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.

As requested.

From TT:

not protect trans colleagues who don't wish to hear those views
NB it's for all employees, to encourage them to engage in thoughtful sensitive communication in the workplace
HH email in response to CA draft guidance from Bal Torr, added the words 'a personal' to guidance not

appropriate to engage in 'a personal political debate or seek to provoke'. Then comment accepted by Sarah, your private secretary, said you were out of office and to go ahead
NB yes
HH you didn't take any interest in the impact on trans colleagues of this guidance
NB I didn't

comment further on the guidance
HH did you read it
NB I can't remember
HH in relation to 132 'not acceptable to characterise legally held belief as inherently transphobic' do you agree it's important to understand how it would impact on trans colleagues
NB I agree

HH and ST had a GRC that allowed recognition as female for many purposes, did you know that
NB I did know, I can't say when I became aware
HH do you agree that the workplace is not a place for debate whether a colleagues legal gender should or should not be recognised

Claude AI said,

For your context, intégrité is the better choice.
Intégrité is the standard term in French governance and institutional writing—it’s the direct equivalent used in codes of conduct, corporate values statements, and public sector charters. It covers both moral uprightness and the broader sense of wholeness/consistency that “integrity” carries in English.
Probité is narrower and more literary/formal—it emphasizes scrupulous honesty and incorruptibility, often used in legal or judicial contexts (e.g., “probité judiciaire”). It can sound slightly old-fashioned or heavy in a modern values statement.
For a triad like yours (integrity, impartiality, legality), intégrité, impartialité, légalité reads as the natural, professional register you’d see in French institutional documents.

The Lanyard doesn't say what he thinks it says or represents.

It is ST's perception of what the lanyard means rather than what the actual person wearing the lanyard has said or done.

Once again back to me me me

😂 I think a strong bread flour would have high morals and it would pair lovely with Boiled's cheese.

Doing the lawful thing is the best prophylaxis against losing a tribunal case in the world.

I can take over after lunch for the afternoon session(s) if you’d like a break. In fact, I’ll take an early lunch and run some errands now so I’m back well in time for 2pm.

Thank you for this mornings work?

So "integrity" doesn't actually mean integrity in French? How very French...😊

(I'll get ma veste..)

Brilliant, thank you - I'd like to go out this afternoon!

HH do you agree that the workplace is not a place for debate whether a colleagues legal gender should or should not be recognised

Depends what he is attempting to do. Fix the broken wheel on his chair then no. Trying to enter the women's loos/changing room then yes.

From TT:

NB DEFRA had a culture of discussion on a wide range of topics that might make you wonder on their applicability to delivering on priorities. There were not hard rules on what could be discussed. We expected people to abide by code of conduct.
HH - repeats her proposition

NC interjects
J there is a huge risk about veering into philosophical debate, lets keep to the facts of this case
HH looking at EDW amended post, you've seen before
NB yes
J checking page number

HH this is amended version, we don't have earlier version, an earlier version contained an invitation to a debate that was removed, even in this version there is ref to a number of orgs, she's saying exploration of different views should be welcomed, sign posts various orgs, also

says happy to talk directly with anyone interested, to dispel myths in particular hold that thought, taking you to another document, this is extract from GC inclusion survey undertaken by SEEN of 300 members/supporters, qs 8-11, asked if workplaces were hospitable to expression

of GC beliefs. It can be inferred that they want to express opposition to GI in the workplace.
NB I don't know that I can infer that; the question was asked and answered
AL I'm going to interject, we were told that we would be taken to docs about debate in workplace about GI

My note: I can't help reading this as "nota bene DEFRA had...". Which works too!

See Myrtle's post above - I was being over-pedantic, intégrité will do grand

Loving all the T-shirt work, thank you!

asked if workplaces were hospitable to expression of GC beliefs. It can be inferred that they want to express opposition to GI in the workplace.

Why can't words just mean what they mean? Why does the GI side always assume they actually mean something else?

