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.

So NB was seen, and appointed, as the ultimate arbiter of neutrality and balance, becaue few others in the organisation could be.

Bal talks about real distress of trans people, but it's the distress of people who have been encouraged to believe for years that any dissent from their views is bigotry

This is the relevant point to this case: the organization has connived in the distress; while genuine, the distress only exists as a result of DEFRA culture, and isn’t reasonable.

From TT:

[panel discussions inaudible]
J one question from me, page 482, this is your email of 10 Nov 2022, particularly sentence beginning 'personally' 'very concerned about the precedent', was this a concern about SEEN that you are referring to there
NB yes

J what precisely was your concern
NB the concern was managing the risk of reaction and whether we were geared up to do that well
J yes, that sentence doesn't refer to that all specifically, talks about concern around a network being based on belief,

Oh gosh, it’s the vocal fry which would do it for me. Accents are just that, whereas a vocal fry comes across as an affectation.

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

😁

@MarieDeGournay my hypothesis is that she didn't take that route further than she needed to so far because the judge would hamstring her completely

Senior leaders needed to be trained in how to be neutral and impartial in the brave new world of equal rights.

Thank you very much, @fanOfBen and @FarriersGirl for sterling c&p work.

Thank you @myladydisdainisyetliving for all the threads and your own extensive c&p shifts. So many of us benefit from your diligence.

But I'm going right off NB!😡

It's not just a 'free speech' issue, though, is it? It is as much that other people have feelings too; can feel offended; can feel upset; can feel unsafe due to the culture of their workplace.

Right, so I've caught up on this thread and the second half of yesterday's.

Yesterday was mostly wittering around in a circle, which was fine, and today is direct questioning and getting to the nub of the issue, which apparently is not.

Has anyone actually clarified yet what constitutes "being unsafe'' when Tinks hears an opinion he doesn't like, other than his fears of 'ceasing to exist' which is clearly a nonsense? Or why GI views are OK but GC views are not? Or even where ED was getting her leaked information from?

She at least appears to have been able to put the law above her own opinion/belief, which is more than can be said for some of the other staff involved

From TT:

NB it wasn't about belief per se and SEEN it was about whether we were able to manage the reaction. Not sure about dates but I think we already had belief based networks in existence at DEFRA.
J concerned about managing the risk of reaction who's reaction
NB the work force

J thank you.

P1 - 2 or 3 qs, page 786, letter you wrote to C after JH appeal, recommendation 8, can you read that para.
[NB reading]
P1 can you see part of the recommendation to review SEEN as a CS network, you say you accepted the recommendations, but looking at 3 bullets under that, can you tell me in terms of recommendation to review decision to review formation of SEEN, did you go to the Cab Off and ask them to reconsider

NB my team would have talked to the Cab Off inclusive practice team about that decision
P1 but you don't say you've done

"J concerned about managing the risk of reaction who's reaction
NB the work force"

And... which part of the workforce would that be?

Me too. She didn't, and maybe still can't, see the water she was swimming in. 'Neutrality' isn't neutrality in that situation.

Ooh ooh ooh!

I know this one.

Pick me Miss. Pick me!

Yes, she does seem to be able to assess a situation fairly objectively; even her own part within the investigation and the organisation. She's quite impeccable in her approach to the questions, regardless of who is posing them.

From TT:

that.
NB this is what we were planning to do
P1 did that convo take place
NB I believe it did
P1 could CA speak to that
NB yes

P1 change in moderation, networks were to moderate their own content who would moderators of DEFRA SEEN
NB pre or after delegation
P1 after delegation

NB each group had to name moderators plus IAO
P1 who was doing that for DEFRA SEEN
NB CA will know, but I don't know the names of the moderators
P1 but you don't know their names
NB DEFRA has many networks and I would know about governance but not names

From TT:

P1 - is the account Andy Abides held by AM, is that accepted
NB that emerged during ix
P1 it was accepted
NB yes
P1 given his internal posts and the raft of posts on X, would the org have looked at if he had any role in moderation

NB yes, we would have looked at that, CA can give you further information on that
P1 given that org decided on balance he was the person, was any action taken did DEFRA do anything whether this person should have access to any internal platforms being able to post comments

I think P1 must be the trans ally on the panel.

ETA: it has already been established that no firm action was taken against the trans commenters posting bile on the SEEN post.

What is a vocal fry?

Is that when your words are squeezed off the palate/out of a strangulated throat? Made in Chelsea style?

The judge and other barristers are from the N.E

From TT:

NB I wouldn't be able to say CA and John would know more about that
P1 so you don't know
NB no
P1, just hang on for a second,
[quiet discussion among panel]

P1 - to document 125 (CA analysis)
P1 extract from CA note, para 5, there are 3 sentences, can you clarify what you understood you were being told by CA in that para

NB I understood it to mean that in the law it is accepted for people to hold beliefs and to then manifest those beliefs that it is not lawful to discriminate against anyone because they hold GC views.
P1 - no further qs from me

P2 the very last sentence on 787, did that action take place, you're offering the C (inaudible) is there any evidence in the bundle that took place
NB i can't remember if it's in the bundle but I

So Defra went back to the Cabinet Office to ask if they could stop SEEN being formed.

Motherfuckers

Is the judge really dim? He claims not to understand which section of the workforce might be upset at the existence of SEEN; and who might display negative reqaction.

But they didn't expect any pushback, no sirree.