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.

No doubt we shall hear from Steve Moore on Monday on his draft and final decisions.

That's what I took from the original mention of 5 days. An acknowledgement and some indication of what would follow.

Oh Marie stop worrying lovely you have every right to comment xxxx

Your inner cynic, my inner arguer - lots of inners coming out this afternoon😃

I see where you're coming from, but I'd compare to the role of the ET themselves - they have to make their decision based on the evidence in front of them and their knowledge of the law. It isn't reasonable to expect them to do their own research to back up or disprove the evidence - as far as I understand they evaluate the credibility based on the WS and the cross-examination.

I remember that. Jane Russell rocking up wearing her own white horse.

I seem to recall that didn't wear very well.

Thank you! I shall have one, in due course...

I don't disagree with anything you've said, so I think I'm missing your point? I just thought Hallam did his job to the letter (at least according to him!) and not beyond. He could have been a bit creative, but wasn't. Not sure it's how I would have done it, but it does mean he's quite comfortable with his yes and no answers.

JR on her horse was one of the silliest things I've ever seen. The big self aggrandizing wazzock.

Absolutely. Quite surprised a:gender didn’t have any lanyards tbh but I guess that speaks to the covert nature of their operations.

Have you got one of those 'holds a whole bottle' glasses? Come on, admit it, you're amongst friends here...

Maybe they are a:lanyard.

Sorry, I read the "not my department" thing as a criticism. I think we're in agreement.

It's wasn't DH's job to 'care' about the outcome, or do his own digging into the merits of C's claim. He came across as the ultimate professional who conducted the task with diligence and impartiality.

O. M. G.

Did you make him walk home?

Keep arguing @MarieDeGournay, we don’t all have to see everything the same way 🫣

But I have to agree that I don’t think DH needed to know that SM had an earlier draft decision letter with an alternative outcome. He was dealing with the appeal and ST surely had to provide grounds for appeal; either specific evidence that was not considered or process issues that potentially affected the decision.

I think the draft decision is much more of an issue for SM than for DH and hopefully he will be able to explain his rationale to the tribunal.

I would speculate that SM just wanted ST to STFU and go away and was initially going to come down on his side until perhaps someone reminded him that other people also have rights.

No, I have the self-confidence to pour myself another glass if I want to, instead :-)

I found this rather telling:

Other Defra networks have lanyards then reasonable to me, notwithstanding the fact that C found it distressing, that SEEN should have lanyard as well.

HH Not so simple. Someone wearing lanyard in office says it means I don't accept your ID

DH But discriminatory to say to another network you can't have a lanyard with a specific colour or logo.

He sounds pretty reasonable and fair minded, as if he doesn't have a horse in the race. Or perhaps, sighing and wishing the kids would play fair.

Excellent, keeps it chilled.

Yes, I think we'd clarified upthread that I thought it was a good thing that he did his job the way he did! It's just refreshing to finally hear from someone who didn't try to get creative and go looking for problems to add to his review.

Apparently I have worded my observations badly.

He sounds pretty reasonable and fair minded, as if he doesn't have a horse in the race.
Thanks to @SinnerBoy !
This was what I was trying to say!

Ah, ok. I hadn't seen that, sorry! I didn't mean to pile on. 🙂

Off to the Bluestocking shortly, to join @Boiledbeetle with a relaxing herbal fag, as a side issue amazing what a mis directed lighter can do with stray nose hair.

I will try not to slop my pint of gin about on the way.

Just caught up, thanks for all the c&p and comments.

ED was unhinged to the end then, still trying to frame SEEN as the odd one out because everyone else are literally fangirls of TWAW.

The first of the sensible witnesses did well, he keep it focused on the fact that his job was just to investigate whether the first complaint had been dealt with correctly and wouldn't be drawn into the greater argument by HH's attempt at shaming and emotional blackmail.

I don't know how his statement reflects on ST's case though?

Catching up on today, and have just got to the point where DH makes an appearance. Cognitive dissonance ahoy!