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.

”thin” is over egging it somewhat😁

Eggshell thin maybe? just as one charming TRA described women's skulls.

[previously on TTtv... DH Wider i/x into posts - whether SEEN network or more general. Would need to see]

From TT:

proposition. Here it's that SM didn't not wider i/x to see if more out there that was discriminatory. Not just re SEEN network
HH SM concluded no evidence of wrongdoing
DH Right. Seems to be asking SM to do wider i/x of everything out there on Yammer network to see if other

things C could find difficult
HH How could C provide evidence of what was happening if C could gain access to group
DH Decision maker can only make decision on basis of evidence present to them.

HH Unfair of you to make C provide evidence of i/x that hadn't been concluded properly
DH DOn't agree at all.
HH [re C back to work] Were you aware of OH report.
DH Fairly confident not in bundle of papers given in evidence to consider re my review
HH But aware of it and that

it was re C's mental health.
DH Yes
HH You were not aware of this letter when reached decision
DH Do
HH But you are aware this describes how she was feeling
DH Yes
HH Your letter c not upholding G. You accept actions to date haven't given C assurance she can come to work...

I think it's entirely reasonable for the NHS to prevent "Palestine" lanyards as well as "Israel" lanyards. No SEEN lanyards is reasonable too, as long as no rainbow lanyards, no Ukraine lanyards, nothing but plain or company lanyards, please.

Makes her job even harder then, doesn't it?🙂
I'm not arguing with you - well I am, but not in an aggressive way I promise, it's just that when I am dead they will find Calais 'Yeah but in fairness..' lying in my heart

This goes back to Emma’s Zionism.

Except SEEN is a legitimate group from a protected belief perspective and founded on law protected at the highest levels by the Supreme Court.

Old Tinkerbell is going to literally genocidally vanish once he sees the revised toilet policies and end of the PRIDE civil service events.

The wall is crumbling and you’re on the wrong side of history. And Emma Dunn is grim.

It is always someone else's responsiibility for how trans identified people feel, isn't it. HH trying to off-load responsibility onto DH now.

I imagine ED as played by Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal.

Yeah but but but but you just proved that being a Geordie isn't about being born and bred in Newcastle didn't you, because if you were actually a Geordie you would like Greggs like all Geordies do.

Trans-Geordies are actual real Greggs-loving Geordies wherever they happen to be born, and you are a closetted Trans-Southerner.

I reckon you've started a hare running there, murasaki😏

My dad, god rest him, never got over being a bit of a boy racer. He would always describe a particularly narrow escape from a prang as "missed him by three coats of paint and a rizla paper". I think this case doesn't even merit the paint.

From TT:

DH Don't have a view. More of a personal comment.
HH Wouldn't disagree with
[sound]
HH Re C MH condition. Essential you need to consider risks to C going forward reaching your decision.
DH Considering if SM reasons and decision reasonable. That was all I was to do.

HH She had been through two complaints.
HH First one, then second had found some evidence supporting her complain but G not upheld by SM
DH Y

HH SM's conclusions that C was impacted by actions of others in workplace.
DH Clear impact the sequence of events had had on C
HH No reason to doubt others in workplace similarly affected
DH This was not part of G claim. No reason to doubt it btut don't know.

What can the judge possibly want to discuss? Surely it is time to bring the questioning of DH to a close?

HH Re C MH condition. Essential you need to consider risks to C going forward reaching your decision.
DH Considering if SM reasons and decision reasonable. That was all I was to do.

Because oddly enough, the purpose was to see if workplace actions were objectively satisfactory, not to do whatever made C happy.

Yes, his job was to check procedure had been followed, not to determine whether the decision was correct.

From TT:

HH After 2 years. Outcome was short letter and failure to engage
DH Don't agree. I am used to being concise. I believe I addressed the issues.
HH Reasonable for C to see work as hostile and degrading environment for her.

DH Can't comment on how reasonable that is.
J Can we take five minutes to discuss. Don't go anywhere.

My note: what are they discussing, anyone understand?

I wonder at what point in ST's complaint did defra realise he was never going to happy with anything other than the complete shuttering of SEEN and anyone with any connection, including just a single solitary like on a post, dismissed immediately.

C's fragile flowerness is hitting the wall of DH's rationality.
I like the way he is answering the qq about ST's emotional states - questions which HH has to put because that's her role in the proceedings - with answers that are blunt statements of fact.

Gender ideology doesn't do well when faced with blunt statements of fact, does it?

HH No reason to doubt others in workplace similarly affected
DH This was not part of G claim. No reason to doubt it btut don't know.

Another shot at : there might, if someone went looking for it, be evidence of something! Let's base a court judgment with significant impact on others' rights and freedoms on possible theoretical existence of evidence existing somewhere. And that it also, might, possibly, if produced, proven and argued through in a court room, show something that might influence our case, please J.

Judge may be discussing when they want to finish today and how far he lets HH go over basically the same ground.

From TT:

This is the 3rd July second afternoon session in the case of Samantha Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency.

J Did you discuss lanyards with C in meeting
DH Yes, I wanted to understand. C gave me more info in her follow-up email.
J Trying to find draft of SM decision -
[is given ref] - you knew what we were looking for, didn't you.
DH I am struggling, J
J To find it?

J It's a draft of SM's decision, 18/4/24. Don't think I'd be unfair if I said reached a different outcome to one SM reached. Have you seen this before
DH no
J Did Sm tell you there had been a draft with a different decision
DH [assume he answered no, but can't see witness]

HH i will rephrase my q would you have taken a different view if you knew what nut jobs you were dealing with?

J It's a draft of SM's decision, 18/4/24. Don't think I'd be unfair if I said reached a different outcome to one SM reached. Have you seen this before
DH no
J Did Sm tell you there had been a draft with a different decision
DH [assume he answered no, but can't see witness]

DH didn't know that SM had changed his decision? Wasn't told?
Sent out to the middle with a broken bat??

From TT:

AL Were you asked at any stage to perform a rehearing
DH I was not.
AL That's all J, thank you.
J thank you for your evidence Mr Hallam

Is the J saying he would have disagreed with SM's final decision? That doesn't bode well if so. I hope I have misunderstood.