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 a TW or TIM as I prefer to say lived experience is as a boy/ a man/ a trans identifying man. Not the same as a woman’s lived experience as a girl/ a woman. We all have lived experience but for some reason TIM lived experience is of greater value than the lived experience of half the worlds population.

@Justabaker oh my gosh 😍

She could have acknowledged that this was a difficult topic, challenging for employers, balance of rights, of course GC beliefs are WORIADS, but in this case the argument is that that balance was not properly struck, and trans employees incl ST were exposed to unfair treatment.

She could also have made an argument - quite a strong one, I think - that the grievance process took too long and that in itself was unfair.

She could have done all that, without doing it in the 'voice' of someone who actually believes all the genderwoo, who believes that trans rights are more important than anybody else's, who believes that it would be justifiable for an employer to silence all expression of WORIADS beliefs at the behest of a small number of employees..

Obviously I'm only reading her words, not watching her speak, but I've got the impression that HH has lost herself in this case.

Unless of course she believes in real life that women's rights don't matter..

Justabaker this was mine* *😁

^J what are you asking about^

Could refer to most of the morning.

@ILikeDungs

Oh nice, wholemeal blend?

Justabaker and ILikeDungs -
yum! they look delicious
watch out for beetles, they like a nice bit of bread with their cheese😃

farine intégrale?😂

That is sneaky.

From TT:

Good afternoon and welcome to the afternoon session on 7th July of the employment tribunal of Tempest v DEFRA and Rural Payments Agency.

Expected 2.05pm start.

For full coverage of this case, including extensive abbreviations, case details and documents, please visit our substack.
^tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-defra-and-rural-payments^

Tempest (the claimant or C) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene.

We expect the cross examination of Nicola Bettesworth (NB), DEFRA Chief People Officer by Helen Hogben, to continue this afternoon.

Reminder: Our work is not a verbatim account or transcript of proceedings. We make our best efforts to report what is said and do so in good faith

Abbreviations
J - Employment Judge S.D. Robertson
P - 1 or other of 2 lay panel members
ST/C - Samantha Tempest, claimant
HH - Helen Hogben, barrister for claimant
DEFRA/R1 - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 1st respondent

RPA/R2 - Rural Payments Agency, second respondent
Rs - First and second respondents
AL - Alexander Line, Respondents' Barrister
SEEN - Sex Equality and Equity Network - Civil Service SEEN-DEFRA - the DEFRA branch of SEEN
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for SEEN as intervenor

CS: Civil Service
IX: Investigation
Grv/gx: Grievance
WS: Witness Statement
CoC - Code of Conduct
GC - Gender Critical
GR - Gender Reassignment
PC - Protected Characteristic
HR - Human Resources
EDI - Equality Diversity & Inclusion

I've got the impression that HH has lost herself in this case.

Or else she's a really good barrister. She's speaking on behalf of her client remember? She doesn't have to appear reasonable, even handed or look for balance. If she thinks an all guns blazing emotional tack is going to work better, it's fine to do that.

without doing it in the 'voice' of someone who actually believes all the genderwoo

She is paid to be the 'voice' of ST, someone who definitely believes in all the genderwoo!

As a side note, @myladydisdainisyetliving , your user name is from my favourite play and in of my favourite scenes.

I toyed with being AsCivilAsAnOrange

Oh dear Lord I despair of my own shallow nature sometimes, but that phrase

“nausea, anxiety, shame, feeling unsafe”

has me presenting my backslide, gurning and singing diarrhoeeeea!

I must stop singing along to adverts .They are not lived experience.
I must stop singing along to adverts.They are not lived experience.
I must stop singing along to adverts. They are not lived experience.

No, made with roasted squash replacing most of the water

Oh where's the laugh emoji when we need it? 😂

Just caught up - good grief what a lot of life and time wasted on absolute nonsense this morning. Did I see a prediction, despite the J being clear last week, that this is absolutely not going to run to time and will involve scheduling submissions months from now because of the repeated and slow questioning of these people?

The bottom line really of all of this is one long howl that A Trans Person Being Sad trumps law, reality, everyone else's rights, every other brief or consideration of the workplace, and requires everyone to run around like headless chickens.

What a lot of tosh.

My worry is that judge might agree with the tosh. He gave HH a lot of leeway that he didn't give NC.

Me too! It has been a rich source of usernames and passwords. Banter and romcom in the 16th century.

I get the impression that HH is throwing lots of stuff against the wall and putting in the occasional gotcha to use in her summing up.

.... but when I said 'tribunals seem sympathetic to GC views' you did not disagree which is the same as agreeing, therefore ...

Moi?

I resemble that remark. Unfortunately there is no photographic proof of me doing the eating as I was too busy eating.

That advert is very ear wormy though.

And now I'm doing it.

Grrrrr.

Finally, a reason for that bloody advert to exist!

Wholly agree. Which would make this emminently appealable if it's the case.

I'd also think it would be the work of a moment from someone from SEEN to bring their own case on grounds of discrimination in which the position of women IN THE WORKPLACE WHERE GI RULES THE DAY (otherwise they'll cry) cannot be vanished away because a special person is pouting.

However if SEEN are going last in the 'what is your part in this batshit?' ritual, then they get to address all this and be the last part in the J's mind.

From TT:

[Court resumes 14.09]

HH - Afternoon again NB. Before we move onto 1st gx appeal I want to go through some things we discussed before lunch. Go to 551 of bundle. Ed Parry was decision maker on gx. We can see his decision letter to C. Go to page 553.

HH - He there references the email you sent to senior CSs on 10th Nov yes?
NB - Yes
HH - Go back a little bit page 447. To identify the doc this is the minutes of a meeting Parry had with ST. Go to page 541. Do you see the box at the bottom "next steps". It says Parry will

speak to NB. Did he speak to you? [Answer not heard] Then we can see Mr Parry's sign off there, looks like he's a director.
NB - I take that as incorrect
HH - He would have been cc'd into all your emails?
NB - He wasn't a chief exec.
HH - Let me just find the ref could be wrong

personal note, I'm not sure I can take a whole afternoon of "But ST felt unsafe!" despite NB's patiently explaining law and balancing rights of every employee. I read her WS, and it's patently clear that JH went rogue and had to be reined back in to comply with the law. I've watched Yes Minister enough times to be able to read between the lines. That was unwise = WTF were you thinking? Brave decision = political suicide etc etc.