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.

From TT:

J: On moderation. You criticise DEFRA for not moderating consistently / even-handedly. Do you accept that there was a moderating group?
ST: At what period? My understanding is, no moderation for first 4-5 months.
J: The IT department did?
ST: That process did yes.

J: Do you accept that genuine decisions were being made?
ST: Decisions were yes
J: Genuine in that ppl did actually look and decide?
ST: Yes

J: But not that they were even handed between GC and others?
ST: No not even.
J: NC has talked of allies, did you have?
ST: Ppl who were supportive yes
J: Did you consult them?
ST: [cannot see answer - not on screen]

Again: changing 'allies' to 'supportive'

From TT:

HH [re-examining]: Mr Line asked you about p1495. This is response to FOI by Laura Brown re data on complaints re hostility to trans/NB staff, complaints re SEEN.

HH: AL said, 10 complaints and 7 upheld, and then re GC complaints 10 made, 9 upheld, AL said this shows balance but you said countless colleagues warned off. What did you mean by that?

ST: Borderline cases where ppl got emails saying they had been within the rules but were then disciplined as if outside the rules, 1 colleague in particular said this had happened

"Countless"

"1 in particular"

Snort.

Counting's hard, dontchaknow. All that material reality.

From TT:

HH: You were asked re p139 -

J: p1495 was an FOI request - am I right in saying this doc is the only numerical evidence you have of non-even-handed outcomes?
ST: Wd refer you to the moderation log.
J: Log also evidence?
ST: Yes

HH: p139. Email - conversation re complaints raised about EDW in 2022, put to you that post was taken down bcs of complaints, not bcs of content. You said not true, was bcs of content - can you look at 138.

HH: Email from Carly to EDW. THat's what you were referring to?
ST: Yes

HH: Can we look at the moderation log judge? I have a number of Qs about it and we have laptop for the C to look at it on. [this is done]

I’m not watching it. Yesterday, the J used the word oppressive. Oddly enough I get the idea that the way the judge is taking the GI line on banning correct sex id, and intervenes to prevent the claimant having to answer questions (or disrupt flow of NC) feels somewhat oppressive.

It must feel a bit depressing for women (who are the main losers in this men’s entitlement movement) like Elspeth to still have to be surrounded by this bs. Even the tribunal itself giving the appearance that nice girls should be compliant with men’s (no matter how creepy) whims. Or else! I know he said he was not making a threat after the event. It did sound like that though.

Elspeth also has the very unfair disadvantage of contemplating (ruminating no doubt) how she will fare on the witness stand, in circumstances where she is compelled not to use the correct-sex ways of speaking that come naturally to her, and that represent the whole truth that she needs to tell. That's a huge burden the panel have dumped on her as an autistic woman.

She deserves a medal and more for her part in this.

To be frank, I really hope for NC to come down like a ton of rectangular building things on anyone attempting to control Elspeth in that manner during testimony.

I really feel for her. Gods.

From TT:

HH: Meanwhile p332. You were taken to this in cross-ex, post by Andreas M - bullet points. Very end "the internet doesn't forget and neither do I". Then taken to p1762, email Nov 2022 from Caroline Airs -

HH: Says, post removed and this is an example of even-handed moderation. You disagreed - now that you have mod log in front of you, can you say where it is that you think not appropriate action from DEFRA?

ST: As I said, it had a threat -
HH: If you look at the mod log, am hoping you can filter column D by name of poster. If you do that [some Excel instructions to find AM name and apply filter]

Unfortunately for Elspeth the judge is only going to understand what's he's done by policing her speech if he watches her struggle and break down in front of him.

If she can manage to get through it by sheer will power and determination, then goes home and goes to bed exhausted for a week, the judge will assume it's not a problem.

He can't read and he can't count. We have a real literacy, numeracy and comprehension crisis here.

From TT:

HH: Now you can see his post. So re your criticism that not effective moderation - does log show this?
ST: There's a comment - says, sarcasm, potentially a threat, serious accusations made - AM got an email but post wasn'[t removed

HH: Why do you say not removed?
ST: Because it doesn't say here it was - 'borderline' doesn't usually get removal.

J: You say borderline - why treated as borderline?
ST: Don't know - doesn't seem borderline to me.

ST: As I said, it had a threat -
HH: If you look at the mod log, am hoping you can filter column D by name of poster. If you do that [some Excel instructions to find AM name and apply filter]

On Law and Order, this would be 'leading the witness' 😆

I'm hoping that Naomi can help by, for example, asking her questions in terms of hypothetical transwomen, plural, so that answering in terms of "they" is natural. I suppose EDW gets cross-examined by both the other barristers, though, potentially?

Me neither, nothing even resembling that.

From TT:

HH: p545 you were taken to. Email from you to Ed Parry grievance manager, drawing attention to Mumsnet link, AL asked you what docs it took you on the link - we found p337, we see Laura Brown sharing the Mumsnet link.
ST: Yes

HH: Also took you to p1452, screenshot of a mumsnet page with post by "SinnerBoy" - you were asked if that's what you saw from the hyperlink. You said, you think so but were expecting to see a lot more, what did you mean?

ST: More than two posts - we've only got two mumsnet posts here, there would have been a lot more.

I have given up for today. My bullshit quotient has been exceeded.

Maybe we'll get something different tomorrow......

HH: Why do you say not removed?
ST: Because it doesn't say here it was - 'borderline' doesn't usually get removal.

He even knows the moderators' terminology. VERY au fait with this spreadsheet! Who wants to bet he sat up in bed rereading it every night until 3am?

Shout out to @SinnerBoy

In the words of my favourite fictional alien: Kung kung!

How did he get access to it?

SAR or FOI maybe?

I thought witnesses could not be compelled to use preferred pronouns?
Officers of the court can be, and were in this case were, told to do so, with the occasional slip excused.
Is that different from what the Judge wrote in reply to NC? I'd have to go back and find it to check..

Its going to be interesting to see DEFRA/RPA witnesses as based on STs evidence. I think they, and the CS, have tried to adjust strategically and practically in response to a changing legal landscape. I think this may come over as a bit haphazard but well meaning in evidence backed by following a grievances process.

The one person who should be concerned is the appeal officer.

It’s clear GI and Stonewall law were embedded and promoted as lawful across the CS.

The Forstater EAT in June 2021 was case law and CS/departments will all have reviewed the judgement and thought - oh 💩.

There were also other ET wins e.g Alison, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Meade etc plus the DCMS costly settlement with Eleanor Francis.

Cabinet Office took a lead, with input from depts they allowed SEEN to be set up. Given the plethora of other groups they could hardly say no.

Departments started to slowly pivot from TWAW/TWAM no debate to GC and GI are both beliefs and deserving of equal treatment at work. This has caused a huge meltdown by TRA and allies as they had been so used to being the special ones and now were being told no.