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.

I didn't think it was a real word either, when I wrote it down!

So it's like 'a-n adder', 'a-n orange'.

Absolute work shy little sneaks

ED its a x-gov network, we had heard gossip about SEEN, our members had heard about it and asked us to attend so we did

Emma its Tinkerbell here - go to that race event and harass some normal people who believe in science will you.
Hi Tink no worries I will defend your honour before you are erased out of existence.

I mean if this is Tink's witness, who needs evidence from the other side????

ED they refused to meet us
AL did you ask for that
ED the Cabinet Office asked for mediation between SEEN and us, SEEN and LGBT network, we pushed for that for 18 months and they refused to meet with us
J did they say why they didn't want to meet
ED they didn't, we had agreed to all conditions
AL as a general proposition in relation to
concerns you raised in letter, that CSRF did not appear to agree with you
ED CSRF were leaned on
AL I'm asking you if they agreed or not in their letter
ED their response showed in some places they didn't understand not that they disagreed
J - so in your evidence you said that you believed CSRF were leaned on
ED - yes
AL page 1784, example, in 3rd para, 2nd speaker giving presentation about 'Invisible Women', you're raising a concern about the book being discussed ED repeat the q

ED the Cabinet Office asked for mediation between SEEN and us, SEEN and LGBT network, we pushed for that for 18 months and they refused to meet with us

I look forward to hearing the other side of this from Elspeth.

Didn't he say yesterday that he didn't ask ED to do anything for him? He wouldn't dream of it.

Proactively throwing ED under the bus. Getting in there first.

AL I'm asking you if they agreed or not in their letter
ED their response showed in some places they didn't understand not that they disagreed
!!
Like SEEN didn't realise they were operatives of an evil empire because they didn't read something carefully enough.

AL page 1784, example, in 3rd para, 2nd speaker giving presentation about 'Invisible Women', you're raising a concern about the book being discussed

Oh the irony.

ED you've said its a letter of complaint, its not, its a letter of concern, the sections in bold are a response to our concerns

AL whether complaint or concern, you are using your position as chair of AG to undermine SEEN

When is a letter of complaint a letter of concern - when a man with a penis wants to be re-imagined as a woman.

Absolute head the ball this Emma. I know lets go abuse minorities and women on behalf of a man in a dress.

Hey Emma - thats called bullying in normal parlance. You are a handmaid. Shame on you.

When you are harassing people at an anti-racist event and want to ban books - are you ever on the right side of history?

Please Naomi ask if all this was done with tax payers money?!

AL you're raising a concern that it was discussed
ED it wasn't discussed in a way that included even handed criticism about the book, lots of people have issues with that book
AL and the response was that it was a recognised award winning book, discussed in chat box, there was nothing wrong with discussing a book like that at a SEEN event
ED I didn't say it was wrong, I presented some criticism
AL 'he went on to claim that worst homophobia was from LGBTQIA+ community, referring to the boxer ceiling, transmen claiming to be gay men'
ED I used a wikipedia page for the definition AL So you are saying that term was used
ED I don't absolutely recall but I think the answer has to be yes, it was a long time ago,
AL you don't seem sure
J you said 'he referred to boxer ceiling' that seems specific
ED yes, that's why I think it's accurate
AL so SEEN said that they didn't want to cause upset, but this was all about this person's lived experience. You're all about lived experience, surely he can speak about his lived experience.
ED I think it's fine until it's about tropes and stereotypes about trans

The Cabinet Office becomes 'we' when it suits and 'they' when it doesn't

I didn't say it was wrong, I presented some criticism

That’s my vote for this morning’s t-shirt

Remember in cross they just highlight bits of evidence this is not the full picture.

Suggests to me they were hounding anyone outside of SEEN who entertained them.

Full on hounding.

people.
AL an attendee tried to make a comparison between SEEN and a racist hate group
ED yes
AL was that you
ED no, no of course not, I think I know who it was, a member of CSRF
AL the person who made that connection was a member of AG?
ED Yes but at the event as a member
of CSRF.
AL do you accept that was an offensive comment
ED is it the group or the views
J the q is this - is the comparison of SEEN and a racist hate group offensive?
AL that is the q
ED - not necessarily offensive
AL your WS, para 31. You say that there was institutional unwillingness to protect trans staff, you're talking about DEFRA
ED yes
AL lets look at a few docs, we will have to navigate around the bundle, unavoidable.

My note: It was avoidable. The bundle could have been organised better.

ST and ED make quite a duo. United in their absolutist opinion that SEEN be completely and utterly shut up, shut down and while you're at it discipline everyone who so much as liked one of their posts.

ED I think it's fine until it's about tropes and stereotypes about trans

Calling GC people genocidal bigots is all fine and dandy tho.
Give me strength, the complete lack of awareness of the size of the holes in the arguments is extraordinary, lack of structural integrity leads to utter collapse.
No wonder the poor dears can't hack it.

From TT:

J the q is this - is the comparison of SEEN and a racist hate group offensive?

AL that is the q

ED - not necessarily offensive

ED I used a wikipedia page for the definition

FFS!

Cabinet Offisn't

AL the person who made that connection was a member of AG?
ED Yes but at the event as a member
of CSRF.

I'd call that jesuitical, but it would be unfair to Jesuits😏

AL do you accept that was an offensive comment
ED is it the group or the views
J the q is this - is the comparison of SEEN and a racist hate group offensive?
AL that is the q

Thank you judge!

ED - not necessarily offensive

And thank you ED for again displaying how irrationally anti-GC you are!

AL DEFRA has a code of conduct, yes
ED yes
AL section 'respect at work' says bullying and harassment not acceptable
ED thats right
AL applies as much to people who rely on trans status as well as others such as disability, sex etc applies across the board
ED that's right
AL also has guidance on GI and intersex,
ED appears to have one
AL didn't AG contribute to this policy
ED it appears to be based on our model policies
AL from 2019
ED yes
AL is it now under review following FWS
ED yes

Al You're all about lived experience

I think AL has ED's number.

Yes because they discounted all of our unhappy replies!! Crazy, just like this.

AL DEFRA has toolkit for transitioning at work, also based on model doc from AG
ED yes, it appears to be broadly similar to the model policy package of 7 years ago
AL DEFRA has policy on inclusion
ED yes thats what I appear to be looking at
AL DEFRA also has a wider diversity equity and inclusion strategy, published in 2020, applicable from then
ED yes
AL that recognises under diversity, the full range of human diversity in the UK, recognises each individual is different and diversity makes teams more effective

My note: This is a local shop for local people. There's nothing for you 'ere!

Steer west by nor' west. We have to navigate around the bundle.