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.

From TT:

NC - you prev read that carefully
Ed - not seen until just now
NC - is there anything in that material you have had her statement for some time?
ED I think I got it in a bundle on maybe wed of last week
NC - so you haven't read it at all
ED no I haven't had time

NC - look at what she says there, anything there she misrepresents, anything?
ED para 13, internal defra incidents
NC - we will move on
para 19 1 and 2 of your statement..

NC - that ref to EW blog on Why SEEN is important
ED - yes I said I believe it was her who wrote it, gut feeling
NC - gut feeling? You have done a lot of research
ED - no because we are the trans network. Nobody would tell us who on committee

Edited as I was wrong, I think.

From my bundle

Para 13 ED WS

I am concerned that the line between holding a belief and expressing it in a harassing manner is being crossed a lot when it comes to the gender-critical beliefs in the civil service, particularly within Defra (see below). I believe that this has amounted to harassment. I know that, while gender-critical beliefs are protected, they are protected as just that – beliefs. I know that, while the way in which beliefs are expressed in the workplace can be limited, there is no such thing as limiting the ‘expression’ of gender reassignment. Because of that, we are not even dealing with competing beliefs being exchanged, but rather one belief being
expressed in a way which is deeply distressing to a group of people who have protection against discrimination and harassment.

From TT:

ED - I am the chair of a cross gov network, a stable, we work together
NC - you refer in statement to that blog - p684 main bundle. This is the doc you describe in such emotional terms. You accept there are 2 views on whether it's wise to tell children docs can change sex

NC - is it wise or resp to tell children they can change sex
ED don't think anyone doing that
NC - put another way - is it wise to encourage children to think that may be in the wrong kind of body?
ED unclear

J - the witness expresses her view about the theory of that, don't need to debate the prinicple
NC asking her to agree that there are two views, there are 2 views on how to deal with gender distress
ED medically and psycho supported

@fanOfBen
All these abbreviations are doing my head in, especially NB for someone who probably isn't an enby, and MLF because my brain always hallucinates an i into it 😬 thankfully that one hasn't appeared outside of the list so far

Ignore me this is Emma WS not Elspeths

Close to malignancy

From TT:

NC - there are two views ?
ED - I don't know! Out of my wheel house

NC - Interv bundle...Impartiality and finding common ground - p14 to first para next page
please read the whole of p15 and let me know when you have done so

NC - SEEN agrees with you that there shouldn't be workplace activism in support of content. views?
J - hold on..
NC take up this clip of docs, your 5 dec 23 email to D Underwood with attachments...

NC - your v familiar with that as you wrote it
ED yes
NC - that email demonstrates a dedicated stalking of AM to get dismissed
ED no he sought us out to abuse us

It also shows how riddled with disagreements their project/coalition is - it's mainly their hatred for the evil TERFS that keeps them from completely falling out with each other

From TT:

J - sorry just trying to catch up
NC - one detail p5, you start 'many of tweets...first bullet point - anti trans dogwhistles - 'transwoman' as written as one word
ED - inclusive is to say trans woman is same as black woman, tall woman, you believe that there are 'women' and

NC - an eg of language control
ED - no it's because people absol know there are two diff ways to write this, one is offensive to inclusive feminists.

NC that control you exert vigorously as you don't want people to speak in plain terms
ED I can't police all I can do is highlight where language might be a problem
NC - ref to EW statement 166

ED - I don't know! Out of my wheel house
Interesting choice of words - in fact, I never heard it before, but I can guess what it means.
'Above my pay grade' might have been too close to the bone...

From TT:

NC - would you also read para 185 - 187 same subject
NC - won't be news to you?
ED familiar with
NC - go to page 685 Interv. Bundle

NC - email from member of SEEN to Jason ? among others, please read 3 para, starting 'unfortunately' and last para that page, down to about half way down before 'summary'
do you have those?

NC clarifies what needs to be read

And the Land Registry are cutting down on the paper deeds copies they hold, so lots of information on (for example) access rights is being lost. It is nigh on impossible to prove or disprove that anyone has access rights over land you own, or that you have access rights over land someone else owns, and very expensive to go to court to have it adjudicated.

From TT:

NC - the complaint raised was well founded wasn't it
ED no I don't think it was.
NC - so do you say not well founded because the facts not true or discreditable?

ED - I don't understand allegations made, what I do know is land reg has had a lot of complaints, FoI requests relating to my role, some of those have disclosed I have got emails etc relating to SEEN colleagues.

NC - it is clear there was a great deal of info in your posession passed on to you by people in defra
ED - no not true
NC defra treated as a data breach and self reported
ED I don't think that's true, wouldn't know if it is

Ha ha ha the spies and snoops led DEFRA to self report a data breach. Well played & good process DEFRA.

From TT:

NC - Int Bundle p956. You accept subject access requests are for material in your possession
ED - yes
NC you say that swiftly
ED I know about the SA Requests

NC - page 966 please turn. An example - we see that one of the things found in your possess sharing an email reply EW to defra (refers to specific requests)
J - what are these?
NC - the witness has agreed
Subject access requests AM and AW
J - responses to SARs made by AM

NC they were in ED possession
J - these docs are?
NC the responses from the Land Registry, yes
J - where do they start?

NC - you prev read that carefully
Ed - not seen until just now
NC - is there anything in that material you have had her statement for some time?
ED I think I got it in a bundle on maybe wed of last week
NC - so you haven't read it at all
ED no I haven't had time

ED is not really engaging with the process, demonstrating contempt.

ED doesn't need to engage. She is RIght.

From TT:

[my note: answer to "where does it start?"]

956 to 970
J - you accept these are responses to LR
ED yes they are
NC - 966 one pieces of info on your possession, EW message 'early Jan would be brilliant'
ED yes I can see that

NC - see what that is part of - 746 same bundle
we see that is part of email chain, p749. Goes on quite a way to 740.
J - arranging a meeting?
ED I haven't seen full chain, I must have had part of the chain revealed in sub access request

ED at Defra it looks like
NC - don't know how much in your hands
NC - there is an important point in the SAreponses
J but you are leafing through pages, what is this about
NC the point is it was in ED possession

Thanks to all the lovely ladies on here for keeping us updated. I've paid some carrots on the crowdfunding for Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley, the crowdfunder came up once I googled her. Elspeth now has £76,858 out of the £90,000 she needs to fund her court case.

I don't believe that someone as keen as she is for power and control would not have read that witness statement.

From TT:

NC - the nature is to trawl through detailed documents
J how many more
NC two more pages
Turn please to 29 March 2023 - in case it's helpful this is who is on steering group of SEEN.

NC someone feeding you info on who was on SEEN
ED - nobody will tell me who these people are, it was really odd there was so much mystery, and they say 'oh I know some of the names' so that's what this is about

NC - 965 please. 'inc MS Teams message - list of emails of leaving and joining meeting, times EW left and joined. This shows you with the collusion of senior people in defra keeping SEEN under surveilance
ED no

Neither do I. I'd have expected to her to have read it multiple times, making copious use of the red pen she was holding whilst doing so.

Blimey, she should have been working for MI5, not EA

NC - the nature is to trawl through detailed documents
from memory, yesterday she had to say that the nature of x-exam is to ask difficult qq!