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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/civil-service-staff-networks-to-only-meet-outside-working-hours-and-have-all-events-signed-off-by-senior-managers

Well that makes being a full time work terrorist less fun for Emma - when she has to do if off the clock and get approval for her usual hate speech. Found this on twitter.

I do not understand the obsession with DH's lack of notes. Any notes I make in relation to a task are binned as soon as the task is complete. No one, including me, needs a record of my meanderings.

I have every sympathy for DH. I sometimes do these sorts of cases at work - investigating officer, deciding officer, or reviewer. If I am acting as a reviewer and there is no new evidence, then, as PP have said, I am going over the process that was originally followed to check that it has been followed correctly and completely. My starting point is always the published work policies. What I don't do is go off re investigating anything and everything else around it. That isn't what the role is, and frankly life is too short, and I still have my day job to do. I also don't retain large numbers of notes. I have the handwritten notes that I've made when going through the papers. I shred these once I've completed my report and any decision letter because the report/letter set out all the points that I have decided are salient and those that I have decided aren't along with my reasoning. I don't however comment in detail on all of the material, only the bits that I feel have a bearing on the process and my decision. If I have consulted HR, lawyers or have sought additional information from others then my questions/comments and their answers are filed alongside the report. I only do a couple each year because they are so time consuming and thankfully so far , none of mine have gone to tribunal.

Luckily for you have not had to deal with these kind of fuckers

Exactly. HH‘s desire for notes is misleading. she knew there would be no notes because the final review document should stand for itself. Notes are not an actual record in this case, unlike, say, minutes of a meeting. The evidence was what was important. Its a total red herring and it seems to have worked. It’s set ,its of hares chasing that are unfounded.

Likewise showing the reviewer an earlier draft is also a red herring. A draft of a report is not evidence and there were, I imagine, more than one, as most of us need more than one draft to produce a coherent document.

if the earlier drafts produced errors that lawyers had advised were mistakes you wouldn’t then include that as part of the review. If the final document had errors then the reviewer would comment on that. He found no errors.

Having seen ST give testimony we can well imagine how easily he complicated the process. DH has been very fair and measured and managed not to say the length of time was because we were trying to herd cats.

Thanks for this. Clear and unambiguous and should make the survival of SEEN even more certain, given that there is an obligation to ensure genuine impartiality:

The rules also re-confirm that all networks must remain impartial at all times and must not attempt to influence government policy in any way - as already set out in the Civil Service Code.

The guidance also provides further clarity for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) networks specifically. Including the need to promote all view points equally, and ensure their role - to promote equality and inclusion in the Civil Service for everyone - is not lost in pursuit of a particular issue.

The guidance also provides further clarity for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) networks specifically. Including the need to promote all view points equally, and ensure their role - to promote equality and inclusion in the Civil Service for everyone - is not lost in pursuit of a particular issue.

Wonder if that is aimed at any group in particular🤔

Fairly sure at the start of DH's evidence today he mentioned he had a private secretary.

For all we know he might never actually make written notes for anything.

There is a high chance his secretary regularly gets the pleasure of producing letters and documents from his dictaphone musings.

If this is the case the recordings may get deleted as soon as he's happy with the final document.

In the words of a past interruptaron "we just don't know'.

No-one uses a dictaphone anymore, it will be transcripts from CoPilot or Google Meet.

I think it’s more that DEFRA/RPA were treating ST with kid gloves and during sick absence directly relating to the issues would not have pushed the grievance forward if interviewing ST or asking questions might be distressing.

Yes they do. I do for a start. And I know others that do. One of my consultants dictates his letters into his dictaphone while I'm still in the room with him.

You know what really stands out to me? It’s the way very senior figures appear to be not so much entranced by GI as running scared of well-organised networks of cry bullies. It looks like a takeover form the bottom up.

Definitely the fear of a “transphobic” accusation has been misused along with no debate to capture huge organisations e.g. CS, NHS.

The guidance also provides further clarity for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) networks specifically. Including the need to promote all view points equally, and ensure their role - to promote equality and inclusion in the Civil Service for everyone - is not lost in pursuit of a particular issue.

