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.

Yes, and he will be pressed on what the original decision was and why he changed it; and also on whether the claimant might be justified in feeling aggrieved that the decision was reversed.

I would bet serious money that progress lanyards and flags and posters and notices and badges and all of that would be highly visible during the Holy Month of Pride and on the speshul remembrance days as well.

Do they not deny my existence as a woman? Do they not trigger me?

They bloody do because they’re up on the noticeboard all year round in my GP practice waiting room and there’s nothing about women and ai get bloody FURIOUS every time I see them.

I made him swim, actually......😂

No worries, my observation was overwordy and clearly Not Clear At All!

Which is probably what ST referred to as DEFRA " being leaned on".

@Shortshriftandlethal I’m sure it will turn out to be JKRs fault.

It would probably have been helpful to DH if someone had let him know that there was a draft decision and that on further reflection, perhaps in particular about the rights of other people, the decision was changed. However it was not DH's job to reconsider the grievance. As he said no-one asked him to. His job was to check if procedures had been followed, it is for SM to say why his initial thoughts were not his final decision. I'd most likely go with I realised there just was not the evidence to support a decision in the claimant's favour.

Claimant's lawyer wants to say someone higher up leaned on him, they need evidence for that.

It àlways is, isn't it? It's astonishing the influence she has!

I'm another one who dislikes any lanyards that don't say 'this is where I work' and nothing else!

Thanks again for the c&p @fanOfBen

You can only imagine how peeved I get when the Holy day of visibility is on a day very important to me.

I know, it makes me so angry.

How come a man gets to say his inner mind makes him more like someone of my sex than other men and that is ok, and I can't say no actually, I don't feel any more like him than I do anyone else of his sex because the things he considers to be more meaningful to being a woman than sex is are not in fact especially meaningful to me?

Why is it ok for the things he considers significant to his identity to override my own sense of myself, but not vice versa?

And the answers may not be what ST wants to hear...

It'll be very interesting, I think.

Re the five days/ten months discussions -
The timing is (I think) -

Second grievance submitted 19/6/23
Terms of reference agreed 19/9/23
Outcome received 3/4/24
That's ten months.

The five days HH talked about - which took them to the end of June - must be the five days detailed in the policy for a response to an application (from 19/6). She reads here that the employer should write within five days. I can't imagine any organisation as big and unwieldy as the CS can have a policy of dealing with a grievance in five days.

So, according to AL's opening note and what he said this afternoon, next week's witnesses will be Steve Moore, Nicola Bettesworth, Caroline Aires, John Calvert and Lorraine Adair. Presumably then followed by Elspeth DW. I wonder to what extent HH will decide to cross examine her.

And how do ST's sick leave dates relate to that? I've lost track, but the judge seemed to say not relevant.

I rather hope DW doesn't ever meet you in person, as I fear you might lead her astray ... she would probably get on with you very well, though.

If anyone wants to double up on court cases next week, Sex Matters are in the High Court against the DPP, argung that gender identity should not be a relevant factor in sex by deception cases.

There will be remote access but you have to apply by Monday at 10am.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/AC-2026-LON-000781-1.pdf

He went off in July. I guess the 5 day thing can't have been for an outcome, as expecting that and going off sick weeks later was deemed irrelevant.

Remind me who DW is

Dear wife, I think.

Why on earth do you take people transitioning so personally? It isn’t about you and no of course you don’t get to say no to it, you have no veto over other people’s identities or life choices. There is no expectation that you have to consider yourself “like” them (do you think all women are alike? I don’t think you and I are alike, for example) and there is absolutely no reason anyone else’s identity would or should “override your sense of self” or have any impact on your sense of self at all, in fact if your sense of self is so fragile someone else’s choice unrelated to you makes you doubt it, that’s something you need to seek out help with, not blame trans people for.

You're also illustrating exactly the asymmetry that ST has been talking about - your belief system is not just a belief system, its ultimate demand is that trans people have to stop existing because of your discomfort around them, and no of course that isn't a reasonable belief to be airing or organising around in the workplace, and of bloody course it creates an unpleasant and hostile atmosphere for others.

Not EDW! I was a bit confused early in this tribunal when TT referred to Elspeth as Early Day Motion, or at least that's what my muddled mind told me EDM stood for.

DW is indeed my Dear Wife, and I am her DH (I hope).

Thank you for this!

Ahh i will take that as a compliment then .

Yes, and surely the judge knows that the CS can't possibly do anything much more than acknowledge a grievance within 5 days.
I think all the banging on about 10 months was more to do with the alleged impact on C rather than a failure to comply with policy timescales. The judge's point about the sick leave dates not lining up with the delay did rather reveal what his line of thinking was.