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.

Surely it is the job of the claimant’s counsel to intervene if the claimant appears to be distressed, not the job of the judge?

The judge appears to be angry at NC as she has forced him to see and hear things he would rather not.

Not when it comes to credibility I don’t think. The problem, often, is when people don’t spell things out. It is difficult to claim a harm in the submission, I believe, when the C has not been given a opp to respond to it in cross. I think because she put it to the C she can now legitimately make points around and about it in submission.

Hm.

It seems we have an ideologue for a judge.

Sometimes one can lose the ET but win the war. Sometimes its best to make concessions and sometimes its best to push the point ...

Beaming good wishes towards NC. It's a very hard tightrope to walk, I imagine.

No coddling is needed.

I was thinking the same. A tribunal (instigated by ST, I might add) is a place to get to the truth, as far as is possible, and apply the law. Not a 'safe space' for fragile individuals who can't cope with the real world. ST brought this on himself.

Could be struggling with cognitive dissonance? Sometimes this makes people irritable and snippy.

There seemed to be a lot of guessing towards the end of the session(e.g.)

J - did you consider asking agender to support you in your concerns
ST - it's a cross government network, I contacted the Cabinet Office myself they said they couldn't help me, I guess

Now that we are in a break, do observers think that this was a reasonable response or is the claimant just avoiding giving an answer that may contradict something said earlier?

I love NC, but the "at taxpayers' expense" was a bit unnecessary 🤣

I do think Naomi can over-egg the ideological side of things - which can have the effect of alienating the judge and panel.

Unless RPA/DEFRA made special arrangements then 6 months full paid sickness leave is standard policy and authorised based on medical fit notes. I think the J was right to intervene then. Whatever we may think about ST, fitness to work isn't something that lawyers have authority over.

ST does not like to give yes or no answers - any time those answers are given it is in a very sullen or snippy manner.

Like Dr Upton, ST appears to want to control the narrative and really really doesn't like it when they can't turn the question around to an answer they had pre-prepared (see any politician on the tv). Whenever ST says something like "I guess" it is in the reluctant tone of a teenager seeing no way out of not answering the question.

I think Naomi needs to be careful and maybe a little more circumspect with her wording and comments. She has a tendency for rhetorical flourishes and smart -arse comments - which can make it look like she is trying to rub the claimants face in it.

This is certainly what happened in the Peggie case and this judge will be aware of NC's conduct in that case

The judge does have a responsibility to the complainant, if the complainant is distressed they would normally call a break. The fact that they did not may mean that he saw the "distress" as a performance, I hope so.

Judge also has a duty to counsel to allow them to present their client's case. He seems to have forgotten that one.

He was cross at the out set, was he not, by the disclosures shambles and my impression was he was frustrated that there was an intervenor at all and, I suspect, specifically targeted at the NC repping SEEN.

Indeed, DEFRA's sickpay policies and NC's opinion of the same are utterly irrelevant - if anything, some here should be grateful to the judge for intervening before she can dig herself into a deeper hole.

I got the impression she was building to one of her big mic-drop moments, and this judge isn't very tolerant of them.

I'm wholly fueled by caffeine and chocolate this am.

Just saying.

I wholly disagree. She is making extremely important points to the claimaint in cross and if she doesn't do so she can't work with them in terms of her submission. ST has been enabled by DEFRA to work full time on a harrassment campaign whilse being on full paid sick leave. That is extraordinary and it wholly merits being raised and put to the Claimant. The fact that the judge wouldn't allow C to answer because he went down his own hyberbolic response is the actual issue.

From TT:

We are waiting for Part 2 of the morning session, 1 July, to resume. See thread below for background, links and Part 1 of the morning session.
NC will be continuing her x-exam of ST.

<note, the court room itself appears to have been disconnected from the CVP>

I have no chocolate.

Pretty sure it will be.

For info, 'My Body is Me' is an absolutely gorgeous wee book. Perfect for small children.

https://www.transgendertrend.com/product/my-body-is-me/

It's a travesty that Rachel Rooney has been pushed out of children's publishing. She is so gifted.

Subsequent events have suggested that this was part of the problem - she was pushed out of the industry by people who lack her skill and heart.

See also Kate Clanchy.

Yes, she needs to stick to the facts and the sequence of actions.......because there is enough in those things to throw the claim out. ST was obviously employing double standards and prepared to pull any levers he could lay his hands on; and it was his behaviour and response that initiated the personal attacks on EDW.

Also, imagine if JR had commented on the length of time Sandie Peggie received full pay "at the taxpayer's expense. That would also be technically true. Regardless of what we believe was going on in each case, the employment tribunal has to be a place where people can bring cases against employers and get a fair hearing regardless of sickness leave.

In almost every other respect I think NC has been spot on, and the J looks to have shown strong bias in favour of ST wrt the TiM/TW directions.

His response to the judge 'you should ask her yourself' came across as very snippy and inappropirate.

And it suggests that he is not at all intimidated by the surroundings, the process, the seriousness, the oath-taking, the status of the judge - which you'd expect from a fragile flower/shrinking violet who 'crumples' and has to go off sick when things don't go 100% his way at work, and cries rather than having to explain what he things is wrong with a children's book.