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.

Boily, I have neither! Well, I have coffee beans but the electricity for the time being.

Weep for me. It's nearly as traumatic as a pleasant picture book for preschoolers.

Thank you for the new thread.

I do have two of those hotel type sachets of Mellow Birds. So technically coffee, with an amount of caffeine in it to write home about, is off the table here also.

Again I respectfully disagree. It is clear from the judgment that Kemp had a baised, Stonewalled, view which had nothing to do with being 'kept on side' which is, in my view, a mental approach to how adversarial law should be conducted and is usually only applied to women lawyers. It should not matter if the advocate plays nicey nicey with the J, they shouldn't be 'kept on side' they should be able to be Switzerland, so to speak, because that is the job they are paid to. Being nicey nicey as the whole TRA success has proved gets the total wrong result in all circs. Here we even can demonstrably see that Esther played nicey nicey all the way through and has still been meeted out extraordinarty punishment throughout. It does not provide the ingredients for a positive outcome. Never has. But we still think women should be deferential to the expectations of male hierarchies. FUCK THAT! Sorry but I am so frustrated by the expectation that NC must be prevented from calling a spade a spade to the narcissist and that somehow being nice and kind to the J will improve her chances of winning. The J should be able to despise an advocate and still find on the evidence, not the manner.

It is odd that he asserts that a children’s book is transphobic, but when questioned on it cries, and then NC is prevented from examining him re this.

Indeed.

People who are watching ( i'm not - I'm just following Tribunal Tweets) have said that there is a lot of tension in the air and it seems to be directed at NC. I suspect the reason for that is not down to them being ideologically captured, but down to some of Naomi's style....

The judge described the addition of " at taxpayer's expense" as unnecessary and oppressive. She could have just mentioned that ST had taken six months of sick leave ,and in her view this was a method of protest and a way to attempt to get what he wanted. "At taxpayer's expense" adds nothing to the case.

From TT:

We return
J - timetable NC how much longer
NC - I have quite a few more topics, I think I'm going to go into the afternoon, I hope I won't need the whole of the afternoon.
J - thank you, helpful

NC - you gave the impression, correct if wrong, that there was no suitable networks to represent you in DEFRA
ST - I said there was no a:gender
NC - there are in fact plenty of networks willing and able to fight your corner for you
ST - no
NC - page 850

ST yes
NC - email from Simon Prince, lists the network of which you are a member, agender, LGBT network, another not relevant,
ST - The only one that is relevant, is the RPA LGBT Network, that network has GC members and because of that they remained silent
NC - did you approach

Did they say they couldn't help you because they didn't agree?
ST - trying to remember exactly how it was expressed to me, I don't remember how it was expressed to me but it was clear that they were expected to take a neutral stance
NC - who was that
ST - I can't be certain but a

network lead
NC - you can't give a name or you don't want ot
ST - I don't want to give the wrong name, I'm not certain
NC - now onto SEEN group, not allowed to join, under basic moderation principles, people should never be excluded from a private community because of beliefs

NC - did you approach
Did they say they couldn't help you because they didn't agree?
ST - trying to remember exactly how it was expressed to me, I don't remember how it was expressed to me but it was clear that they were expected to take a neutral stance
NC - who was that
ST - I can't be certain but a
network lead
NC - you can't give a name or you don't want ot
ST - I don't want to give the wrong name, I'm not certain

Bloody hell. NO would have been so much quicker and easier!

It's not about being nice and kind, so much as using her fantastic, sharp legal brain to its best effect in sticking to the most salient points, rather than in getting carried away by trying to expound and educate the court on how trans ideology operates ( which she does tend to do quite a lot).

