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.

If Tink is in the court room the judge should be able to see very clearly that it's a matter of hairstyle for some (plus maybe a dress & straps on show).

I was hoping NC would point out that he himself is taking sides.

Maybe not wise though.

Is anyone good at searching these things? I'm sure it was ED

I'm reading ahead on X, but just punched the air for what NC says

As per the ETBB. The very one used by this judge as a source, when he proceeded to do the opposite.

J can we do this less emotively and just focused on the facts, you are putting propositions to the witnesses that they struggle to agree with

From TT:

How about bias not bigoted
NC I am just going to put down a marker about the extent of the control over the language being used by the Intervenor in attempting to put their case
J please just use slightly less emotive language
NC this case is about the control of language so I

find this very troubling
J I understand but its a reasonable direction
NC I'll continue with my cross examination, it was an unreasonable proposition that the sight of GC people in the workplace made C unsafe
NB repeats language from WS

My note: "put down a marker" sounds like a technical term here :-)

J can we do this less emotively and just focused on the facts, you are putting propositions to the witnesses that they struggle to agree with

'OMFG, this Judge' as ickky said, which can now be c&p-ed again and again and again...😡
This is so blatantly unfair - HH was using completely OTT language yesterday, unchallenged.

She's waited much longer than I would have before stamping her foot and saying enough. But I guess she wanted enough examples

From TT:

NC yes, you've said that in WS, but can you agree that it was biased to indulge C's feelings
NB we are attempting to create an inclusive workplace
NC back to SH's post, she had taken sides
NB she expressed support for one part of our work force

NC isn't that bias
NB she was expressing support for one part of the work force,
NC SEEN wasn't saying the pink blue and white trans lanyards in the workplace made them feel unsafe
NB no they were not
NC qs about JH's recommendations

NC I am just going to put down a marker about the extent of the control over the language being used by the Intervenor in attempting to put their case
J please just use slightly less emotive language
NC this case is about the control of language so I
find this very troubling
J I understand but its a reasonable direction
NC I'll continue with my cross examination, it was an unreasonable proposition that the sight of GC people in the workplace made C unsafe
NB repeats language from WS

I’m just going to quote myself again in response to NC’s putting down a marker comment.

I need a break! Luckily the washing has just finished.

I'll scream into the abyss whilst I'm gone!

From TT:

you have made it clear that she failed to consult you on the recommendations, she mentioned her alignment, and many of the recommendations were unlawful and couldn't implement
NB yes
NC you were very polite in not calling out this very bad behaviour, indulgent

NB I didn't apply many of the recommendations, that was being balanced
J don't understand your q
NC I suggest that NB's being measured and loyal and not calling out bad behaviour because of orgs commitment to bad behaviour
NB I'm not going to be drawn to comment on that

This is so going to appeal. Which is probably a good thing. We have seen before the poor quality of judging at ET level. Bring it on.

From TT:

behaviour, it's not appropriate. I did not implement many of the recommendations.
NC you don't personally agree with GC views,
[some discussion about what particular sentence]
NB it doesn't say that
NC well what does it say
NB I say that I or others may not agree with GC

views, I don't take a side, I respect the views of all parties, I value people for who they are, I bring a stance of attempting to find common ground, that's how I live my life personally and working.
NC you've just made it clear that you don't agree with GC views

Yesterday HH asked NB this:

'You were aware that many trans colleague believed that the expression of GC views was bigoted, was biased, not done in the workplace. '

And NC is not allowed to ask pretty much the same question??

She is papering the appeal. If it’s not said in the original hearing it can’t be raised as an issue of fact at the appeal.

Oh and then:

HH: You were aware that many trans colleague believed that the expression of GC views was bigoted, was biased, not done in the workplace.
AL - Excuse me
J lets see that the witness says

🤨

Not to this extent. Then the shoe dropped when Alexander Kemp dropped his headbanger of an AI assisted/determined judgement.

edited as wrote nonsense.

Let us all enjoy the contrast, shall we?

From TT:

[interjections from AL, J]
AL will this take us any further
J did you put it to the witness that she did not agree with GC views
NC yes, the short point was this, you didn't need to say anything in your statement, but you include that disclaimer because GI still holds sway in

the org.
NB it does not hold sway, our stance is to value each and every employee, and to create an environment where everyone can work together.
NC you've said that JH was personally invested and C's line manager also personally invested,
NB yes
NC and we can see that in

I am in awe of Naomi’s brain being able to reroute her questioning to take account of the judges direction in the hoof, like a human sat nav.

Thankfully there is the TT record, and I think it was said that the tribunal is also being recorded? Looks like it's going to be needed.

From TT:

thread of replies to C's post about SEEN formation
NB yes
NC we see no hint in the bundle that the separate post by ST was deemed borderline, and that reported to ST line manager (Joanne McGuinness?), no action was taken
J so nothing in response to borderline post

NC had anything been said to ST in response to that post, we would have heard all about it wouldn't we
NB yes, I expect it would have been mentioned
NC JM email signature, declaring her partisanship and support of GI, pronouns she/her, link to explanation, trans flag, trans not a

My note: !!!