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 - 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

Fucking hell. These people

ETA: decided not to comment at this point 😊

Do we get to meet Cleo Lunt, who can tell us "exciting grammar facts"?
https://www.civilservice.lgbt/conference/cleo-lunt/

From TT:

Tribunal is currently on a short break. Return - not before 11:00 am. Reporting of 2nd morning session will be on this thread, all background and abbreviations are in thread QT'd.

^t.co/wwGcGG8eux^

Some discussion about ED's health conditions
J - are you feeling well enough to answer some questions?
J - we have heard evidence about the subject of post moderation - somebody in defra would examine posts if appropriate.

agender as a network would reg post on the intranet
No
J - did you post blog articles/
ED - only Twitter and website, shut twitter now not website
J any complaints about material on website#
ED no
J comments about anything elsewhere
ED twitter everything a wave of abuse

J - in q to you you referred to SEENs mission statement. Have a look at it. P353. Do you see that the statement is stated to promote sex eq between women and me
n. Did you monitor posts?
ED a lot of the time things were referred to me by distressed members

J - did you see material that was not referred to you by distressed members
ED yes probably
J - did SEEN post any material about sex equality more generally, how women treated by depts at work, eg maternity leave
ED more generally, they wrote about women in sport, the olympics

A:gender non-binary co-chair Cleo Lunt, grade 7 lawyer would be one candidate

The mind pictures when I see 'distressed members' in this subject area.

From TT:

J - at work?
ED not that I recall
J - in your evidence, you referred to trying to have a debate, not the one SEEN was having. Did SEEN try to debate with you on anything else
ED refused to debate with us
J any reason?

ED we were told we would not learn reasons.
ED cabinet would not tell us why wouldn't meet with us

J - you were taken to the exch of letters with CSRF early 2023 I think started with agender letter of complaint about the SEEN event,
ED we raised letter of concern about their standards
J what was aim?
ED to help them understand why members were so upset.

ED plenty of really offensive and distressing comments being made

As someone said yesterday, I am looking forward to hearing Elspeth's side of the story on why there was no meeting. I can think of several reasons why I would not want to attend such a meeting but I probably shouldn't speculate at this point ...

From TT:

J - in your evidence Mr ? referred you to a number of Defra edi policies and your observation about those was that Defra didn't follow those. Did you raise concern about this?

ED - I had already had a meeting with NB that was the outcome meeting that they were not going to implement findings, so clear nobody at defra was going to listen to me. didn't know where to go after that

J - letter your wrote Dec 2022 - to a number of people.
AM line manager also Nicola ?
ED yes
J unusual to send a letter like this?
ED not in 30 years

J - Why did you write to NB?
ED - she was a senior HR role in defra and we had met in March meeting
J - What was your reason for writing to Mr Muller's line mrg
ED that's how you raise a complaint through line mgr
J - were you writing in personal or chair of staff network.

J - you were taken to the exch of letters with CSRF early 2023 I think started with agender letter of complaint about the SEEN event,
ED we raised letter of concern about their standards

At least the judge doesn't seem to have fallen for the complaint to concern switch

And while no-one was listening to them. Truly impressive.

Perhaps not a wise thing to do, though. Remember there may be an appeal - a twitter pile on would not help us.

I would not contact her and make her feel even more important

How would that help? You don’t expect her to change her mind, surely?

Its not right or ok to invite people on the internet to @ a private account.

If people wanted to complain about what Emma is doing in her professional capacity that's absolutely fair enough though, there are more appropriate channels to do that I'm sure.

Well she’s not adverse to pile ons and is lying under oath.

Im tweeting to say feminism that excludes women with gender reassignment pc is discrimination

From TT:

ED - was asking for him to be suspended from Defra SEEN
Teams meeting, number of q's about letter
J - who are 'they'
ED - the meeting between me and investigating officer

J - was there a response to your request
ED no
J - did you leave it at that?
ED yes
J - what does it have to do with defra, SEEN is independent

ED I was asking for him to be susp from defra SEEN as it sits about environment agency
J - your position is that defra SEEN is a creature of defra
ED no they have to comply with workplace policies
J you think Defra can control SEEN network
ED yes it's in their gift to do that

J - were you writing in personal or chair of staff network.
He either didn't answer this at all, or waffled argumentatively - the next thing he says on TT is
ED - was asking for him to be suspended from Defra SEEN Teams meeting, number of q's about letter

Maybe TT missed his reply to the judge, or maybe he treats the judge's direct qq with the same disdain as NC's.

From TT:

J - the last q is you said that you sent the letter as it was 3rd time you had to address messages from Mr Meuller
ED no more than him, identities I managed to uncover
J - you had to uncover? you didn't know?

ED same anon accounts, I took an interest of who they might be, found evidence of four members to four accounts. But didn't send to one member as evidence not strong enough to send to his employer.
J - sent letters to others
ED other 2 not defra

J - do you accept that Civil Service investigation was independent?
ED - yes
J- rigorous?
ED no

J - referred to your survey - when you sent it out ,did you explain purpose
ED no that would have defeated purpose, we were worried that people wouldn't understand what it meant
J - all we wanted to ask

I can understand that, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I've reported your post with the X handle, hopefully MNHQ delete it quickly.

How will it help?

I think I agree with previous poster - leave it for now, let's see what the fallout from the trib is.

ED no more than him, identities I managed to uncover
J - you had to uncover? you didn't know?
ED same anon accounts, I took an interest of who they might be, found evidence of four members to four accounts. But didn't send to one member as evidence not strong enough to send to his employer.

Is she admitting to stalking?