From TT:

only because of behaviour. Nothing to stop you from joining.
ST - yes there was, an email from EW saying that couldn't accept membership changes from all, because they don't take everyone as members
J - page number,
ST - 1200
NC - these are 2 different things

you can't join the network because you don't share it's values
ST - starts to respond
J - how about two simple propositions
NC - two things; who can join the SEEN network and who can join the SEEN yammer group
ST - no that's not the case,
NC - you say because you didn't join the

SEEN network (didn't share it's values) you couldn't join the Yammer group,
ST - yes
NC - returns to moderation rules, it's perfectly clear you couldn't be excluded from the Yammer group
ST - but communities put up standards, for example this community uses sex based language

ST has been enabled by DEFRA to work full time on a harrassment campaign whilse being on full paid sick leave.

Yes, this was (supposed to be) my point, thanks for putting it more succinctly!

The J is very out of touch. That was one of the things that really annoyed me, as a taxpayer, just a couple of days ago, the C manipulative behaviour and abuse of an overly generous sick policy, merely because he had the vapours about a different opinion. And C's language is highly rhetorical and ridiculous.

This. I don't understand where this idea was ever allowed to take hold.

We don't get a choice over our bodies. They charge beyond all recognition when we are pregnant. Some people are born with facial differences, some lose limbs in accidents.

No one doesn't struggle with such things (even with perfectly ordinary bodies). I don't know why the idea I'm in the wrong body ' was so easily accepted.

It's a factual statement.

Legal question - as representing intervenor does NC question RPA’s witnesses as well - I’m assuming so?

See my above quote. She is asking important points of the witness, points which relate to his WS, and which also point out how DEFRA has enabled his full time work on harassment from home, might not be to the taste of the court or the judgge but why do we always expect women to be nice? Court and trials, yes including ETs, are adversarial. There is always tension because witnesses are often accused of lying, or of doing worse. Here it is also important to establish that ST is not just a manipulating narcissist exploiting the system but that he has been enabled to do so on full pay, from home, by DEFRA. That might not be polite to mention but it is wholly relevant.

Why do we love to scold women so much for being the cause of any tension when in fact the tension here is actually all being caused by ST and the J. He has been tetchy from the off and I would imagine that is not a new condition for him, he clearly has form at it given how comfortable he is with being tetchy. Why blame NC for that? FFS

We'll never know now what exactly makes this book 'transphobic'. How convenient.

'ST - The only one that is relevant, is the RPA LGBT Network, that network has GC members and because of that they remained silent
NC - did you approach
Did they say they couldn't help you because they didn't agree?
ST - trying to remember exactly how it was expressed to me, I don't remember how it was expressed to me but it was clear that they were expected to take a neutral stance'

He sees neutrality as hostile. That should be pretty telling.

From TT:

and cis and cis-gendered are offensive to some people. So it's impossible for a trans person to join because they would be mis-gendered, confronted by sex based language, unable to express themselves.
NC - you're pointing to the example standards, do you know what SEEN applied

in terms of standards
ST - I believe those were the standards, do we have a the standards used in the bundle
NC - I ask the questions here and you answer them. You self excluded from the group because you would find the language distressing
ST - they were happy to exclude me

J - did you try and join the network
ST - no I did not
NC - but Dominic Fary joined
ST - I don't think he did
NC - he was passing you information so he must have joined
ST - it was only info from public posts

Man is tetchy, clearly comfortable by ruling space with his tetchiness so it is clearly behaviour of longstanding, woman must be careful not to say anything that might exacerbate it? Please!

I think it's worth discussing tactics.

What I'm not ever clear on is accepted standards and methods of behaviour in context.

I dont agree. I think it is another example of his entitlement taking things he is is not really entitled to. 6 months full paid sick leave because you dont like someone else having a different opinion is taking the fucking piss.

To be clearer - is it a good or a bad thing to piss off a judge? Are we looking at this ET in isolation or as part of a longer strategy?

From TT:

NC - para 21c of your WS, you mention a number of guidance documents, do you accept that guidance docs are not law and if law is different then the law should be followed.
ST - yes, if the law is different
NC - same with recommendations following g/x, if recs are against the law

they cannot be implemented. ST - yes NC - back to the gi & intersex guidance, want to draw your attention to a few spec lines, then ask a general question; def on trans as umbrella terms, in DEFRA a trans person will be supported whatever transition entails, and all individuals