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.

Thanks for finding those.

And WOW!

From TT:

choice, transphobia is. Do you think that is impartial?
J what does that have to do with this case
NC R has been accused of being partial to GC
J let's move on
NC that's the perm sec T Finkelstein, video for trans awareness week, has she ever recorded a video for IDW

HH what issue does this go to?
NC same point, Rs is accused of discrim & harass to C and is unfairly lenient to GC side
J I'm not sure that point has been made
HH the only place that is relevant is to uneven moderation.
AL I did ask a question about this earlier

My note: what does it have to do with this case, Judge? Well...

So illustrative! Yes, I did enjoy seeing that contrast!

NC is certainly painting a picture of a workplace where ST should have felt quite cossetted i.e. not an environment to cause a marginalised and alienated ST so much harm and distress that he had to go off sick when SEEN was allowed to express their WORIADS opinions in the workplace

From TT:

HH as I understand it, MLF's qs about this document were about objective justification, but NC's questions were not about that
J are you asking a factual qs, has TF ever posted about IDW, if it's only that q, that's fine
NC I'm trying to put a factual qs - to NB has she ever done

a message about IDW
NB I don't know
NC has she ever recorded a message for all DEFRA staff for detrans day
NB recording messages is a recent development, would have been a blog post or a message
NC has she ever done anything for detrans day, its inconceivable
NB I don't think so

Trouble is NB named Tamara Finkelstein as her inspiration in that podcast I linked. She's not going to diss her.

J what does that have to do with this case
NC R has been accused of being partial to GC

What do YOU think the case is all about, judge??

Puppies and kittens and fluffy clouds.

From TT:

NC it's inconceivable that she would post such a message because of the uproar and protest from the usual activists and networks
NB I suspect there would be quite a lot of pushback
NC and ED said that detrans are a tiny minority of a tiny minority so deserving of protection

NB yes
[discussion of break, has been agreed]
Court rises
End of part one of morning session

My note: I'll hand the baton over to whoever is doing it next, I lost track...

Right, we're on a break so I can post:

Naomi's original question that the judge stopped was that "there are two sides to the debate, those who believe sex is a matter of biology and those who believe a woman is a matter of hairstyle and clothing", which the judge found outrageous and emotive etc. He keeps saying he does not want to get in the weeds of the debate but cannot see the imbalance in what he is permitting the GC side to say vs what the Claimaint's side can. I presume that's a legacy of the Stonewall training? Anyway, as NC said herself, the whole bloody case is about language and what people are being allowed to say!!

What is also making me shout at the laptop is that the judges interventions are bad-tempered, whereas Naomi has been a study in calm professionalism. Even her "putting down a marker" statement was delivered very calmly.

NC it's inconceivable that she would post such a message because of the uproar and protest from the usual activists and networks
NB I suspect there would be quite a lot of pushback

Really? As if the GI supporters would lose the plot like that. They are after all supposed to be professional and adults.

Thank you so much! @FarriersGirl, did you want to pick up now as you mentioned doing the second half of the morning? I can do if needed.

"there are two sides to the debate, those who believe TWAW and those who believe a woman is a matter of hairstyle and clothing",

Surely there's a typo or mis-speak there - those are the same group, expressed twice!

So his annoyance is on display.

I'm actually rather glad I'm not watching this one. I'm fairly sure my blood pressure agrees with me.

I can take us up to lunch time.

Thank you for clarifying that.
Am I right in thinking that there should be a 'do not' in there:

those who believe TWAW and those who [DO NOT] believe a woman is a matter of hairstyle and clothing"
?

My apologies, you are correct and I was rage-typing and lost any sense of accuracy. I have edited TWAW to "those who believe sex is a matter of biology" as I think she said that too around that time.

I wonder if, as intervenor, the judge can limit NC’s questioning more than if she were representing the claimant or respondent.

oops I xposted with you fOB!

Yes, in one way it is an attack on Defra, but in this context it is actually in their favor if she can show they were actually biased towards ST's demands, not against him. It is a better defense than the one AL can make that they were balanced.

Yes, that’s what I was thinking.

Thank you!

Agree with @myladydisdainisyetliving . TT weren't able to capture the judge's tone and repeated shut down of NC on the hairstyles point. He wouldn't listen, let her speak or explain. He spoke over her and said, literally, 'Do what I say'.

Later he said the emotive language was making it 'very difficult'. But didn't couldn't say how.

I hope NC, and the EAT, kicks his arse good and proper on appeal.

I agree. It's incredible that NC had to point out to the judge that DEFRA being biased in favour of SEEN/GC is actually a key point in this case!
J what does that have to do with this case?

I admire her restraint and professionalism in not ending her reply
NC R has been accused of being partial to GC
with
Duuuuhh!

I agree, because DEFRA doesn't want to admit to favouring one side or other as then they'll get AM and EDW to raise their own grievances if they admit in court that they were deliberately under-supporting the GC side, and only doing the bare minimum, if that, under the guise of 'balance'. This way, they can still make the same points they would in their own grievance - that it wasn't balanced at all.