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.

She’s got really nice hair.

I googled her chambers page.

Boiledbeetle · Today 16:16

Shout out to SinnerBoy

I'm starting to get a bit nervous, in case I'm outed...

Oh, you rascal.

Eyes. Ears. The usual. And this is while she is miles away and about an inch high.

What is the judge's name?

Mmm....notsure I want to know😦

No, I am Spartacus @SinnerBoy !

They'll be looking for a middle aged woman though!

Are you sure there wasn't a theatrical pause there?

From TT:

HH: And on p141 [missed who from] - asks can you talk to A or B tomorrow - is this an example of what you means?
ST: Yes says EDW has made threat of discrimination claim - I know there are at least 2 in bundle where EDW says "this is direct discrimination"

HH: You were asked about EDW being able to contact senior management and told you could have too, you said Janet Murray said for you to contact Bal toor but when you did were told to use the 'business as usual' channel

HH page - not sure hold on
J: Is it 650?
HH: Not sure - I will move on now, can cross-exam others on it if necessary.

HH: You were challenged on relationship, friendship, with Emma Dunn, NC said you knew ppl in a@Gender and cd have got help from them. How did you become friends with ED?

HH: Did you know her before these events?
ST: No, I think it was because of these events, not just this claim but the department in general.
HH: Did she assist you at meetings?
ST: I think yes came to one

I though beetles scavenged😄

I think we're all a bit bored now, apparently 😄

Its curious how Mr Tempest can easily answer the J and HH questions directly but less so, in response to NC. I know she is more than able to manage the nonsense but it has given me a nippy head.

Well, now they won't!

For once being generally invisible to society would pay off!

Interaruptaron works very well for me, I hear it in the same tone/note as 'this is the voice of the mysterons....'

Which along with gronda'ing to the aspidistra seems to fit conversations like this extremely well.

And is far more sane and sensible than anything that's happened in that court room today.

From TT:

HH: Can you remember which one?
ST: Not sure no

HH: FInally - you were told no SEEN member had ever referred to you with sexed pronouns - look at page [missed] - she says "him" here?
ST: Yes

HH: What effect does that have on you, in the workplace
ST: Unnecessary, unhelpful, unbalances my whole day and more.

HH: No more Qs.

Elspeth is about 52, could be menopausal and if it's still very hot in that courtroom could be trying for more reasons than being autistic.

So, this lad is being indulged to the hilt, and his diktats imposed on others by the judge. Whereas EW is being treated unfavourably to the extent she herself will be hamstrung and handicapped as to what she can and cannot say as per the claimant’s whims.

It is kafkaesque.

doogy rev

Boiledbeetle · Today 16:33

They'll be looking for a middle aged woman though!

Well, they were .... !!

It does seem as is ST is trying not to name or implicate any of his allies and supporters, for some reason. He insinuated that Emma Dunn had only been to one meeeting, but then claimed he couldn't remember which one. Sounds like there may have been quite a few meetings.

ST: Yes says EDW has made threat of discrimination claim - I know there are at least 2 in bundle where EDW says "this is direct discrimination"

It's hard to tell without seeing the evidence being referred to but saying something is direct discrimination is not the same as threatening to make a discrimination claim

HH: No more Qs.

Oh thank fuck for that.

From TT:

J: One last point - you were referred p141 re EDW threatening claims. This is not from her, it's someone else saying so. Do you know anywhere she actually does?
ST: Am sure there are two emails in bundle, but don't have refs

ST: And, you are not going to say to business that it is discrimination, if you're not going to do anything about it.

AL: Can I just raise - housekeeping - we have Emma Dunn for C will take up most of tomorrow. R witness David H is not in country next week, but that does mean he will be heard out of order - 2nd grievance - so I apologise for that.

J: ST that concludes your evidence so you are released from not talking about things now.

[END OF SESSION]

My note: this seems a bit of a side issue - we wouldn't be here if it wasn't ok to make an ET claim, would we now?