Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 6

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-5

TT substack: 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.

Please 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.

So the civil service have to spend more money on a moderation team so that the very speshul people don’t feel alarmed.

Can we go back to the 1950s stiff upper lip please?

The judge is asking some very insightful questions this afternoon. The kind of questions you would not be surprised to find NC asking 🤔

J - you use careful language. Can you explain what escalation and oversight meant?

What do you expect a witness to do at a tribunal, judge, except use careful language? do you want her to tell you what she's really thinking?

JUDGE: Are you trying to show contempt for this court?
MAE WEST: I was doin' my best to hide it.

From TT:

J - was there a policy developed for escalation and oversight?
NB - yes process is set out
J - thank you
HH - 784 please. I'm going to your letter with recommendations

HH - Rec 1 was for HR director to keep C, SEEN and LGBT network informed with process. Did you take that to mean to protect trans collegaues?
NB - (missed)
HH - JH had talked of systemic failures, your characterisation of this is personal dispute. It

minimises her findings?
NB- no
HH - if systemic issues it was important to trans xolleagues and LGBT networks to be aware of those failings?
NB - yes
HH - if you refuse to inform the networks then it lacks all transparency?

NB - I wasn't saying that. If we were changing any policy or process the way we approached that was to have engagement with networks as appropriate trade unions and people in inclusion comitte of each committee.

I wouldn't just change a set of policies. I was referring to in the partially accepted recommendation that I couldn't go into individual sharing of detail coming out of personal gx
HH - Read your response to those recommendations please.

<personal comment - this is worse than Death By Powerpoint>

I'm sick of this manipulation and gaslighting.

I'd love to hear what ST's ex wife has to say about ST.

<personal comment - this is worse than Death By Powerpoint>

You're wrong @myladydisdainisyetliving

I've done a PowerPoint to explain why...

🎼Everyone’s a secret transphobe!
Crazy for those judgements & tribunals
First we won with Maya
Then a little higher
In the Supreme Court they gave us just what we desired!

Sorry, it was the diarrhoea ad that started me off. That, & page after page...

From TT:

HH - JH identified Defra policies didn't balance GC beliefs with trans collegaues?
NB- Yes
HH - the GIIP was said to be reviewed. No advice taken or time stated?
NB - we would certainly take advice
HH - Harman still noted gaps in policy so no review by then

NB - no formal review as we were updating policy we would draw from
HH - Has that happened yet?
NB - dont believe it has been received
HH - You haven't done one of your own?
NB - No
HH- Last one is about Mumsnet breach. JH recommended further lx

Shout out to Mumsnet....naughty girls. 😈

REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED arsehole.

'Mumsnet breach'!?

From TT:

NB - yes
HH - And you say internal and external data protection notified but platform anonymous and no names shared. Can you just clarify what lx was carried out to identify who did posts?

NB - My team went to DDTS to try and identify IP addresss and only way to access that was to go to mumsnet direct and they wouldn't be prepared to share that. I can think of other examples in Defra where people have posted outside of work platforms

and been able to trace via info they provided. Wasn't so with mumsnet post.
HH - Had ST not told you ST could identify them?
NB - We had feedback. It was a view and opinion not evidence.

<personal note, ah that pesky requirement for evidence again>

A witch hunt, in other words.

HH- Last one is about Mumsnet breach

We've been breached! Man the lifeboats people. @MarieDeGournay burn EVERYTHING!

ST has been telling his bosses which of his colleagues he thinks are posting on Mumsnet? Good grief.

Of course ST could identify them; he'd had his network of spies out.

"My machine has reached a pause of death" existential doom t-shirts should be worn in court for the remainder of the tribunal.

ST opinion > facts + evidence + the law

NB - My team went to DDTS to try and identify IP addresss and only way to access that was to go to mumsnet direct and they wouldn't be prepared to share that.

Too fucking right.

FFS. Zero proof, I imagine.

What was the post on Mumsnet that was complained-of?

(I also missed how it came to appear on the front page of the DEFRA website as soon as - or even before - ST logged in remotely.)

They didn’t like Sinnerboy’s post but he is clear he doesn’t work for them. There are some posts from people who say they do including ones describing the Yammer fracas.

.

And I bet ST thought it was female colleagues, just showing he does know who are women and who aren't.

So... nothing about splintery rolling pins, or how the only good TERF is a dead one?