Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 4

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549122-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-3

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.

Canadaian here with Welsh parentage and who lives in France where you cannot get clotted cream so I like either lemon and light sugar or go for a thick cream and maple syrup mash up on my Welsh Cakes.

My mum is coming over soon so I think I'll get some made next week.

I love Lanhydrock, wish I could live there.

Well scone. Porn stole the show which i am vexed about, nae harassed.

I prefer tunnocks as i can approach them from a variety of eating methods, depending on my mood.

AL: We see complainant is dominic Berry [DB} - you know him?
ED: Yes
AL: He agrees with you, GC views shd not be expressed in teh workplaec? ED:Seems so yes

It's easy to make your own clotted cream.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/user/627029/recipe/clotted-cream

From ED witness statement:

38. The core beliefs quoted were taken from SEEN’s external website The responses to the survey show that even a statement of the basic founding beliefs of SEEN causes harassment when expressed in a workplace context and with the support of the employer.

It's painting a pic of a group of malcontents, fired up on spite and resentment, getting together to target people in order to get them sacked and ruin they're lives and all paid for by us. 🤬

These workplace groups have got to go.

I haven't had any lunch, but I do have a pot of clotted cream in the fridge. You lot are a bad influence.

Oh wait, are they back?

AL: p22 we see Bal Toor interviewed, you know as HR?
ED: Yes
AL: p25 we see Caroline Airs also participated?
ED: Yes
AL: p30 para 7.2.6 please read
ED: [reads]
AL: It's right isn't it that the conclusion of this report, which is square on with part of this claim, is that DEFRA allowing SEEN-DEFRA was not only reasonable, it was in line with EA 2010 obligations?
ED: How did they decide this, did they talk to trans ppl, or just go off on their own?
AL: I am asking the Qs here, but, can remind you that PQ participated - a transwoman
ED: Yes

The case has re-started......see transcripts above.....

Carolyn would have sorted all of this out with a tribunal. Between "only Father Christmas cares about what you want" and "We have a complaint? Oh dear me. Tell you what: why don’t you write it down, put it in an envelope, tear it in half, throw it away, and shut your face?" she has the answers.

They clearly don't have enough work to!

AL: It's right isn't it that the conclusion of this report, which is square on with part of this claim, is that DEFRA allowing SEEN-DEFRA was not only reasonable, it was in line with EA 2010 obligations?

ED: How did they decide this, did they talk to trans ppl, or just go off on their own?
AL: I am asking the Qs here, but, can remind you that PQ participated - a transwoman
ED: Yes

AL: Conclusion is, not only permissible but actively OK under EA 2010
ED: Completely disagree.
AL: p33 para 7.2.18 please read, note it goes over the page
ED: [reads]
AL: Conclusion is that DEFRA permitting DEFRA-SEEN to use dept channels such as Yammer also part of legal duty in EA 2010 ED: It's what they say yes
AL: Correct conclusion
ED: Again I disagree
AL: And that mention of GC belief does not meet definition of harassment, and, where there are disagreements there is a moderation process to deal with
ED: I don't know anything about DEFRA bullying & harassment policies or their moderations. But yes I accept that is what
the report says.

For a while it was a noble but bloody arena.

Yellow car!

AL: p33 para 7.2.18 please read, note it goes over the page
ED: [reads]
AL: Conclusion is that DEFRA permitting DEFRA-SEEN to use dept channels such as Yammer also part of legal duty in EA 2010
ED: It's what they say yes

AL: The existence of moderation process means the report conclusion - that hosting a network does not mean DEFRA agrees with those ppl
ED: That is them hand-washing
AL: Not so - the moderation process would apply to all beliefs not just GC / trans-identity ones
ED: Don't know what you are asking. That is what they say. [very fast - missed some]
AL: You say "washing their hands" - that's not correct. We are looking at a complaint by DB investigated by CS-Inv, DEFRA participated (BT and CA)

AL: Conclusion is, not only permissible but actively OK under EA 2010
ED: Completely disagree.

Is she in anyway qualified to disagree?

ED: I don't know anything about DEFRA bullying & harassment policies or their moderations.

Of course she doesn't. Wouldn't suit her purposes at all to have knowledge of something like anti-bullying policies.

AL: Correct conclusion
ED: Again I disagree
AL: And that mention of GC belief does not meet definition of harassment, and, where there are disagreements there is a moderation process to deal with

AL: The existence of moderation process means the report conclusion - that hosting a network does not mean DEFRA agrees with those pp
ED: That is them hand-washing

They simply cannot tolerate any dissent at all, can they?

Thank you! I often think about channeling Carolyn when people are being ridiculous at work :)

AL: You say "washing their hands" - that's not correct. We are looking at a complaint by DB investigated by CS-Inv, DEFRA participated (BT and CA)