Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 7

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551375-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-6

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.

NC J - will you intervene on word 'toxic

Oooh, she is starting to pick up HH's language as I speculated last night! Interesting.

NC J - will you intervene on word 'toxic'

Judge still letting HH play by different rules then?

I'm struggling to see how HH's continual questioning is relevant.

HH You took no steps to count/minimise effect on t staff

That's sneaky, 2 questions. They did not count how many T's they had, but as we can see, they all bent over backwards to try to minimise the mantrums.

From TT:

HH Process re Yammer
CA Process where people could complain c content and looked at by DDTS
HH Should have reviewed that before posts going in inJuly 22
CA> Yes. Arose first in March 22 with AM IWD post. I had conversations with colleagues- was first time issue re GC

beliefs had arisen in Defra
HH Updated advice not before EW post
CA No. Hadn't been signed off by then
HH p212 Email to Sally Williams at EAg to Laura Higgins, Carly Malling and SMc. Sally expressing concern running huge risk if we don't have custodian of content.

I get the impression that she knows CA has the better of her on most fronts, and is looking for impressive-sounding things to say about how unhappy t employees felt. Or how DEFRA weren't proactive enough to take away all possible causes of t unhappiness in advance. Or something, anything!

@ickky I'd be surprised if that data was even allowed to be collected considering the much-demanded extra special privacy privileges from T. Even if the data were collected, would the statistics record reality or metaphysical, um, alternate reality of inner feelings? A:gender's identifies-as-survey illustrates how much policy is made from manipulated stats...

From TT:

CA There were issues c who had ownership of Yammer. Sally who is in EAg - her team dealt with complaints. No one had ownership of all company and that was a headache.
HH What do understand by huge risk
CA That no one had overall control of all company Y

HH What risk
CA Of it getting out of hand and no one had authority to stop it. SMc started working a more formal approach and we eventually got rid of all company Y. But there was a process where people could complain about content - to Sally - and she decided. Not ideal, but

there were so few complaints then.
HH [to doc] Email Carly Manning to SMc and others. She says Defra group been unable to agree owner for all company group - email 8/12/22 - still no ownership.
CA Final decision re Y lay with corporate services senior leadership team.

I think by now EVERYONE is fully aware of how the Yammer moderation worked.

I never thought about that angle but it’s a very good point. One of my points to him was regarding vaginal atrophy and saying that no woman would wish that on herself as with my own symptoms until I started hrt I was slightly incontinent. He wasn’t comfortable with those sort of details! My friend and her husband went the whole route of ovaries no longer being released and not being able to reproduce. My husband just called him a fucking idiot. 😆 I don’t think he’s really thought the whole thing through. It’s like he’s been brainwashed.

There might be any number of part-time crossdressers that thankfully haven't come out at work yet 😬

I 'guided' our general counsel to a view that it was a) special category data b) we shouldn't seek to collect it and c) having senior leadership put pronouns in email sigs or on line bios was a form of coercion for people to 'out' themselves as trans.
That was 2018 on my way into retirement. Stood for 5 more years as general counsel stayed in that role.

From TT:

CA This is Carly explaining the problems. There was a process for reporting posts.
HH EW posted first on 19/7/22. And later on 31/7. p130.
Email - same day you sent your note to NB, you sent to Smc and BT c draft guidance on offensive posts. It's very much reactive

to concerns raised by EW and AM c wanting to post on Y
CA It's reacting to issues which arose in March 22. From then I started working on this additional guidance
HH You don't say that in WS
J Put to witness
HH You say you started working on it. But not when

AL Quite a fine point by MLF. Witness evidence not in contrast with WS
HH Draft guidance - v much c trying to shield EW / AM and people wanting to put GC views on Y
CA> No. Allowing people with PCs and ensuring communication in respectful and professional manner

That particular sleight of hand always irritates me!

The "pre-transition" "not out" segment of the T living their GI exclusively in their heads but also collecting righteous indignation from how they perceive the world around them to now be hostile to them in principle.

From TT:

HH When working on it
CA Since earlier incidence in March 22.
HH You drafted it in that way cos sympathetic to EW and views
CA No, drafted this way cos GC views PC and in March apparent not widely understood and trying to make clear Y needed to consider all PC and debate

needs to be professional
HH Your WS - you describe reaction to GC posts as hostile. Expression wasn't hostility it was distress
CA It was being expressed in a hostile manner. Not trying to stop people making points - just wanted them to do in professional and respectful manner.

CA That was all we were asking.
HH Initial post on 19/7. p136.
J Can I ask re timing. Been working on draft guidance since March 22. Contact you had from EW - did that affect the drafting of guidance
CA no
J Not at all
CA Can't remember first contact with EW

It's very much reactive
duh. So not proactive as in:

'Now children - as of today, you are all going to sit at your desks with a finger on your lips to ensure silence. If any of you want to say something, you must first come up to the front of the department class and whisper it in my ear, and I will decide whether if it might make Samantha sad, and if I think it would make Samantha sad, you must not say it'.

I realise 'It's very much reactive' was part of a fuller sentence truncated by a TT break, so I admit that my scenario is not just far-fetched, but unfair -
but d'you know what? I don't care! So much of this tribunal is far-fetched and unfair! Stet!😠

HH You drafted it in that way cos sympathetic to EW and views
CA No, drafted this way cos GC views PC and in March apparent not widely understood and trying to make clear Y needed to consider all PC and debate needs to be professional

CA must surely be getting pissed off by now with HH.

So the judge has allowed “toxic” to be used. He can’t now stop NC using it.

From TT:

J How did EW indicate and to whom.
CA Recall she contacted Tora in NE and Tora got in touch with me.
J Didn't affect drafting of doc
CA No. Draft was well advance by then. July I had sent it to NB and BT
HH Back to docs. Initial post removed. EW says thinks it.s

direct discrimination on basis of PC. Very concerned.
CA Yes
HH Carly to EW - Sally had forwarded email to her. Reason post removed it was not appropriate to use workplace forum to seek to promote persona philosophical / political belief. EW trying to have debate re other's id

Bigot had been used by HH and he still objected to NC using it.

I can't even imagine how some of these current self inflicted legal minefields must come across to you sometimes!

Naomi is building grounds for the appeal if needed - differential approach re control of language.

Yes but NC has laid a marker for the judge as he had to make a decision.

Derail alert:
That GIF - those eyes - is that Katy Perry??

J Can I ask re timing. Been working on draft guidance since March 22. Contact you had from EW - did that affect the drafting of guidance
CA no

Is the judge trying to gauge the level of influence EW has over policy? Has he asked the same questions of a:gender?
The fact the 'special' men have been allowed and encouraged to use women's spaces, despite the law being the opposite, confirms the level of influence that a:gender et al have.