yet but saw ‘raise a grievance’
I can think of a few reasons why women might be wary of raising grievances over this issue.

This has gone too far Judge - from Tinkerbell the liar?

I guess you had to fuck around and find out Tink. Didn't you?

“Her client” is only EDW.

I would have thought she at least reframed it, because he was refusing to accept the framing.

Thanks, well, that's an interesting Q to ask as your last one. I was fine with NC asking it before, because I thought it was relevant, but this time I think she wasted an opportunity. Perhaps she could see that ST just wasn't going to answer any more questions.

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

But surely if DEFRA sets a policy that is against the law, a network would be able to challenge and change that?

DEFRA can't set policy that is against the law as Tinkerbell has come to realise and he is fuming.

Apparently Elspeth was crying at the end there as they left for the break. It must be hideous to have to listen to this narcissistic arsehole (and his super childish supporter) obfuscate his way through that evidence. And for the judge to be so clearly biased and taken in by the nonsense.

It is clear judical bias on show that he keeps interuppting Naomi as she builds a set of questions to a climax. It interrupts her flow, allows the witness to take a breather and then cuts the point of her questioning.

The Judge has not done this to anyone else. It has been persistent all day and coming hot on the heels of everything else is showing all decisions and behaviours lean in one direction. Poor poor form.

From TT:

[we resume]

NC: If my client leaves the room it is no disrespect - it is just to avoid asking or another break
J: of course

J: We just have a few Qs. How many of the posts you rely on did you see personally?
ST: Everything on Yammer and everything on the intranet. Specific posts eg for events that would depend.

It's also jarring that the J is moving NC on in the near absence of objections from HH. I know he has the authority but he is making a v good advocate for ST.

Unless the network is for, about or full of women, I suppose.

I assume she was crying from distress at not feeling well - whereas ST's crying seemed to result from being cornered by qq he didn't want to answer.

From TT:

ST: I mean specific posts in online chat at events - I didn't see all those, if not at the event, so for example the 'only women menstruate' I didn't see.

J: But no posts on govt SEEN or DEFRA SEEN, once private late in 2023?
ST: Gov one was a bit different - not private - but I think they did get filtered out eventually

J: So what you included that you didn't see at the time, how did you get them?
ST: Sometimes links from the all-company Yammer - that's the one you get when you first log in.
J: I see.

J: But no posts on govt SEEN or DEFRA SEEN, once private late in 2023?
ST: Gov one was a bit different - not private - but I think they did get filtered out eventually

Another non-answer.

From TT:

J: You've said your main case is, comments - well, that SEEN should not have been permitted to exist. Both SEENs?
SC: Yes that's my opinion but its DEFRA is my employer

J: Did DEFRA have any control over govt SEEN?
ST: Not directly, but cd have fed back to Cabinet Office about it - I think that was a recommendation in the grievance process?

It's frustrating for us, but I can't even imagine how absolutely hideous it must be for her.

Interesting to see what qq J asks...

[my bold]
J: So what you included that you didn't see at the time, how did you get them?
ST: Sometimes links from the all-company Yammer - that's the one you get when you first log in.
J: I see.

And the judge doesn't push him on the rest?

I didn’t hear anything about sick pay

We have between us shared mixed views on whether NC or the J have at times gone too far.

But I wonder, at this stage, if ST may be thinking he has instructed a secret GC to advocate for him!

(Joke: I know nothing about HH except that she has been having a quiet couple of days in court!)

J: Do you accept that genuine decisions were being made?
ST: Decisions were yes

Look he's even rephrasing the J's qq!!!

Was that not NC's final Q then? PP said it was, so just took that as true.

Again:
J: NC has talked of allies, did you have?
ST: Ppl who were supportive yes