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.

HH moving on to training session for civil servants,
This is a proposed agenda for EDI event.....let me check dates.....Dec 2022, and we can see in the 3rd para that Edd Perry is given as leadership example, recent decision maker in g/x and how it impacted his leadership, so on the agenda, EP was going to talk about his learnings
from C's g/x not the detail
NB yes that's what is referred to

I'd not be happy about that if I was ST.

I'm sorry, I know the witness list has already been posted several times, but I can't find it. How many more Defra witnesses before we get to Elspeth's evidence?

It's so hard hearing everything about SEEN being framed as hateful, so it will be good to have the other perspective.

From TT:

HH in particular I'm going to suggest Bal Toor is mounting a robust defence of SEEN, not transphobic, not attacking trans colleagues
NB I don't think she was seeking to defend GC views she was setting them out as she understood them
HH went on to talk about development of PoC

what do we need from senior CS? Do you see
NB yes
HH in this document she is clearly giving direction to senior colleagues as the lines they should take,
NB she's giving them a steer on how they should be considering the issues and operating as leaders

HH and attached to that briefing note is some potential Q&A, that begin at 581.
NB yes
HH and yet again what we see, looking at final question, its not a conflict between belief and identity, shouldn't identity take precedence, answer is that its a conflict of beliefs

HH this is DEFRA views, it was a conflict of beliefs
NB we were taking into consideration all dimensions, Bal's note mentions and takes into account distress experienced by trans colleagues and says we don't seek to minimise that.
HH want to ask qs a 1st g/x and first g/x appeal

My note: but what is identity, but belief??

I don't know I was looking for it earlier with no joy.

It's in AL's preliminary note linked on TT's substack. There are another 3 after NB.

Re running order from Friday PM:

J Everyone will be pleased to hear that's as far as we go today. Can we have a running order
AL Plan had been to hear from Steve Moore next. Then Nicolas Bettesworth.
J If humanly possible please stick to this as we will read in the order you propose to call witnesses.
AL Slight hesitation as would have been natural order to call NB first. [someone goes to check]
AL We'll stick to that order. Then Caroline Airs, then Mr Calvert but may revisit.
AL MLFs discussed this yesterday. Best case scenario is finish evidence by end of next week. Unlikely will get to submissions by end of next week and don't think subs

HH in this document she is clearly giving direction to senior colleagues as the lines they should take,
NB she's giving them a steer on how they should be considering the issues and operating as leaders

'In fairness' I've complained when other witnesses gave answers that said something they'd prefer to say, rather than directly answering the q as put, so I s'pose I should note that NB has done it too😏

Thanks! Hopefully HH won't take as long with them as she is with NB.

NC is strong on identity as belief. If HH has been permitted to frame this as fact vs. belief NC will have a good claim to explore this without the Judge shutting her down as he has tried to do.

There's another witness who AL mentioned on Friday (not caught by TT) called Lorraine Adair.

From TT:

We don't necessarily need to go to that because what's important is Janet Hughes, JH, decision on g/x appeal, You had some contact with her, note in bundle.
NB yes
HH take a moment to read that email
[reading]

HH are you ready
NB yes
HH she's setting up the meeting with you later that, to talk about EP not upholding the g/x and wants to talk about a number of factors, it's clear that she's seeking to engage in and understand the legal issues, holding a gc belief and other duties to

trans employees, she asked about what assessment DEFRA made of impact of comments on Y to well being of trans colleagues, so she's on the ball, and aware of PSED
AL it doesn't say anything abou that
HH when you read final bullet, when she asks about what assessment of impact

gc beliefs, she's asking about issues that are alleged to have caused harassment, did you understand she was asking about and equality impact assessment
NB no, I took assessment to mean consideration
HH it's clear from this email that she had an awareness of legal issues

It's probably a good job no one validates my identity in real life. If they did I'd be constantly getting attacked with bug spray and rolled up newspapers.

NB we were taking into consideration all dimensions, Bal's note mentions and takes into account distress experienced by trans colleagues and says we don't seek to minimise that.

Again: was the distress of women caused by trans colleagues taken into account and not minimised?
rhetorical question, obvs😠

I think it's safe to say this is a judge who does not have prostate issues.

Is it lunch time yet?

HH when you read final bullet, when she asks about what assessment of impact
gc beliefs, she's asking about issues that are alleged to have caused harassment, did you understand she was asking about and equality impact assessment
NB no, I took assessment to mean consideration

NB under breath: if you can change the meaning of words then so can I.

From TT:

J asking for an opinion
NB before we go on, come back to use of assessment, JH uses the word assessment 3 times, in that paragraph. She's using the word broadly to described weighing up of evidence, not sure I would have made the connection.

J on that document, these redactions, there is an acronym, LPP, I now know what that means,
HH a record of meeting with JH also Jack Webb, and Clare Fudge (?).
NB Jack Webb a note taker, Clare a case worker from MoD, supplied us with services.

HH fair to say there was a discussion of legal issues
NB Yes
HH at top of 671, again we don't want to understand what was said you explained your views on the legal position is that fair
NB no audible response
HH now are changes being made to Y, what you tell JH that Y had relied

on self regulation, some resource but not available 24/7, but changes coming April, became Viva Engage, and that there was option to close Y and other gov depts had closed it. Did you consider closing Y?
NB we kept it under review
HH no docs to support that
NB review is a

From TT:

continuous act.
HH when you say continuous act, you just mean you thought about it and didn't do anything
NB no
HH is it time for a break?
J yes, we'll break until 14:05.
Morning session part 2 ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll please

Well that was a morning of nothing much except going round in circles.

Again.

I wonder if this case can be argued backwards.

• Given that It is in the best interest of a free society to allow people with GC views to express them (as with any other lawful belief), per Forstater

• and that it is unreasonable for any person to feel harassed by something that occurs in society’s best interests

Anyone who feels harassed by the expression of GC views is therefore unreasonable.

The end.

Yup.

Thanks @fanOfBen for the c&p!

I think we ought to have these interludes at regular intervals, to stop us banging our heads on the walls.

I want to be on the third horse!

I'm struggling to see any purpose in HH's questioning. She's clearly a very experienced barrister, but there's a lot of reaching going on.

They need to do that, otherwise, it's impossible to go on an aggressive rant about sod all.

Back to food because that was hard graft this morning. This was most recent 'bread day' at mi casa.

I am puzzled as to why we have to have our GC beliefs protected as just that - belief, when we actually are in fact the sex we say we are, whereas Tink et al claim their upset is grounded in 'who they really are' being up for debate & attack, when in reality that is merely who they believe they are.

Upside down world.