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.

NC: You have had an extraordinary level of access and influence across CS for years?
ED: No
NC: So the achievement list is false?
ED: No we achieved that even though nobody listens to us.

😂😂😂😂😂

Having read EDs witness statements and now seeing this jam /cream discussion makes me wonder.

If you were going to do a network survey of the jam/cream or cream/ jam controversy and had decided to phrase survey statements for consideration in non confrontational language to ensure there was no bias which could render your survey ineligible for consideration if ever you, say, needed evidence for a future employment tribunal would you then, having oh so carefully phrased your statements

open up the survey to anyone who would like to complete it

only allow the survey to be completed by people in your network who had previously expressed a preference and affinity for afternoon tea

only offer the survey for completion by people in your network who you understood to be residents of Cornwall.

It is fairly clear the ED and her network has had privileged access and institutional attention on so many levels - certainly in contrast the SEEN network...not enough for them though. Never enough!

And she still didn't take the hint.

NC: You have had an extraorrinary level of access and influece across CS for years?
ED: No
NC: So the achievement list is false?
ED: No we achieved that even though nobody listens to us.

We shouted at eleventy billion people yet no one listens - waaah!

I wonder why?

Is the J a bit thick? It was clear that was the point she was getting to. He doesn't have much tolerance for the intervenor's case and seems only willing to listen to anything OBVIOUSLY connected to the claim but it is necessary, of course, to knock down the implicit as well as the explicit.

NC: C's claim is of being isolated without any support, and the evidence is that there was a v powerful network -
J: OK. So, we have seen these documents now?

From TT:

NC: paras 12 and 13 of WS. You give your opinion on the merits of the C's claim?
ED: That C harassed?
NC: Yes
ED: Yes am saying I believe C harassed

NC: And at para 15 - your view of C claim
[assume ED nodded]
NC: para 47 - your opinion of effect on C of matters in these proceedings
ED: Yes

NC: your WS paras 41-47 - refresh your memory pls
[ED reads]
NC: you say handling of C grievance partic telling, that DEFRA handled wrong, shd not have SEEN network, you don't see why they would.
NC: All this, your opinion of C claim?
ED: Saying what I believe to be the case.

Another thread I haven’t the hope of catching up with. Darn work.

And the earth goes round the sun despite gravity and not because of it.

From TT:

NC: Your WS is not an expert report
ED: No
NC: The C has always been represented by experienced solicitors?
ED: Don't know
NC: You engaged with C solicitors to produce statement

J: Is there a rogue "not" here? ED is surely saying she think's it unlikely?
AL: Both NC and I understood not unlikely.

NC: para 11 of your WS, structure of SEEN. Position is: there is cross-gov SEEN?
ED: Yes
NC: And 4 departmental? Another 1 soon.
ED Don't know of any others

They say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This evidence is certainly extraordinary...

Well personally I'd only ask people who'd previously expressed horror at the thought of spreading the cream on first.

But then I'm totally neutral and inclusive. And on the right side of history.

Gah I have to ring my Nanna, keep it up, wims, I'll be back [Arnie]

From TT:

NC: And interest chapters - eg for parents, lesbian SEEN, and there are "interest groups" in depts not quite ready to formal network.
ED: I wouldn't know, no

NC: You say you first learned of SEEN 2022 when you met CabOffice. SEEN not invited?
ED: It was only me there, no other networks.

NC: WS para 12, you talk about tolerance, ppl should be able to have different opinions, but, ppl shd be mindful of how and when expressed so as not to create hostile environment for others. P587 (int) please

Getting the impression that the judge doesn't really think a tribunal and questioning is necessary, that he'd rather just read the W statements and accompanying docs and then make his ruling.

I'd just send it to myself, fill it in myself 4 times and then round up to the nearest 1000 the number of completed questionnaires

A:gender's survey design sounds - surprising.

"Yes-no may mean 'it's complicated'"

LOL!

Those with Swyer syndrome also need to take oestrogen & progesterone so they go through puberty & develop secondary sexual characteristics like breasts & pubic hair. As they have no functioning ovaries they will need lifelong HRT.

Wow, the post of chair of the a:Gender network was a full time role? For 5 years?

That's a lotta time and money to find things to be offended about!

From TT:

NC: It's an email, starts page before, from Naomi Parson on behalf of SEEN.
NC: NP complains of tweet by aG -
ED: Re-tweet, the Lemkin Institute
J page?
NC: 613

NC: 'Genocidal nature' of GC beliefs. Guaranteed to cause hostile environment, no?
ED: I suppose ppl might be offended if they didn't read article properly, but they cd complain to Lemkin Institute, we posted article without comment.

NC: You say it's OK for aG to post and article calling GC belief genocidal, but not acceptable for SEEN member to say sex is binary and immutable.
ED: That's not the point, not GC beliefs, the GC movement

I cannot find any interest in reading the rest of ED's witness statement. It is a narcissist's handbook so far.

Bingo - you have the job. Six years full time paid at a random group with a few hundred members and maybe a few hundred more enabling Grannies and sisters.

No one will listen to you and you will have to go harass ethnic minority groups because they invite people to talk about scientifically backed facts.

Oh and you have to literally love on big SaMANtha Tempest. And BELIEVE in her and CLAP so she continues to exist.

It says both a lot and very little of relevance.

Makes Tinkerbell's 6 months of grifting on the taxpayers dime look positively puny.

Genocidal will go down as the most hyperbolic and over-used term to describe something your supposed enemy does that offends or upsets you.