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:

The second morning session of 8 July, will continue here. Return, not before 11:55.

I think Naomi Cunningham has a lovely voice.

I know what you are getting at and you're not the only person to have commented on her voice and its possible effect. By contrast, I can't remember any comments on the 'clipped' English accent of male barristers.

Having worked within a Defra arms length body at the time, I am actually really glad that this is all out in the public domain. An unintended consequence of the case.

I was pretty new to the organisation and was horrified to see how hostile the reaction to the launch of SEEN was. I had never worked anywhere where there was not a general level of respect to other staff members. It soon became obvious to me the damage that staff networks had caused to the organisation which is a shame as some provided useful information such as being more inclusive to deaf and hard of hearing staff during online meetings.

The leadership were cowards in letting the activism get out of hand. Including unscientific information being unchallenged in online posts, which quite frankly were embarrassing for an organisation that was built on science. I didn't join SEEN immediately, as I thought the staff networks were on balance bad for the organisation. Also due to fears about being doxxed if my identity was discovered, which was a reasonable fear based on what has been discovered during this tribunal. Ultimately I did join to show solidarity to colleagues and show that there was opposition to the GI orthodoxy within the organisation.

I hold the civil service responsible for many of the crazy policies that we have seen in society on this issue. It is very out of touch with the average person in the UK.

Btw, have left now, thank goodness!

Heaven forbid that a woman is well spoken and confident in a court of law!

From TT:

We have been admitted to the CVP, should resume shortly.

Or whether he feels he should.....

I wonder if SEEN were not acting as intervenor whether Defra would have gone all out on "let us show the court the many ways we favoured ST, that we 100% were supportive of, and in agreement with, his views. Unfortunately the pesky law means we actually have to let women have rights so we couldn't make SEEN cease to exist."

@SunnyViewer thank you for sharing that. Awful. Glad you left and very strong of you that you joined in solidarity when you were still in CS employ!

For the record: NC's putting down a marker moment in full:

J I understand that you are trying to demonstrate that the GC has been treated less favourably because of those beliefs.
NC yes
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.
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

I imagine that’s very likely.

From TT:

NC onto GI and Intersex policy, if you look at pg 1702 and para 9, that says in DEFRA an indiv need to be experiencing gender dysphoria or need a diagnosis to be trans, that's effectively self id, despite fact that attempt to amend gender rec act had failed
NB yes

NC policy gives people right to use whatever SS facilities they wish
NB yes
NC paras 76-78; fair paraphrase that it treats objecting to use of SS facilities as suspect, suggests they should go elsewhere
NB yes
J before we go on, can I ask are you aware of any work to amend the

I could listen to her all day. Very clear speech and always interesting and informative.

From TT:

paras.
NB yes, there is work underway, to set out a plan for revision, depts have until 4 September to set out their plan, off the top of my head
J what is the interim position
NB interim position is to continue to apply current policies until we change them

Nice row of yes responses there .

And there you have it. Our CS actively not following the law.

NB interim position is to continue to apply current policies until we change them

FFS

From TT:

NC now I heard the first of those answers; work underway following code of practice what was the 2nd part
NB the model code of practice
NC that's produced by the Cabinet Office
NB yes
NC so you held up your policies to FWS April 2025 waiting for the EHRC code of practice

that doesn't apply to employment
NB no, held up waiting for Cab Off model guidance
NC because they were waiting for EHRC
J probably not relevant, unless reason for delay
[looking for correct page]

Breathe and relax. Green grass, fluffy clouds. Green grass, fluffy clouds. And breathe and relax.

Finally managed to catch up after being 4 threads behind. Thanks to everyone who’s c+p’d and commented. It’s just so inconceivable how all this trans shite has taken over seemingly rational people’s brains. It’s infuriating.

J probably not relevant, unless reason for delay

Really judge? Really?

Funny world this tribunal. Judge shuts down reasonable questioning when ST goes all lips a trembling at being expected to give answers. NC asks perfectly reasonable question in language judge has allowed for HH (despite AL objecting), and it is, all of a sudden, objectionable to the judge.

For this judge, it appears that it is not so much what’s being said, but who is saying it that leads to him allowing it or shutting it down. It’s a bit tyrannical, capricious, and personal.

"NC paras 76-78; fair paraphrase that it treats objecting to use of SS facilities as suspect, suggests they should go elsewhere
NB yes"

From TT:

NB I have it
NC if you look at last substantial para 'I have raised concerns......about establishment of network based on belief' that ship had sailed, faith based networks had long since formed
NB yes
NC more pertinent to this matter would be formation of agender and LGBT+ group that set precedent based on beliefs, not SEEN setting precedent

NB yes, I agree
NC 2 networks on pc of sex, gender equality and SEEN
NB yes
NC one understands sex from GI point of view and one sees sex from biology point of
J one on each side if I can say that

'probably not relevant, since it was you that said it, NC'😠

Is that you Malcolm?
Actually I'm just imagining Malcolm Tucker taking part in this shambles and actually made myself laugh out loud so I had to stop. But wouldn't it be just brilliant.