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.

No, just people with an agenda

Also suggests is for people with a particular agenda.

Just noticed from CA's WS that she was formerly a solicitor in private practise joining the CS in 2008 & retiring in 2024.

That Wiki put-down of CA's has certainly brought all the girls to the yard
Isn't it very FWR that we respond so warmly and enthusiastically to somebody querying the validity of an information source😍?

Point 50 of CA's WS is very pertinent to the discussion about Matt Walsh and SEEN agreement/disagreement with his sentiments.

I've just caught up after being in a meeting and I see HH is still wanging on with the same question and CA is still plugging away giving the same answers.

From TT:

CA Content posted on Y, not on anywhere else. Post in SEEN group - not closed at time but member/supporters of Seen
HH []
CA If posts you refer to had been posted on Y they would have been removed.

HH So praising doc - built around doc - comments should also be removed
CA Not sure re the anti-t
J Not sure where going. CA didn't look at doc. Qs taking us nowhere.

J One question p 875. Beth Gordon post - closing a few threads for now re moderating. Was she moderating?
CA She may have been group owner. They did the admin tasks but not the decision makers

Yes, I'm afraid so; the Joni Mitchell song 'Circle Game' has just popped into my head:
And the seasons, they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return, we can only look
Behind, from where we came
And go round and round and round, in the circle game

Um, that's advocacy. That's what barristers do.

J Not sure where going. CA didn't look at doc. Qs taking us nowhere.

Hurrah!

to save anyone else looking it up:

This particular post is referenced by the Claimant as an incident of harassment (list of
issues 1.1.(vii)(b). A complaint was made to the Moderation Panel about it by the staff
member who had specifically sought out the group (885) and it was assessed by the
moderation panel (my reply to DB is at 905-906). The conversation in the SEEN Viva
Engage group was not in praise of Matt Walsh in general, and most posts specifically
indicated that the poster did not agree with him on many issues. It was a matter of choice
for any individual as to whether they followed the link in the post. At that time, it was not
uncommon for Viva Engage users to include links to external materials. There was nothing
inherent in the posts which breached the PoC as they then stood (although the PoC were
subsequently revised to include a prohibition on including links to external sites). DB did
not like or agree with the decision, and in fact declared his intention to devote time and
energy to closing the SEEN network’s channel and changing Defra’s policies (905) – but
moderation of the post did take place, in line with the process applied to all other Viva
Engage complaints.

DB did not like or agree with the decision, and in fact declared his intention to devote time and energy to closing the SEEN network’s channel and changing Defra’s policies

That is shocking.

From TT:

J IAO made decision GO implemented. Early June 2023 - new regime where groups self moderate
CA No. New regime came in August 23. Here, group administrators had control.
J Before new system groups did moderate their own posts

CA Couple of months of some confusion. New regime intended to start with migration but didn't have everything ready, so started from 1 Aug but some people started earlier. Lack of clarity

HH Group admin had control. Who was admin for SEEN
CA DOn't know
J [asking c system] Started before supposed to.
CA Yes
HH Dominic Berry made complaint. Who assessed this.
CA Moderation panel

@fanOfBen my bad, should have stuck it in. Thanks

From TT:

HH escalated to mod panel after first going through SEEN group
CA Reasonably sure complaint straight to DDTS
HH Decided didn't breach
CA Yes
HH [to spreadsheet re posts] Select Beth Gordon
[discussion c deselecting/selecting on Excel spreadsheet]

HH row 181 - reason for concern - Dominic Berry's [DB] complaint
CA need to scroll through, doesn't work for me otherwise.
AL Don't know if rendered accessible or not
HH Basis of DB complaint, posts link to Y thread. Three concerns: POC prohibit misgendering; MW political

J Not sure where going. CA didn't look at doc. Qs taking us nowhere.

Even the judge is noticing.

We've been on this road for some time.

It feels a bit like dunking the with in to admitting she is a witch. GC views are what i think HH is labouring at to try and get her to slip it out.

From TT:

figure; doc is defamatory of t community. You were aware of grounds when action taken not to remove post
CA yes
J Were you involved in decision
CA I believe so, yes.
[confusion c clicking]
J Not sure why we are doing this
HH Click DB. If this doesn't work

HH then...
HH 9 June. DB posted his own comment re MW. If you look at what DB had recorded and then results of action taken.
[they read]
HH DB says in comment - says something offensive discourse might be said in polite terms to evade mod. Says MW world's most anti-t campaigner

J Not sure why we are doing this

Comment is superfluous😑

J Not sure why we are doing this

judge having an existential crisis. Only kidding. tech issues.

Someone mentioned googling Dominic Berry yesterday and seeing his photo (he has a Wordpress blog). He really is the archetypal bearded, lefty woke bro, who likes to showcase his progressive values by putting women in their place.

From TT:

CA Yes
HH You involved in removing DB post
CA yes
HH reads - not appropriate to post on Yammer re policy, etc. Defra position - post praising work in part of anti-t person is acceptable but post calling that out not acceptable
CA Post re doc not praising the individual but

saying there's something interesting in doc is okay. Calling for campaign to change Defra policy and saying that anyone talking about MW is anti-t is not acceptable. DB could say concerned c MW and not a good person. Points made in a more measured way would have been acceptable

I love how HH is so insistent that CA should know what the doc is about, but SEEN saying the same thing are terrible for doing so!

From TT:

HH When EW proposed to make posts could be considered offensive you worked with her to make acceptable
CA I did that on one occasion cos EDI had errors delivered in our name in training that she had attended

HH I won't address that now
J Witness has just answered you q
HH Yes. I'll address
HH Outcome here shows uneven mod process
CA Absolutely disagree. SEEN comments c MW don't breach POC. If DB had expressed in measured way would have stayed on. Same with all mod decisions.