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.

But their 'beliefs' align completely with the Equality Act protected characteristic of sex. They only had to be found to be protected beliefs in the first place because organisations seemed to be happy to replace sex with gender identity without thinking of the consequences.

They are the SEX EQUALITY and equity network!
NC already highlighted that means they are about more than free speech for the sake of it, they also exist to provide input into single sex facilities policies etc.

I've read threads 1-3, then jumped to this one. Around #30 now, but need to share something that's bugging me.

I witnessed an appalling case of workplace bullying which led to the victim being managed out. It became apparent the bully had spent months DARVO-ing to management, while the victim plodded on without complaint to avoid escalation.

So by the time the shit hit the fan, the bully had been pouring poison into management's ear for over a year, building this dense narrative of victimhood which left the victim totally handicapped. After all, they'd not gone crying to management, so they must be OK. And they'd kept quiet about it all, which was a bit suspicious, right? And they couldn't argue against the accusations [because they didn't know exactly what accusations had been made!!!😡].

Before that, I'd assumed being first to speak up could get you labelled a trouble-maker - better to be professional! But that - and this - make me wonder. The irony's maddening. SEEN were targetted. Women's "existence" was thrown into question - their lived experience dismissed (I know, I know). And they grinned and bore it - and, well, here we are.

But then, I guess, it's not just about the speaking up, is it? It's about the biases of who you speak to - whether there's even an ear for you in the first place...

Yes, I know.

And if the person speaking up is a woman or a Special Man...

Lovely Dr U did the same to SP with his contemporaneous notes and pre-emptive whinging.

The suggestion is that the LGBTQ network/agender was not being treated as 'a belief', but as a protected category - even when they express their beliefs about Gender.

From TT:
My note - I haven't seen another tweet from TT for about 5 mins - assume the glitch is a bigger problem?

Recent tweet by NC:
For preference I spell it “dissenting from gender ideology” or similar. “Gender critical” was a necessary bit of scaffolding I think it might be time to jettison.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you're the first to speak up the social climate makes it just as likely you get an (attempted) example made out of you to fabricate the silence consent of the majority. Accept the purity test and -spirals or be burned as a witch, more or less.

And as if it was the only protected characteristic that mattered.

@Catiette I believe that exactly what has happened here. Tinkerbell orchestrated a pile on with his poor little me attitude and found lots of willing people to be his flying monkeys. The bullying and harassment of SEEN people is off the scale, but management refused to see it. They too believed the network was bigoted and anti trans.

Yep Nitter has had nothing for 9 mins.

I think it is bizarre to call NC an activist in this context and make a claim that she should be a neutral barrister. Barristers are taking a side, they are not neutral. I give you HH yesterday now there was a real activist in action. NC allows that there are two sides and the points she makes are the law should not favour one over the other to the detriment of women’s rights. Entirely reasonable especially when compared to the activist approach of HH yesterday where there is a complete denial of an opposing view.

From TT:

{ We will post later re missed exchanges]

AL What is your view of success/impact of changes
NB Greater responsibility being exercised by groups - whether by our training or learning experience along way. Positive ownership. Reduced requirement of posts to be taken down,

TT tweeting again now

From TT:

AL I said unfair EDW post taken down and EDW therefore victim. That was pre Viva Engage. Was it poss then to take some posts down and not others.
NB Don't think it was
[AL/J think it was the case, established earlier]
J Will it take much longer. No criticism
AL Needing to go through my notes, takes time.

AL You were asked c g and intersex guidance. Working towards Sept for a response
J Plan
AL Has updated model guidance been issued yet from cab off
NB No
AL You or Defra have any control on when will be provided
NB No

And even more effective if the person you’re whinging to is minded to take your side to start with in order to demonstrate their allyship/inclusivity*/Correct Views.

(*inclusivity only extending to some, obvs, perfectly OK to exclude anyone you feel is a bigot/unkind/a pesky woman)

Have to say I agree with NC.

Framing the reality of sex as a 'belief' is a big part of the problem. GC looks like an outlier position, that then needs to explain itself. Whereas GI is actually the extreme view.

Death by lanyard I think. Not the quick death by strangulation, but the slow death where after visual exposure to the said lanyard your body rots internally, starting with your eyes until the only thing left is your voice croaking “ It’s so not fair, I only wanted to express the lived experience I should have had.”

From TT:

AL One more matter brought to my attention. You were asked by P member whether communication principles were conveyed to C following JH decision [p782] Email from you 6 April. Does that assist with you answering q
NB It says I attached communication principles.

J Thank you Mrs Bettesworth. That brings your evidence to an end and we will start at 2.30 with Caroline Airs.
[ends]

Yay, lunch.

And to take my BP tablet, which I forgot this morning. It's a wonder I haven't exploded!😬

Yes. A barrister stands in the shoes of their client. They can try to appear neutral and reasonable, just as a self represented person can, or activist and emotional, likewise.

(Yes, a barrister is an officer of the court, and so has duties to the court too, but in terms of approach, they can choose.)

I think the word bigoted was used quite frequently by HH yesterday. Will anyone be able to point that out to the J?

Tamara Finkelstein is now CEO of the Royal Academy of Engineering, no longer works for the civil service.