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.

Links to Mumsnet. OOh scarey times.

From TT:

CA no I don't. there are many websites, publications etc for trans people, I don't accept that the environment was hostile. What we saw in comments to EDW posts was support for trans colleagues and hostility to GC colleagues.
HH this post should have been taken down and it

wasn't
CA don't agree it should have been taken down
J in your answer you suggested there was endorsement and books on both sides, was there posts supporting trans content
CA on the LGBT groups there were links and discussions in support, I couldn't quote any of them but I am

reasonably certain they were there.
HH now on to issues 'stating that GI, gender and gender expression is not protected by law'
NC reading out relevant references
HH now this related to post made by EDW June 2023, go to moderation logs

I am happily surprised.

Wondering if HH is trying to wear Caroline Airs down so that she eventually says something that can be possibly seen to be an itsy-bitsy questioning of trans, out of sheer frustration/loss of will to live.

@MarieDeGournay me neither.....😕

Also, for fuck sake. How does that quote from the book deny trans their existence because TRANS! You have one body, you just want not to have the sex you were born with. You can still be trans. God I'm frustrated that CA agreed with HH's interpretation but I suppose she must be done in by now.

When ST said this in ST's cross-examination, ST got emotional and upset and the judge stopped the line of questioning entirely.

They really have demonsised GC so much that it is impossible to argue that they wouldn't be upset by anything GC. That does not make GC harmful!

CA no I don't. there are many websites, publications etc for trans people, I don't accept that the environment was hostile. What we saw in comments to EDW posts was support for trans colleagues and hostility to GC colleagues.

Not the answer HH wanted!

From TT:

HH we don't have original post in bundle but we do have the text, lets go to that,
J bear with me a second, need to find the log again
[spreadsheet shuffling]

HH look at 1005, part of chain from EDW, about a post she had put on Y group, on 1006 what seems to have happened that you have proposed edits to original post, your edits are in red, plus additional text, this was made at a time when all SEEN posts were public,
CA yes

HH orig post, in 1st para struck through, 'finally did you know that things people thing are protected by law arent...gender, gi, gender expression
CA yes, I see
HH seeks to characterise ideas around gender as a protected belief, but not characteristics that have protection

I think that's her plan A, and failing that Plan B is a filibuster, to run them out of time so the judge refuses to let NC ask any difficult questions.

Well we are terrifying 😂

seeks to characterise ideas around gender as a protected belief, but not characteristics that have protection

That is essentially correct, in law, is it not?

From TT:

CA it's saying they don't have direct protection, she was intending to make the point they are not listed as protected characteristics
HH says 'not protected by law' in original pst, would have been seen by every colleague that read it
CA yes
HH trans colleagues would be upset

by seeing this
CA yes
HH...
J slow down please
HH para 52 of your WS, you explain the background to this is an error in a training slide that EDW had notice, listed gender instead of sex as pc
CA yes
HH post wasn't directed to trainer, directed to SEEN V Engage group, open to all

CA EDW emailed the trainer, other members of SEEN noted that the errors persisted in the training and EDW decided to make this Y post.
HH she decided to make a public comment that GI was not protected by law rather than address the trainer
CA she did address with trainer, she

HH para 52 of your WS, you explain the background to this is an error in a training slide that EDW had notice, listed gender instead of sex as pc
CA yes

That's what I suspected - the law the way genderists would like it to be, rather than how it is, 'gender' where the law says 'sex'.

We are in a fine pickle if correcting a departmental trainer’s clear error in law is harassment.

I've just come in from repotting pots in the garden and think I may have heatstroke. A children's picture book is now literal genocide? There are SO many GI picture books everywhere, this is ridiculous.

I've recommended MBIM to everyone I can and got a copy sent to my local library before. There's only 1 copy in the whole of Cornwall, according to the library catalogue. 🤔😬

From TT:

told us and she linked to EHRC guidance on GRA PC.
HH you say in your WS that you had some discussions with EDW about this.
CA yes
J you're referring to a lot of messages here, give us a chance to read them through, these emails
[reading]

[discussion about order to read, work backward from end of email chain]
[still reading]

End of Afternoon session 1.

<I don't think that is true, everyone is still reading>

From TT:

Starting a new thread for afternoon session on 9 July. Part 2. There has not been a break, thread was very long already.

I think TT are doing that so the thread reader works properly.

Here is a blog post NC wrote in 2021 about the 'misgendering' issue in the Forstater judgment:
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/07/27/misgendering-and-harassment/

Is this the judge who rejected complaints (bullying and misogyny) about employment judge Philip Lancaster?

From TT:

J & Panel reading long email chain.
J does the original post appear
HH it's the redline version we looked at. Complaints were received about this post,
CA yes
HH you helped EDW edit the post
CA yes
HH do you accept that you were helping her make it acceptable rather than

making an independent assessment
CA I knew that I and my training team were the recipients of this post; she was correct that there was an error in the training
HH the moderation process should have resulted in the post being removed, or remaining, in this case you helped eDW

edit the post
CA it was a criticism of me, that's why I did it
HH you never did it for C, or DB, or any other trans colleague
CA it was a unique situation, it was an error in the training, we helped to correct it
HH you did it because you sympathise with SEEN

<personal note - oh here we go>

Oh fuck off HH. We're all bored and you've got nothing, NOTHING.

HH you did it because you sympathise with SEEN

Even if she does, so what?