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.

Both

From TT:

NC - the word provoked suggest something untoward about EDW post but had been carefully refined with your colleagues? Do you agree the post was irrepproachable?
NB - Certainly rigorous response back and some very blunt.

NC - the posts and all comments had to be taken down as so inappropriate?
NB - we took it down as concerned it would spiral to another level amd cause hatm to people
NC - was the response to the appropriate post the response was inappropriate?
NB - yes

NC - EDW post had to be taken down twice even though your colleagues approved it. It was EDW and SEEN who were victims of bullying?
NB - wouldn't say bullying. On receiving end of action we felt we need to take to keep people safe

NC - Will try one more time. If there is a debate on Yammer and one side posts appropriately and the other side causes whole post to be taken time. Fair to conclude the side that made the post be taken down is inappropriate?

NB - We judged EDW post to be appropriate. As posts went on they became more fractious and defra found ourselves in the middle. I can't say every single post made by GC was appropriate and neither posts lodged by trans colleagues were inappropriate.

We judged and moderated and saw thread spiralling into very negative place
NC - Have you ever encountered a post with GI belief me with such inappropriate response it had to be taken down?
NB - Can't think of one no

And ST was the one going off sick due to harm and distress…

I see I got it wrong, thanks.
I still don't approve of the word 'countless', though - I identify as a pedant😁

We've seen it play out on here enough times, the desperate attempts to get so many deletions in the first 100 posts that Mumsnet pulls the entire thread.

From TT:

NC - In context of what happened to EDW it was perfectly sensible to include her in crafting the message?
NB - I imagine that's what Bal was thinking
J - do you know what Bal was thinking?
NB - no that's why I said I imagine.

J - thank you. Right. See you tomorrow 10am

Has there ever been another case where the judge has controlled the words that the lawyers use to put their client’s case?

NB - We judged EDW post to be appropriate. As posts went on they became more fractious and defra found ourselves in the middle. I can't say every single post made by GC was appropriate and neither posts lodged by trans colleagues were inappropriate.
We judged and moderated and saw thread spiralling into very negative place
NC - Have you ever encountered a post with GI belief me with such inappropriate response it had to be taken down?
NB - Can't think of one no

So EDW carefully crafts an appropriate post, in conjunction with the HR team. Massive pile-on from TRAs.
TRA posts never received pile-ons.

Such male entitled behaviour.

J - do you know what Bal was thinking?
NB - no that's why I said I imagine.

Keep up, Judge.

It was just getting interesting.

Now I have to go do stuff.

Ughh.

Judge only putting the kibosh on one side.

NB - I imagine that's what Bal was thinking
J - do you know what Bal was thinking?
NB - no that's why I said I imagine.

Ends day on a snorty giggle!

Ooh, is that your Kali avatar?

NC - In context of what happened to EDW it was perfectly sensible to include her in crafting the message?
NB - I imagine that's what Bal was thinking
J - do you know what Bal was thinking?
NB - no that's why I said I imagine.
J - thank you. Right. See you tomorrow 10am

Tone of voice is very important, but the judge's words on the screen look beyond tetchy in response to NB pointing out that she hadn't claimed to know what B was thinking:
thank you. Right. See you tomorrow

You could rewrite it as
J - do you know what Bal was thinking? eh?
NB - no that's why I said I imagine - duh!
J - thank you. Right. See you outside!
😂
[I am not really suggesting that the judge has challenged a witness to step outside and say that again - just an attempt at humour, honest, judge😬]

Boily's a Kali-optera😄

Just catching up.
THANK YOU to all of you.

And a big YES to this from Wondering:

For someone who has lived experience of so much denial of his existence, ST is taking up rather a lot of everyone else's space, isn't he.

I was right, that was blooming hard work, had I not been c&p I'd have done some work wandered off.

Judge pounced on "demonise" straight away, and NC tried to say but that's what they are doing, and he firmly directed her not to use that word. NC made a couple of noises that suggested she was going to argue back, had a drink from her glass of water and then carried on in her usual professional manner. Would love to be a fly on the wall when her husband asks "so how was work today dear?". On days like today I'd have responded "do you really want to know" which DH recognises as a signal to don tin hat because rant is incoming.

NC - Have you ever encountered a post with GI belief me with such inappropriate response it had to be taken down?
NB - Can't think of one no

Slam dunk.

I imagine Mr NC has a very large G&T, heavy on the G and heavy on the ice (because weather), waiting to be put into NC’s hand the very second she walks in the door.

OK, let me see if I've understood the story so far.....

"EDW set up a nasty transphobic SEEN network. Then the nasty transphobes who work in HR at DEFRA help her write a careful post which is very neutral on the surface but really we all know it's just full of nasty transphobic dogwhistles.

So all the poor harmed trans people and all their allies naturally get very distressed and upset and angry (as any reasonable person would) and they are provoked into hitting back hard with floods of nasty responses. And the thread gets deleted.

So the pile-on is really the fault of those evil rightwing transphobes, including the biassed ignorant senior HR people that brave warriors like ST are up against."

Amiright judge?

There is a discrepancy here between the length of time the judge is allowing HH to take going round and round the same houses, and his jumping in when NC wanted to refer to 4 or 5 documents as part of her questioning of (I think) ED.

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

Well, they managed to “limit” them, by getting the posts removed. Or, as I like to term it, by “silencing” them.

I had genuinely thought that the posts were removed for being a teeny tiny bit prejudicial towards trans people - clowns for examples - but no, they were fine, but the shit-posting on the posts was so bad the posts were removed.

Talk about rewarding bad behaviour.

And as ever, thanks to TT and the cut'n'pasters.

What is it about the word 'demonising' that gets the judge so aerated? It's not the first time. NC is not speechifying - she's puttng it to a witness. So surely it's up to the witness to agree if it's an appropriate term or not. And that's the evidence the court needs to hear - what the witness thought about the conduct.
It's bizarre to the point that I wonder if it's some weird personal religious objection he's got.

OK I managed to get this far, then was stopped in my tracks by

HH trans colleagues can't speak up can they
NB of course they can, they have a range of ways to speak up, they can respond over Y, they can complain, they can talk with line manager,
HH going to move on to new topic, para 14, attendance at LGBT+ open board meeting,

Trans people can't speak up?!? TRANS people??? Seriously???

We never stop hearing from trans people!