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.

From TT:

(Missed)
NC - Trans colleagues were doing everything in their power to silence GC colleagues?
NB - Certainly wanted limits

NC - its right neither EDW or SEEN bullied anyone?
NB - So you'd have to ask perception of others. The assessment was I didn't see a set of actions or behaviours I felt was in breach of our policy.
NC - If either EDW or SEEN had bullied there would be consequences?
NB - yes

[J asks for clarity]
NB - I saw vehement debate and not always healthy expression of views and opinions.
NC - It was said there "countless hostile comments" on EDWs post?
NB - Countless comments and somewhat personal.

Oh you sweetest of coleoptera!

But hush, it's Naomi...

Why is the judge so sensitive about the word 'demonising'? Might it hurt someone's feelings, or something?

After letting HH say that SEEN were harassing (although where this finding was, I don’t know), and not saying a word, J suddenly won’t allow demonising. Suddenly ‘neutral’ is raised. So much baseless slurs, and false ‘inferring’ allowed for HH.

NC won’t be allowed to get a full sentence out, before J jumps in.

NB staying very clear and very profesional as previously - refering always to process and to reasonableness.

NC - its right neither EDW or SEEN bullied anyone?
NB - So you'd have to ask perception of others. The assessment was I didn't see a set of actions or behaviours I felt was in breach of our policy.
NC - If either EDW or SEEN had bullied there would be consequences?
NB - yes

So... SEEN followed the policy! Can the same be said for the GI supporters?

.

NB - I saw vehement debate and not always healthy expression of views and opinions.
NC - It was said there "countless hostile comments" on EDWs post?
NB - Countless comments and somewhat personal.

So, hostile, then. Were those posters subject to disciplinary action?

From TT:

NC - So much so they were taken down?
J- I'm sorry you talk really fast - we have to note what they are. Just slow down

J - You would agree countless and personal?
NB - Yes.
J - Just slower please
NC - The post was taken down not because anything wrong with it?
NB - yes
NC - because the comments were objectionable?
NB - yes

NC - another post and again a flood of hostile comments. So bad the second time the post was taken down again and never put up again?
NB - yes
NC - So hecklers veto on GC beliefs?
NB - It had provoked reaction from trans and LGBT allies. Was very clear on their opposing view

So, the "toxicity" emanating from ST and crew is starting to come out now......

HH was literally putting words like hostile in the mouth of a witness - which she didn’t say and Judge is mute. Say demonizing and suddenly he’s all hell fire and damnation.

He does need a complaint against him. Absolute biased muppet.

The post is taken down and not the comments?

That’s a terrible moderation system.

Those aren't grounds for a complaint; they're grounds for an appeal.

I see 'countless' is acceptable now, the judge queried it before.
Disappointed to see NB using it, apart from not being accurate, it also gives the impression that there were hundreds of 'hostile comments' on SEEN, when the reality is more likely that there were many not countless' comments that trans colleagues didn't like, which may or may not have merited the description of 'hostile'.

NC - another post and again a flood of hostile comments. So bad the second time the post was taken down again and never put up again?
NB - yes
NC - So hecklers veto on GC beliefs?
NB - It had provoked reaction from trans and LGBT allies. Was very clear on their opposing view

😡

I bet he doesn't realise he's doing it.

I got the impression the countless hostile comments were coming from the GI side.

Yes, it was a flood of hostile responses to EDW's post.

Yes, exactly. As you’d expect.

There were countless GI supporters shitting on SEEN was how I read it.

Is NC referring to the mild-mannered, carefully-worded, diplomatic post about there being different opinions re sex and gender that was posted a while ago?
If so, this would be a good time to quote from it.

I think it’s countless hostile (can we say that?) comments by TRAs on the SEEN post, not countless comments by GCs.

So hecklers veto on GC beliefs?

No Debate in action

Gosh, I wonder who the harm-prevention-by-deleting was aimed at.