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.

I re-asked a few days ago, on the grounds that the Judge had commented there were few observers, and didn't even get a reply :-(

Problem is that I'm in and then out again today.......

No. Two more for the Rs - Mr Calvert (can't remember his first name) and Lorraine Adair. They are going to try and get them both in but not if it means one is part heard. Elspeth is definitely going to be on another date to be fixed.

I used to love my version of that! Admittedly I was 2 though.

That is also the interpretation I heard from Sarah Phillimore and which seemed logical to my non-lawyer brain.
Has the question of the meaning of 'with impunity' ever been explicitly adressed in any other tribunal?
Because the TAs love bringing it up to suggest that ANY misgendering (except maybe accidental) constitutes harassment.
As just happened in this case without anyone asking for clarification.

Just caught up. So in essence: (entire morning so far)

HH: if a group happen to be running around hitting everybody, the answer is to force everybody to immediately stop provoking them. Because the behaviour is entirely excusable due to 'distress', they bear no responsibility or capacity whatsoever, and everyone else has the job of placating them.

(Repeated in varying ways eleventy billion times.)

Cry bullying, an exact description.

I'll open the book too on this J trying out 'but things were different before the fucking bastarding everlasting guidance' in his judgment to excuse things that were against the law and continued to be against the law, to the detriment of women, upto and including the present day. And that will go straight to appeal too, which will be most useful.

There's a technical reason for the 40. That's the limit on one 'room' video conference. If they go beyond 40, there are additional 'rooms'. In Peggie there was a room for TT & other press, one for supporters, and several for observers. Additional rooms make more work for the clerk(s).

I think it's an older platform, my brain is saying Cisco or Skype, but don't quote me.

Doesn't matter. Observers are logging in and out all over the place! Once you get the link you can use it when you like.

I hope not. The panel is unlikely to appreciate her playing games. I realize that’s unfair, but the Judge and NC are not equals in this forum. An appeal can succeed if the Judge’s control of language really did hinder NC from presenting her case but not if she’s seen as trying to provoke him. There’s a parallel with ST looking for material to be offended about, it you think about it.

Im not sure testing and evidencing his intentional double standards in his language is playing games so much as making it clear that he is not being impartial. If he chooses to not be impartial, he cannot blame her evidencing that for her appeal.

You said “ Money on NC getting that word equally intentionally in to her next set of questions, and noting what he does.”

If she intentionally inserts the word toxic into her questioning for the purpose of seeing if he responds, that’s game-playing.

From TT.

HH: You were aware that many trans colleagues believed that the expression of GC views was bigoted, was biased, not done in the workplace.

AL: Excuse me.

J: Let’s just see what the witness says.

AL: She needs to establish the basis of her proposition.

—————
It does look like HH was given leeway to throw views in there. Maybe there is an equally measured line somewhere that she drew it from.

From TT:

We continue with the second morning session on 9th July, in the case of Samantha Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency. Helen Hogben for the claimant continues her cross examination of Caroline Airs for the respondent. We expect to restart at 11.40

People are entering the room.

J Right. Sorry for short delay - IT problem. Now resolved.
HH Moving on to ask you c moderation of posts. 2/6/23 Yammer post c Matt Walsh. Post by Beth Gordon, senior HR manager for R
CA I don't know.
HH She posted c doc What is a woman. Says excellent and eye-opening

@FarmersBlonde - Just to add my enraged voice to your BiL's utter drivelish & ignorant comments (apologies for filling up the thread while doing so) but it just shows their stupidity. TW 'symptoms' are indeed psychosomatic, but ours aren't. Because we are female and they are not. Simple.

And how telling that your BiL got squeamish with the actual physical details about your symptoms. I'd like to ask him if my flooding, where my Hb dropped so low I was borderline blood transfusion, was also 'psychosomatic'.

From TT:

though don't agree with all. Received response from AM. He posts with preface not expecting to be friends with MW cos regressive views with women, but says interesting message regardless of who messenger is.
CA Y
HH Lauren Davies comments - words to effect W is a W

is easiest q in world to answer
CA yes
HH Is re are TW W
CA It's a discussion c that doc
HH Your job to decide whether things should be removed
CA Couldn't check every item shared across Yammer. We were looking at the content on Yammer.

From TT:

HH You wouldn't tolerate sharing of signposting to commentators regarded as racist. Wouldn't be appropriate
CA Probably not. Would depend on context
HH to 219. Extract from Wikipedia c this MW doc and a little bit about MW views. One eg of description of this video at p 220

HH Summary records WIAW shows MW showing educators telling staff to use pronouns as child abusers, preying on children to indoctrinate into cult. Most basic of internet searches would have shown you re doc
NC Is this okay. Not a quote from doc
[they agree is quote from doc]

J But CA didn't look at link
HH But basic internet search would have found info c doc
CA True. I wouldn't look to Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Says doc received mixed reviews.
HH Put as most neutral. Basic search would have found controversial on t issues

HH But TransgenderTrend - doesn't the name imply it's just a trend.

Doesn't the name a:gender imply it's for people with no gender identity?

CA True. I wouldn't look to Wikipedia as an authoritative source. 😂

Well done that Woman!

NC Is this okay. Not a quote from doc
[they agree is quote from doc]
oops. Even Homer nods...

CA True. I wouldn't look to Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
Thank you, CA!

HH to 219. Extract from Wikipedia c this MW doc and a little bit about MW views. One eg of description of this video at p 220

Again HH? Stop with the Wikipedia stuff, it makes you look like an idiot.

Just caught up so this is going back a few pages. T people reporting 'deadnaming', I suspect this is mostly by systems not being updated with their new id. Possibly some of the misgendering is as a result of that too.

I wouldn't look to Wikipedia as an authoritative source

One of the calibration sentences I use for my understatement-o-meter

CA True. I wouldn't look to Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Says doc received mixed reviews.

😍

From TT:

AL Just one quote from internet search - single selective article and unfairly drawn from it
J I hear that. We will make what we can from info. Suspect we are going to move on to something else.

CA Indicate MW controversial and none of people commenting on video would agree with everything he says.
HH Decided nothing to breach PoC
CA That's right
HH Suggest is wrong as discusses anti-t campaigner.

CA Don't agree. Discusses, and makes clear not all agree with all MW says.
HH You said matter for individuals to click on link. Matter of choice. But POC not just re whether reader choses to click through, but content posted on Y itself.

It's like Groundhog Day

How to ask the same inane question eleventy billion times. 😴