Thanks for the c&p @fanOfBen

I was just thinking that in most cases, barrister A will say the law requires <this> and cite favourable precedents, and barrister B will insist it requires <that> and cite favourable precedents for <that> and the Jusge has to decide that either A or B is wrong, and whoever is wrong will have misrepresented the law. So in that sense it’s what they’re paid to do.

HH is certainly allowed to put forward arguments that she thinks are “thin”, and put them forward with gusto. The more skilled she is the better she’ll do it.

From TT:

and I don't think these have done these
J are there documents that suggest that GC people wanted to debate the Cs position or GRC in the workplace
HH nothing explicit
J so there is nothing specific
HH you talked about the two polarised views on this issues, the two things you

were trying to balance. You were aware that many trans colleague believed that the expression of GC views was bigoted, was biased, not done in the workplace.
AL - Excuse me
J lets see that the witness says
AL she needs to establish the basis of her proposition

HH we've already seen that there are countless expressions of hate....
J countless
HH in response to ST's post
J what are you trying to get to you
HH trans colleagues or their allies were forbidden to call out
J well put that to the witness

HH this provision prohibits trans colleagues who see that as hateful from calling it out
NB this document provides guardrails for all colleagues to engage in a sensitive, appropriate and professional way
HH so what if a trans person called a GC view hateful

NB if someone made a comment on any topic that was deemed to be not appropriate it would be subject to moderation or words of advice or similar
HH do you accept this policy makes it unacceptable to call out GC views as hateful, that exactly what it says
NB well yes

Maybe ‘it might be inferred by some’ or I put to you that it ‘could be inferred by some’. And, even with that, HH would still be without a proof. But certainly not ‘it can be inferred’. As if that was a natural, objective and impartial stance.

HH we've already seen that there are countless expressions of hate....
J countless

So both NC and AL have nipped at HH's heels, and now the judge is saying 'Countless???'

HH really making an impression😏

From TT:

HH trans colleagues can't speak up can they
NB of course they can, they have a range of ways to speak up, they can respond over Y, they can complain, they can talk with line manager,
HH going to move on to new topic, para 14, attendance at LGBT+ open board meeting,

You say you were closely following chat in Teams, chat became hostile, you almost intervened, what do you mean, is a more appropriate word upset and frustrated
NB the word I used was it was becoming problematic
J I can't find the word hostile
HH I can't find it, when you say

problematic they were expressing their views stridently because they were upset and frustrated
NB that is broadly my recollction
HH you also had feedback from RPA LBGT network champion
NB I don't recall that
HH let me correct myself you didn't personally receive it

post from way upthread:

HH I suspect I'll get the same answer, so I'll move on. Due regard to PSED means conscious approach to further aims and objectives
NB I agree
HH must be done with integrity and rigour, is a continuing duty,
NB I agree
HH important when exercising public functions, says whether to allow DEFRA SEEN as a network, to keep records to show you actively considered impact
NB I agree

Why is the answer not that DEFRA treated the SEEN and AGender groups the same on Yammer.

Also that the YouGov pills show that AG views are contested so they were right to balance.

Alternatively shut down all groups - which I think they should do

J are there documents that suggest that GC people wanted to debate the Cs position or GRC in the workplace
HH nothing explicit
J so there is nothing specific

...

HH we've already seen that there are countless expressions of hate....
J countless

Judge had enough of the hyperbole?

HH so what if a trans person called a GC view hateful

But that never happens so no need for HH to ask about that!

Yes, sorry, @MarieDeGournay, went to make tea and missed the intervening posts before I quoted you, and therefore missed @MyrtleLion's excellent exposition. (Which makes more sense, but it would be more "French" if it was true, though..)

”HH that guidance, in part 2 bullet points, it's not acceptable to characterise expression of legally protected beliefs etc it is all geared to enabling GC views to expressed on an open platform”

“HH puts guard rails around those who wish to express GC views but does not protect trans colleagues who don't wish to hear those views”

These questions are silly. The idea that you shouldn’t be able to state basic facts in the workplace is nuts.