Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

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.

Lol. People move from Cornwall to Newcastle therefore men can become women. Great analogy.

ED is there as a witness in ST's case yet she can't remember when she met or spoke to ST?

And she's supposed to be credible?

Nice summary from the excellent Nick Wallis here

A Tempest in Leeds – GenderBlog

I imagine it might be inconvenient to tie herself down to any particular date. You never know when you might need wriggle room.

On the subject of ED not the subject of disciplinary action, may I point out another asymmetry:

One side escapes disciplinary action because they've done nothing wrong; the other side escapes disciplinary action because their employer is biased and can't see what's in front of their nose.

Oh yes, good observation.

I think ED made a fantastic witness.

Unfortunately not for ST though

Nobody is ever held accountable for this nonsense. They just move sideways, at best. Have there been sackings or being struck off or jail?

Good point from Ursula Doyle: https://x.com/suladoyle/status/2072980208454418748?s=20

Have I understood what Naomi was putting to ED correctly - that either Sarah Homer
or someone in Sarah’s Private Office was sending her information? If that is correct that is astonishing. Sarah was a DG, for non-CS people that is one grade below Permanent Secretary which is the head of the dept. I have been blown away by the number is very senior people dealing directly with ST and ED and know from experience that this is really unusual in HR complaints. But this is another level if I’ve understood it correctly.

This extremely petty point occurs to me:

ED - i had a colleague who was in the Women's Network, who was gravely concerned. I was more than happy to add support. ST first time we met in person was [recent}

No you didn't, ED, because by that point the Women's Network had been broken and turned into the Gender Network.

Yeah, but maybe really felt like Geordies all along. Maybe they've always liked Greggs sausage rolls, pigeon racing, stotties, whippets and flat caps? You're a bigot if you don't think they've always been Geordies, and they're just a more vulnerable and disadvantaged type of Geordie because they were born Southern.

HH - this appears to be a post on Twitter from agender - photo of 6 people there. Don't need to know names, are these people members of agender Missed Message from AM saying 'clowns have arrived'

'Clowns have arrived' (NB - LOL!😆)

This is their evidence for wanting him removed.

If this is the worst example of abuse they can think of, they have NO IDEA what a privileged position they have.

Women regularly get vile insults along with threats of death, violence and rape.

They're really scraping the barrel.

They may be scraping the barrel but that comment was unwise.

Unwise definitely. Insulting too; but worthy of anything more than a telling off from line management? Nope

It's better to be squeaky clean though. I think Andreas may have been wise to get out of this case while he could.

Thanks for the new thread and all the c&p work, much appreciated.

(In case anyone was wondering my deleted post above was my request for MNHQ to fix my wrong link in the opening post, which they've now kindly done - I didn't actually request for that post then to be deleted, but I guess it makes sense! OTOH I always wonder what someone said when I see they had a post deleted :-) )

This reply has been withdrawn
This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Thanks again to the C&Pers and thread wranglers

I wasn't even gonna follow this one, but what happened to Elspeth/SEEN is just so outrageous that it's hard not to.

That is how I read it Sarah or someone from Sarah's office attended the team meeting took the details of attendees and passed it on to ED.

I hope someone who was observing can clarify because if that it's correct it's appalling behaviour

Extremely interesting exchange in the comments section of the Nick Wallis article. Supposedly EDs wife commenting.

From TT:

Tribunal is currently on a short break. Return - not before 12 noon. Reporting of 3rd session will be on this thread, all background and abbreviations are in thread QT'd.

^t.co/3fq5Spm9T2^

J - we have concluded C case, move on to R

DH sworn in
AL - you will need to famil yourself with the bundle of witness statements.
Discussion about what DH should look at
AL - ref to index, find your WS, and the doc you have does it have your name on

AL - Corrections?
DH error para 9, May not April

AL - final page of your WS, signature?
DH - no there is not

More discussion about whether it is true to best of knowl and belief
DH - yes it is

My note: Submissions are going to be interesting, aren't they? What can HH make of that apparently pathetic case?

Nobody knows we exist. Nobody listens to us.
Also: here's the evidence of colluding with senior leadership re SEEN, agrees massive influence on policy and practice.

Everybody agrees with us, GI is the belief of all.
Also: We are trying to eradicate SEEN for not agreeing with us.

I don't know what SEEN think or do, or anything about them.
Also: SEEN have to be eradicated for what they think and do.

The repeated line - same phrasing both times - 'made clear was not a telling off but advisory' -

would suggest management are scared stiff of upsetting or annoying this particular staff member, and have been handling with kid gloves.