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.

NC - you said that ED is a friend, and given her presence here supporting you everyday, a close friend
ST - well, we know each other

'well, we know each other'
If I were ED, I'd be revising my Christmas card list, checking it twice, and sorting out the close friends from people she just knows...😄

NC - agender is a cross civil network ED is your friend you are a member
ST - yes I am
NC - so part of it's job is to represent you
ST - I guess so

This comes across as needlessly truculent. Why not just say yes?

Why shouldn’t NC get that on the record? I’m kinda sick of legal processes insisting we pretend blindness to important pivots. His credibility is being called into question because it is clear for any average reader of TT to see that he is clever enough to manipulate the system and was enjoying being paid not to do the work he was employed to but to mount a campaign of harassment. Let’s not forget that whilst this is now a case against DEFRA and RPA up until a month or so ago go he was pursuing Esther and Andrea’s as respondents and has embroiled another in his games who dropped out at that point. DEFRA have wholly enable him to do this at the taxpayers expense to the point where he clearly believed this was another ‘right’ he has because he is special ( see Special Leave request). That is extraordinary and I think it is important as context with regard to STs credibility. The J may feel he has ‘got’ the point but that would be a lot to assume for any advocating counsel I think.

It's a good point, however I am concerned that the judge thinks NC is making this stuff up to be "contentious ", rather than just asking questions about actual things that happen. I'm not confident that the judge knows enough about this subject area to make informed decisions. So, if he is asking his panel colleagues about issues, not realising he may be talking to panel activists, and he hasn't read the Bench Book updates, then he will be being fed incorrect information.

It's always a Men Problem, isn't it?

ST - she's a friend but I would never cross the line, to ask her to act on behalf, just because I have a friend who possibly has power (DEFRA no link to agender), I wouldn't ask her to use that power

Heaven forfend. 🙄

Agree, it took me a while to realise this is what was happening when I was trying to get my DH to understand why this was an issue I cared about. It took years and he’s still stuck on knowing he’s wrong but he doesn’t want to have to encounter these men himself in more intimate environments like the men’s toilets now he knows what many of them are like. He does at least now agree women really shouldn’t have to deal with them

From TT:

I couldn't see what asking agender to help would do
J - did you discuss it with ED?
ST - of course, I've spoken to her but never once asked her to wield her influence to get some sort of change
NC - didn't hear, please repeat
ST repeats.
HH - don 't want to interrupt..good time

for a break?
NC - yes, it is
J - was there a comparable network within DEFRA
ST - [answer inaudible]
J - we will break until 11:45
Morning session part 1, ends.

Don't wheel the fainting chaise into the storeroom yet though - it may still be needed

NC: Para 127, you are complaining bitterly that you no longer have the sense of freedom to help yourself to things provided for women.

Love this comment by Naomi.

And talk about the abuse they endured. Yet ST can’t even read a children’s book

Some things are best implied, rather than spelt out, or dealt with in submission.

J - was ED chair of agender during this whole period
ST - you should probably put that to ED

ST is letting his cleverness get the better of him - that is NOT the way a fragile shrinking vulnerable violet who crumples in the face of children's book speaks to a judge in a tribunal.

Remember what caused Oscar Wilde's downfall? clever, cheeky answer to a question he should just have said yes or not to!

ST - she's a friend but I would never cross the line, to ask her to act on behalf, just because I have a friend who possibly has power (DEFRA no link to agender), I wouldn't ask her to use that power

There was so much repetition by him on this point that TT understandably didn't record all of it.
He protesteth way too much.

Judge seems a bit over-sensitive today, asking Naomi to "tone down the oppressive rhetoric".

Yup!
I wish they'd sort their own shit out.

Is it possibly because the judge has realised just how poisoned the chalice is that he’s been handed and he’s trying to stop NC from making him look too foolish? If he is, it’s not working because surely he’s just opening up more and more grounds for appeal if SEEN lose?
or am I missing something?

ST - of course, I've spoken to her but never once asked her to wield her influence to get some sort of change

I just assumed my constant whinging and raging about SEEN really wanting me to blink out of existence, despite them not actually ever stating that, and that they'd said I was mentally ill, despite them never actually stating that either. All of that was more than enough to ensure ED didn't need asking for anything. She helped me out of the goodness of her heart. I placed no emotional pressure on her whatsoever.

There's been a lot of swearing here when I've been watching. I hope a PP is correct when they say maybe the judge is too used to self-representing Claimants and allowing them a lot of leeway. Because stopping NC's examination about a key part of the Claimant's WS because the Claimant got emotional seemed extraordinary to me. I'm just remembering Prof Phoenix's cross-examination and how it was so evidently difficult for her having to re-explain past traumas. The judge ensured breaks etc but didn't stop the questioning in that hearing.

Claimant is represented by highly experienced solicitors and a barrister. No coddling is needed.

Not if you think the judge has been corrupted, or you think he won't read the full submissions. I think NC was right to get the "taxpayer" comment on record. We don't know what anyone ever needs when they go to appeal, best not to leave things to chance. ST is suing a governmental body, who has partially enabled this by using public funds to further ST's campaign of delusion. That should be said and noted.

Oof.

I know. Sorry if my comment looked like that. I was thinking of the difference in feel yesterday after the changeover between AL and NC questioning.

ST seems very tuned in to issues of power; who does and doesn't have any.

As I said, I did find her question sharp-intake-of-breath inducing, the 'at taxpayer's expense' upped the heat quite a bit.
If someone is a civil servant, obviously anything to do with their pay is 'at the taxpayer's expense.

I wasn't surprised the judge intervened, but 'tone down the rhetoric' wasn't a very judgy-y thing to say, was it? 'Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?' or something would have been less aggressive towards NC.

I

"can you rephrase please" is fine, calling NC's questions "oppressive" crossed the line for me.