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.

I’m so glad I have no idea which song this is.

More "offensive material" was discovered. I'd love to know what it was.🤔

Is the 'Mumsnet breach' alleged to be an actual breach of security/data leak/something really bad?
In which case it was fair enough to be concerned about it.
If you just don't like other people knowing what you're like - tough.

The posts are extremely mild and they don’t identify any individuals. The only actual person talked about was that Saorsa Tweedale bloke, who is not in DEFRA and has been in the media. An article was linked by Sinnerboy which might be why they zeroed in on his posts.

'Everyone's a fruit and nutcase'

If I have to have an earworm, I'm going to make sure everyone has it!

I think this tribunal is actually a genocide against us. Someone expressed an opinion that it was worse than death by Powerpoint, so it must be genocide.

Civil servants are not allowed to post about their workplaces even anonymously. Of course many do, on a range of issues.

Ooooh yes please, me too.

.

.

Trying again.

HH - JH had said properly resourced moderation amd instead you delegated responsibility to the very people causing harassment

Is she allowed to say this? The court has not made any findings yet.

Janet Hughes ( JH) ? very much looks like she could identify as an 'ally'...you know what I mean?

Actually pathetic that little Tinkerbell was trying to get his bosses to not only silence anyone who believes in reality but also set off on a witch hunt to Mumsnet.

This is so beyond any bounds of normality at work I am going to appeal if the judge doesn’t say - Tinkerbell’s feelings weren’t reasonable and everyone go back to normal.

Let’s go hunt posters …. Oh ok!

From TT:

HH - You received appeal outcome letter. Why did it take 6 weeks to take that meeting with C?
NB - Can't recall
HH - ST sent an email to JH cc'd Claire Fudge and drew a post re vigils for trans teenager. Said author was leader of SEEN network.

JH forwarded to you shortly after for your attention amd action
NB - yes
HH - You didn't take any action nor did anyone else?
NB - not correct. I believe post was removed
HH - You said some of the recommendations would not be implemented to C
NB - some yes

9m
(Missed)
HH - You pressed ahead on same path when it came to moderation. You decided there wasn't enough resource to modify Yammer directly..
J - is there going to be a Q. What did you do?
NB - can't recall
[Can't hear]

HH - Go back to my Q. You had evidence on 20th Feb of another alleged incident of offensive material placed on Yammer?
NB - yes
HH - Nevertheless you proceeded to reject recommendations from JH?

NB - You seem to make an inference delegation was less good option. Wr delegated with training, guidance and point of escalation.
HH - On 14th march ST emailed you because hadn't heard anything at all and wanted an update. This is 4 weeks later

and you still hadn't contacted ST had touch?
NB - I know the date the meeting took place.i dont know what correspondence my office had to set up that meeting.
HH - Your delay and resistance to JH recommendations meant ST was left exposed to very

behaviours ST was complaining about
NB - I disagree. We maintained controls on moderation. We continued to profile to important of inclusive leadership. Commitment to sit down with ST.

I would not have simply sent a written response to my position. I wanted to give respect and care to the way I'd made my decisions.
[HH takes NB to 8 points of action taken in WS]
NB - I and my team were keeping things under regular review.

By dint of a WS I'm being asked to reflect on a period of time and this is not an exhaustive list of actions that we took.

HH - I'd like to ask about Twitter posts from Andreas Mueller [AM]. This is an email from ED, attaching a number of jpeg files. A complaint about conduct by AM on twitter

J - Can I just check. You were asked about delay before you met ST. 6 weeks. What was reason for that?
NB - I dont know. I'd need to go back over my diary.
J - You can't remember?
NB - No

<apologies for the short delay - the judge may not have needed a break but I did!>

And fair play to MN for saying no chance.

Do they even know if the person posting on Mumsnet is even in the CS?

Surely anyone can pretend to be anything, as demonstrated by various TRAs that appear from time to time

What exactly does this "harassment" consist of? Not wanting to shut down SEEN? Not agreeing TWAW?

I'm so bored I want to set my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer. Just to have something to do.

PS - never going to get through the witnesses, it will go part heard.

They can, yes, but the thread they’re referring to became a sort of support thread for GC civil servants (not just DEFRA but they had the yammer convos). It was linked in the second thread of this series I think.

Agree with P.S.

And yet again missing the laugh react...😂

I have actually put on Traffic Cops o the TV. Easy to dip into while bored by this questioning.

At least Jane Russell is a bit more entertaining.

At least if it does it might limit the ability of the judge to find against RPA/Defra on the grounds of delays.

From TT:

HH - So this is email from ED on 5th Feb 2023 about AM conduct on twitter. Contains jpegs of images. Complaints. This is a comment under AM handle. His response to a post celebrating North West young Labour group and a motion about transphobia. He says "disgusting"

This is a post on Nadia Whittome and about hate crime on trans people up by 50%. Very serious. AM says "just leave party amd join tories. People like you are a cancer on my party". Inappropriate you agree?
NB - Yes

HH - He comments on a post about a:Gender. His comment about his colleagues "the clowns have arrived". Inappropriate yes?
NB - Yes
HH - In reaponse to a post by Prof Stephen Whittle "you'll never be a man Stephen. Inappropriate?
NB - Yes

HH - In a post to United nations "men can never be lesbians. Stop you are making fools of yourselves" Inappropriate?
NB - Yes
HH - Here "trans women are men" Breach of Trans and intersex guidance isn't it?
NB - I dont know what he's got in his mind when he is writing that