So a plague on both your houses? I can't decide who comes off worse out of that. SEEN are no longer allowed to insist on sex existing, they have to equally promote it either being subservient to gender or being a constellation of fairy dust or whatever that quote was. Whereas a'gender aren't allowed to insist on everyone having a gender, they have to equally promote the idea that gender is a load of oppressive stereotypes and that pronouns are rohypnol.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had one big happy sex-gender group and had lively discussion sessions about everyone's preferred interpretation while ensuring that nobody advocates for changing the law as clarified by the FWS judgement.

<heaves sigh of relief>

I've caught up. It’s taken me all day - work interrupted at regular intervals - but I’ve made it.

Unfortunately my eyebrows are now MIA. They were raised so often throughout the course of the day that they’ve been flung right off the back of my head and were last seen crawling away at speed in an effort to get away from the sheer madness. Frankly I’m tempted to join them. What a clusterfuck!

And as for “Cleo Lunt”, well that’s just a typo waiting to happen, isn’t it?

Unfortunately it includes this:

The new guidance states that all events must now be signed off by a senior civil servant before preparations even begin. The changes also make clear that events should always take place outside working hours, unless they directly benefit the organisation, such as learning and development - in these instances sign off from an individual’s line manager is required to attend the event.

"Learning and development" - if learning = education, then this would seem to be a grey area.

Finally caught up! Thanks all for the c&p and commentary.

I must admit I’m intrigued by ED and how her entire raison d’être is centred around being ‘intersex’ and being the perfect ally to trans people. You’d think someone who is so focussed on her diagnosis of Swyer syndrome would be up to date with the latest medical views and understanding of DSDs, but she seems to have gleefully adopted it as proof that sex isn’t binary and run and run with it, over the horizon into rainbow-cloud-cuckoo land.

As fascinating a character as she may be, it’s truly chilling that her and ST’s fantasy-world activism has resulted in them trying to silence people for stating scientific reality. It’s as mind-boggling as ever.

Bloody hell, I stand corrected! This is what I get for working in tech. 😂

😄 Some of us just refuse to get with the programme and join the 21st century! I'll admit I'm no longer using a dial up internet connection though!

I was thinking that last night, as well as wondering if I would even be able to take such a case because of my GC views. It shouldn't make any difference to my application of rules and policies, but would it risk the introduction of unconscious bias or the perception of bias into the proceedings? I have a feeling if I was asked I might have to recuse myself.

Thank you for that link, if only because it led me to this comment under Ursula Doyle's tweet by someone called Innocent Bystander:

NC: You deny murder but there is an email here where you ask if anyone knows how to get blood out of a shirt. When someone asks why you say, “I just stabbed someone. I meant to kill them and I’m glad they’re dead.” J: What is this about? Where is it leading?

Edited to remove automatically attached link to another X profile

Thank you for this.
The Telegraph have been exposing much of the batshittery that the civil service have been spending time on (as opposed to working) for some time. I enjoyed this piece:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/06/17/civil-servants-paid-to-play-grand-theft-auto-with-public/

A bit off topic I know but a useful reminder of how groups like agender can gain so much traction when working is so easily derailed.

archive link - https://archive.ph/s1XjE

Thanks for the link "...conducted online focus groups on the platform to “create an emotionally safe space” for participants." , a 'safe space' in Grand Theft Auto, they're off their trolleys and getting paid by the tax payer.

You can see where ST got the idea that the world should be all done up in bubble wrap and child proofed for him. 😂

I think you are right @BendoftheBeginning.

At the risk of repeating myself 😎 Im sharing a link to the This Isnt Working Podcast which (mercifully) identifies a step away from the nonsense by senior leadership. Probably because of the crop of successful legal cases. More prevalent in the private sector for a variety of reasons but no organisation needs or can manage distractions for too long. It is all about robust leadership by grown ups.

https://thisisntworkingpodcast.co.uk/home/

This stuff is rampant in the tech industry (in particular) and is infiltrating everywhere. But kudos to the Telegraph for pretending it’s just the civil service that needs to stop it. Honestly, they’re like the man with a hammer when it comes to the public sector.

Public institutions can at least be held accountable by taxpayers’ rage. The likes of Google and Palantir, not so much. What are people going to do, stop using their phones and giving their data away?