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.

Was P1 trying to suggest that AM should be banned from posting on Yammer/VE full stop?
Aye, that's proportionate. FFS

From TT:

would have expected that Bal Toor would have taken that forward
P2 para 27 of your WS, we've heard a lot about the 1st appeal but not the 2nd appeal, were you involved with the 2nd, did you see the letter before it was issued.
NB I didn't see and didn't expect to see it unless someone was offering me recommendations to implement I wouldn't expect to be aware of g/x outcomes or appeal.

P2 did you see SMs letter?
NB I did not.
J any further qs AL
AL yes, may take about 20 minutes
J would prefer to complete

AL I can, if NB is happy to continue
[we go on]
AL what platform was that post made on
NB I think on Yammer
AL can you assist with how or on what version of Y that post arose.
NB no
AL you were asked by HH about moderation prior to 2022, put to you no principle of communication

AL yes, may take about 20 minutes
J would prefer to complete
AL I can, if NB is happy to continue
[we go on]

<sobs>

Vocal fry is when the end of sentence is spoken in a lower voice, with a kind of growly sound.
I always think it sounds like they've run out of energy, or interest, and can't be bothered to finish the sentence properly!
Or an affectation of boredom and being 'above' having to engage in the conversation at all.

Vocal fry seems to provoke a lot of irrational negative responses - like mine😃

From TT:

and your reply was reliance on code of conduct before that, can I ask you to turn to page 1608, from you understanding how was this relevant to Yammer before Nov 2022
NB let me read to familarise
[reading]

NB it is setting out DEFRA's use policy for kit, equipment, and how they might be used.
AL is it your understanding this would be applicable to electronic communication systems
NB yes

AL you were asked several qs about PSED and whether an impact assessment had been done at various stages, including establishment of DEFRA SEEN. My understanding of your response to NC q was that it was not required. If it had been done was your understanding of PSED it would require prioritising one PC over another
NB inaudible
AL and why do you say that

And, now it has been revealed that ED may have been involved in a hunt, and doxxing of a fellow cs, is she suitable to have in the role, even with 10% of time being paid by taxpayers? Better than the full time role, but nonetheless.

That's not quite my understanding of vocal fry. It's not just a tailing off of sentences with a growly voice, although that is part of it. The 'growl' is there all the time.

Not a fan.

I wouldn't necessarily describe it as the end of the sentence as it seems to be ubiquitous throughout all speech. But I agree it's when someone speaks from the back of the throat rather than the diaphragm and introduces a growly tone to their voice.

From TT:

NB there is no hierarchy of protections
AL if there had been an assessment would the answer have been any different
NB because the law says holding and expressing the belief is protected and cannot be discriminated against
AL on PSED,...

J you've referred to holding or expressing a belief being protected, did you in your consideration of what to do have regard to the pc of GRA under the EA
NB yes we did consider it, we recognise that we had to meet the lawful requirement of both PCs and to do that in a way that was inclusive and impartial

NB there is no hierarchy of protections

There shouldn't be, but men seemingly are still allowed in women's single sex spaces in your organisation so yes there is

Notable examples to illustrate: Lois Griffin, American Valley Girls

From TT:

AL you should have para 15 of your WS open, refer to training session for senior civil servant, say Bal & yourself lead the session, refer to Bal's briefing note, let's turn to that, it has been put to you that there was a failure to take into account the PSED, can you turn to sub paras a & b, since 8 Nov, do you accept that there was a complete failure to take into account PSED as has been suggested to you

NB No
AL why do you say that
NB the actions Bal describe, the PSED requirements were there in our minds and understood

Dr Geoff Lindsey (linguist, specifically phonetician) on vocal fry, for anyone who’s interested:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0yL2GezneU&pp=0gcJCUwLAYcqIYzv&ra=m

So a bit 'Valley Girl' ( California), or 'Made in Chelsea' - both sound very affected and snooty/superior. Thanks.

Why is no one (including the judge) mentioning the protected characteristic of sex? How can you consider that if no one can mention sex or use sex based language for fear of being guilty of harassing someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment?!

All fair enough about vocal fry in general; there has been a trend in some groups, esp young people, to use it at the end of sentences, and I believe that's the form of it that is best known, currently, and that has come in for a lot of negative commentary.

Yes, annoying, but I suspect that the only protected category that the SEEN network could legitimatley claim is the one of 'Belief'.

From TT:

AL within that same document, under title what do we need from SES, and she put to you that these were the lines you were putting to leaders, can I ask you to read that para, at the end you say 'need reassurance that we will not tolerate bullying and harassment of them nor will we tolerate bullying and harassment of trans colleagues. Both other counsel have suggested to you that there was bullying and harassment, do you agree with that
NB No I don't not, we wanted to treat all colleagues with care and respect

AL now to Lines to take document, who responsible for it
NB someone in my team

AL, read 2nd bullet under heading DEFRA, in the light of this do you accept the proposition that there was no cognisance of PSED
NB no
AL ensure our workplace is safe for all our colleagues, what were you trying to achieve with this

SEEN are the only CS network based on the protected characteristic of sex. But have only been allowed to exist as a Faith and Belief network, based on Forstater.

"Bullying and harassment"

I thought there wasn't any.

From TT:

in the environment of conflicting views
NB we were trying to create a workplace where everyone could thrive, views could be respectfully expressed, inclusive
AL EDW post of Nov 2022, HH said that you should have known it would create an adverse reaction from trans colleagues in your view the fact that DEFRA SEEN would be welcomed by some and not by others, perhaps a majority of others, would you have banned DEFRA SEEN and why

NB there was no basis to ban a network based on a lawful belief
AL and to allow them to exist, but ban them from Yammer

It exists to put forward/promote their beliefs about the protected category of 'Sex'.

NB there was no basis to ban a network based on a lawful belief

Despite them no doubt checking many times to see if there was any way, any way at all, that they could get around it.

I wish someone had examined terms like 'safe' 'harm' etc., as in 'making a safe workplace place for everybody'.
It's the CS,not an ironfoundry or a chemicals plant - what 'harm' do employees have to be kept 'safe' from?
Rhetorical q, obviously, but it annoys me that those terms are used in a legal setting, without any proper explanation of what exactly they are referring to, and to what extent an employer should be expected to be concerned about.

From TT

NB expression of belief is expressly permitted
J would any expression of belief be permitted
NB not all beliefs would be appropriately expressed but we would deal with that on an individual employee basis
AL and what would that be
NB complaints, moderation, disciplinary action,

[technical problem missed q&a about number of g/x]