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.

Is. Doxxing in her job description? Just asking.

We're past the point where the judge intervened but I can't tell from the tt record what it was NC said that so upset the judge. Maybe one of those who are there can fill us in at the next break.

It's as if the judge doesn't want to hear the reality of what a man's 'lived experience ' as a woman really is

From TT:

seek to silence a category of employees
NB I want to say two things; most workplace g/x's are very narrow and seldom touch on matters as wide as HR and comms policy
NC let me try again, do you agree that this g/x was an attempt to silence an entire category of employees with a

shared belief
NB it sought very tight controls over specific speech
NC it was an attempt to silence an entire section of the workforce about their shared belief
NB yes, I agree
J was that why you rejected recommendations
NB it's why I rejected some of the recommendations

J I was thinking specifically of SEEN D not being allowed to operate as a network
NB yes that and that SEEN D not being allowed to access Yammer
NC page 125, main bundle, refer to this at para 10 of your WS, note from CA, your intro to the fact that these issues of sex and gender

Speaking of doxxing, how the hell could ST have claimed to be able to identity the Defra employees that were on Mumsnet?

I do think that NC gets too hung up on exposing the workings of ideology. She does have a tendency to hammer points.

Yet he let HH drone on wasting hours on variations of same questions, and slinging things like harassment at SEEN , among other things. It was an absolute penance, and yet he didn’t say a dickie bird.

NC just starts on something, and it is ‘oh please, you are breaking these men’s hearts and they will wilt away from the horror of your words of reality’. Paraphrased, and my take only.

J - please can we tone down the language and ask the point in a respectful way, you can't say 'its just a matter of hairstyle
NC I am at a loss to know how to phrase my questions
J the point that is being put to you is that whatever way that is put it might offend either side of the debate, do you agree to that

There's nothing in TT to explain why the judge said that - acc to TT, NC had just been stating that TWAW or TWAM are both likely to offend someone, which hardly justifies that intervention.

NC let me try again, do you agree that this g/x was an attempt to silence an entire category of employees with a
shared belief
NB it sought very tight controls over specific speech
NC it was an attempt to silence an entire section of the workforce about their shared belief
NB yes, I agree
J was that why you rejected recommendations
NB it's why I rejected some of the recommendations

I'm glad NB can see it for what it is.

This tribunal feels like a rerun of SEEN’s experience working for Defra. They say something completely logical and sensible about someone else’s poor behaviour then get shut down because you’re not allowed to say anything bad about a particular cohort. It’s Yammer all over again except it’s now a judge doing it. I’m so cross.

On doxing by ED from testimony on July 3rd:

"J - the last q is you said that you sent the letter as it was 3rd time you had to address messages from Mr Meuller
ED no more than him, identities I managed to uncover
J - you had to uncover? you didn't know?
ED same anon accounts, I took an interest of who they might be, found evidence of four members to four accounts. But didn't send to one member as evidence not strong enough to send to his employer.
J - sent letters to others
ED other 2 not defra"

Not just doxing, also threatening behaviour towards people she identified (correctly or incorrectly would remain to be seen with a witch hunt...) Dare I call it blackmailing?

From TT:

had become contentious at home, DEFRA
NC it's a well informed and balanced doc
NB yes
NC and if you disagreed with anything you would have mentioned in your WS
NB yes
NC EDW post (July 2023?), page 193 original version, 157 revised version
J confirming pages

NC are we agreed that page 193 is original version?
NB I think so
NC change between 2 versions is last 5 words, so do get in touch' has been deleted, are we agreed on that
NB yes
NC EDW had engaged with your colleagues in drafting and refining post
NB yes

NC page 137, that is EDW's email of 20 July to various people, not to you but you've seen it since, is it clear that she is upset and angry that her post has been taken down the second time
NB no audible answer
NC and she was understandably angry when removed again without warning

It's bad for the blood pressure holding it in. 😀

I presume NC had suggested something about hair that TT didn't include.

Yes, that coupled with the fact that everything is a transphobic dog whistle and has a hidden meaning beyond what someone has plainly stated. It's soul destroying.

NC much more sinned against than sinning before this judge. HH was allowed to beat things to death, and then continue for what seemed like forever.

'Our doxxing is orthodoxxing. Your doxxing is heterodoxxing'
with apols to William Warburton😄

Personally feel it is NC's over-egging of ideological terminology. AL managed to proceed very well by sticking to the events as they unfolded - which is what the judge is most interested in. He wants to know if DEFRA did not proceed in a fair or reasonable manner. He is also trying to show great symapthy to the complainant's case. Whether that is down to natural sympathy, or whether it is so that he cannot be judged to be biased himself when it comes to judgment time, I don't know.

Yes, but I do think her style of elucidation can sometimes irritate. She does have that very clipped type of english accent too......

From TT:

NB yes
NC email from Carli Malling (sp) saying the following Y post by EDW has been removed for violating code of conduct,
NB I don't know the rationale behind the moderation of the post, I understand the disquiet
J you don't know the rationale behind the person who made

decision
NB to remove the post. I understand the disquiet of EDW about removal
J what don't you understand - the email or the removal of the post
NB I don't understand the rationale by the person who removed the post,
J why was this message sent
NB I don't know

J wasn't there a process following removal of a post,
NB it could have been I don't kno
NC It is unfair victim blaming, posted an un-offensive post, then EDW is blamed for the torrent of reactions, comments etc
NB it's not victim blaming, I assume that the post was removed

to take the heat out of the system, and bring the convo back to a reasonable level
J so NC you are saying that the email is victim blaming EDW
NC yes, an inoffensive post resulted in a torrent of hostile reactions, and an email blaming her
NB I wouldn't say victim blaming but

The judge is coercing her speech. Others are able to express hyperbolic statements and they are unchallenged, when NC asks a blunt question she is shut down.

I figured he'd said something ridiculous and was then waiting eagerly for the next lot of TTs to appear. I wasn't disappointed!

you'd have got two marshmallows, too...

NC's tone towards NB does feel a little hostile. Personally, i think she is a good witness that we need on our side, so to speak.

Perhaps someone (or more than one) in the Court was making performative gurning faces.