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.

Yep.

As the complainer whilst I would never be happy with a decision that found in favour of the other side I could at least accept it if it was based on policy and procedures being followed and people doing their investigations properly.

But when it looks like they've just slapped something together last minute and ignored all the pertinent bits then I'd just feel more disempowered and angry.

Also think this.

From TT:

HH: On Q of whether moderation effectively, ST said cd still see GC views? Section 6 summary of evidence, note says ST says re moderation "partially true" but views come up on various subjects on Viva Engage
SM: Yes

HH: ST told you SEEN had set themselves back to public, instead of private?
SM: Yes
HH: You didn't investigate?
SM: Yes I did, I think that was Aug 2023 - it was put back to private, so, from Oct no example or evidence, inc from ST.

HH: If you had, there would be docs or notes? We don't have your notes?
SM: we have covered, but no, we don't.

NC [cannot hear]
J: Will not interrupt hearing for that. Am not responsible for admin - oh right - that's good

HH: You discussed with ST what desired outcome is. p2119. ST says, wants Viva Engage removed (Occ Health recommendation) but has been told this can't be done.

IX did not found any other depts had an active SEEN network,
That means something all right, but maybe not what HH wants the listener to conclude!
It probably means that other depts are so totally under the thrall of the T that a SEEN network would never see the light of day.
It suggests a lack of balance - a serious lack of balance against SEEN/GC beliefs.

'And I didn't use AI in producing my WS, judge'😁

Is it just me or is anyone else finding the cross government nature of this case dizzying? Having trouble keeping up with who is in what agency, department etc!

From TT:

HH: Your understanding, IT couldn't do that?
SM: Or someone
HH: You say everyone shd have access to systems otherwise discrimination. You are saying ST is being discriminated against by exposure to harmful content?

SM: I think this is more me asking ST about this?
J: I want to read this section carefully pls

HH: You are clearly not asking ST views here. When you wrote WS, you made brief ref to this draft report - that you regretted it?
SM: Because not any basis of decision

HH: If these mtg notes are inaccurate you'd have mentioned it?
J: You are not saying you didn't say this, or notes inaccurate?
SM: Am saying, not verbatim. Said in context of conversation about systems in use etc.

HH: On the face of it, this says, you are telling ST has been discriminated against. If you just read the text.
SM: No
HH: If any nuance in this, that it doesn't mean what it says, you wd have put in WS?
SM: No - was not trying to clarify every word ever written.

SM: This is record of convo we had, This is about ST accessing Viva Engage. In Feb-Mar 2024, the mechanism is closed groups - nobody not in group will see - and importantly for ST (distressed by this kind of information) to not see it.

SM: So by then, am saying that there is now no way of ST seeing the kind of post complained about the previous year. ST confirms cannot get into the group, which was reassuring.

ST confirms cannot get into the group

Why was he trying?

Not sure how helpful SM is being to anyone here.

Agree the data shows that the entire CS was captured and these trans activists went after the sole instance of departmental SEEN.

Thanks @fanOfBen

Good point!

This whole business of In Feb-Mar 2024, the mechanism is closed groups - nobody not in group will see/ private v. public settings gives the impression that as soon as you logged in to your online workspace, you were met by distressing content like horrible ciswomen saying disgusting things like that sex is binary and immutable, plastered all over the screen.

Surely there had to be some voluntary action in order to encounter anything like that at work?

From TT:

HH: GRC allows C to identify in claimed gender in many respects?
SM: Yes
HH: SEEN lanyards reject gender identity? C identity as TW?
SM: I know what you are saying yes

HH: staff wearing lanyards with stated aim of denying ST identity is offensive?
SM: I disagreed with that, as you see.

HH: [missed ref]
HH: Your rationale for rejecting grievance here is that lanyards are commonplace and other networks have them
SM: Yes
HH: you give examples of several
SM: Yes

HH: But none of those deny the legally recognised identity of other people?
SM: No
HH: SEEN does?
SM: yes

HH: So by not upholding grievance you are saying it's OK fo rST to have to work alongside colleagues that deny existence?
SM: It's v clear in WS from C Airs and Nicola B - plus legal advice - that SEEN can exist.

SM: And once they exist - which I don't think is disputed - what would be the grounds for treating them differently? Am not agreeing it amounts to harassment of others.

SM: I think aim of removal of SEEN in it's entirety, I didn't agree with that.

HH: Am about to start another quite long topic - good time to break judge?
J: About how much longer?
HH: 1.5 hours? Will aim to be concise.

J: Remind SM not to discuss evidence

[LUNCH BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll

I'm planning to be out this afternoon, so if someone - e.g. @FarriersGirl who kindly mentioned she was available - could take over, that would be great.

HH: But none of those deny the legally recognised identity of other people?

TRAs deny the legally recognised ID of biological women.

SM putting up some good points here e.g.
SM: And once they exist - which I don't think is disputed - what would be the grounds for treating them differently?

So if he did see stuff on VivaExchange, he was shown it by someone else.

He was trying to get the whole of VE closed down. So he objected to SEEN and others being able to post in private groups. He wanted it shut because he wanted SEEN shut down and unable to post GC views, even if in private, even if he never saw them, even if he was never distressed because he didn’t see them. He was distressed by their very existence.

When I compare that to his take that GC people don’t want trans people to exist, it reminds me of that old statement, similar to DARVO, that everything the opposition says about us, is a confession about their own views.

TRAs deny the legally recognised ID of biological women.

Agree. The Women's Group was taken over and became the Gender Group for example.

Good to hear that even if there are points in the case that might be won regarding the investigation process, they won't have to do what ST really wants out of all of this, which is to shut down SEEN, shut up any woman who objects, make sure there's nowhere women can talk without him sticking his beak, and for the top dogs to grovel at his feet for forgiveness and repledge themselves to only ever worship at the altar of gender identity.

Also, it doesn't mean they have to automatically put the investigation in his favour? They could apologise, redo it under a 100% ironclad process and still say no to him right?

What then? I'll scream and scream until I go off sick? Again.

lanyards with stated aim of denying ST identity

FFS I'm so sick of this! No, other people are not there solely to affirm or deny ST's 'identity', they have their own interests and concerns

NC [cannot hear]
J: Will not interrupt hearing for that. Am not responsible for admin - oh right - that's good

Does anyone watching live know what this was about?

There are many offensive things I have heard and seen in the workplace. People coming in drunk, either from the night before or from that morning. Men touching me inappropriately. People talking about their sex lives. People saying they think disabled people should be seen and not heard, or preferably not seen at all. People singing the praises of Tory governments that have deliberately impoverished people.

I don’t think I would have been allowed to go off on six months paid sick leave because I was distressed. I think any grievance would have been rejected with a recommendation that I grow thicker skin.

So why is ST so indulged?

People say and do objectionable things all the time. Get over it.

All this talk of transphobia I think disguises that ST is actually suffering from GC-phobia. I'm reminded of this Gary Larson cartoon

HH: You are being asked to respond to grv that largely consists of problem of SEEN having channel - see JH recommendations - surely it's relevant that other depts don't?
SM: no, what matters is whether DEFRA is acting correctly.

dare I hope there are some actual grown ups st DEFRA? Unlike other orgs who acted like sheep (Isla Bumba?) and just checked what other people were doing instead of making their own decisions?

And frankly, the outcomes from the LGBTQ+ brigade have been to deny the existence of women.

I’ve never seen a SEEN lanyard at work. Almost all of them are rainbow/trans colours and a handful of plain ones.

"HH: In WS you say SEEN lanyards were being allowed and C found offensive and threatening
SM: I think C found SEEN in any regard offensive."

Correct.