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.

Not sure this quote is that accurate..... Before being called to the Bar in 2006, she enjoyed a successful commercial career which has served her particularly well in employment matters, enabling her to cut quickly to the pertinent issues

From TT:

I think water spilled on NC's laptop. Other counsel assist. Finished reading.

Correction - not finished reading yet.

HH - you said I don't think challenging identity, that they didn't believe in concept GI for themselves. JC criticing.
J - be crisp and concise. We have all read it and can see what it says.

Are we sure it was water than Naomi spilled on her lap-top?

Was that a desperate attempt from NC to save us all from more drivel?

HH if yr ust is they don't believe in concept of GI - where does that leave trans people.
CA missed - they understand there are TP who that belief.
HH - same thing they don't believe in TM and TW

This really is Thought Police stuff, isn’t it?

Yes, and these are exactly the sort of stupid comments they'll get if they allow men in.

It was probably a vaporised fairy.

I think the laptop threw itself at the jug in suicide bid.

It is 1927. Women in the UK have to fight for the right to be considered full people of their own with all the rights that legal definition confers.

It is 2026. Women in the UK have to fight for the right to be considered full people of their own with all the rights that legal definition confers.

Edit because I thought we were in 2025

From TT:

HH - Ew is saying we don't accept GI not just for herself but full stop.
CA - yes. That doesn't mean they don't respect other colleagues and their beliefs.

H - 81% wo felt unable to express LOB lack of belief) - of they could, that wld create a hostile environment for TP.
CA - I think they mean a sense that beliefs around GI are imposed and they don't believe that. They want to be able to say they don't believe that.

HH comment from Mrs Tempest - calling out Defra for allowing these views to be set out on an open platform.
Clear mass support - seen by 17k colleagues c 600 likes, a lot of likes. In terms of responses p286

I was thinking Gin...or maybe she couldn't hold out any longer and just wet herself.

Clear mass support - 600 likes out of 17,000 staff. What about the other 16,400 who did not show support?

enabling her to cut quickly to the pertinent issues

Really? Because that hasn’t really been coming across...

Has anyone else listened to last week’s episode of Beyond Gender? Because this is bishops and telepaths. People can accept bishops exist regardless of whether or not they believe in the religion, but to agree telepaths exist you have to believe telepathy is real. SEEN/GC accept trans people exist in the bishop sense, and trans/GI is angry because they want to exist in the telepath sense.

MRS TEMPEST.....👀

I know what you mean but that is conduct it’s up to the judge to stop at the time. The judge won’t penalize the claimant for using the time they’ve been permitted. Even if they shouldn’t have been permitted it.

I'm usually 'just doing their job' about barristers, they have to put their client's case to the best of their ability, but unusually in HH's case I'm finding her performance really hard to take.

My feeling is that by presenting the GI position so unreservedly and personally, she has managed to expose its weaknesses and flaws.

I'm trying to pin down my thoughts: when a man in a strappy dress earnestly says he was incapacitated by the very statement of biological facts, or by the existence of people who disagree with him, or by the recommendation of a children's book, it's daft but we've come to expect that: he's a man in a strappy dress, after all.

When a barrister says the same things equally earnestly, apparently without a filter of 'I'm saying this because it's my job to say it, not that I actually believe it all', the daftness is even more highlighted.

I don't know if that makes sense, it does to me

From TT:

HH Paula Austin LGBT Champion at RPA expresses shock and shame. Claire (sp?) Douglas p287 talks to Forstater distinction - holding belief and able to just say it on any workplace platform. p288 Jacqueline McCann Lewis - calling for kindness and support.

We're really at a
'the atheists want to say they don't believe in god, and that questions the existence of religious people so it's completely reasonable for the religious man to want to shut them down'
level of argumentation here

Come on Judge...it's 5pm.......'Escape to the Chateau' is just about to start.

You mean, the Trannish Inquisition?

Not the first time we've pointed this out.

For me, it’s let them speak. We’ve all wanted to see this forensically examined in court because we know it can’t stand up. And here it is, stripped of the veneer of being spoken by a trans-identifying person, not standing up.

I'm not sure that this line of questioning is really helping ST. It is just making the "denying existence of trans" look ridiculous.

It suggests that she doesn't have much to work with and is scraping the barrel.

But does it have to take several days?

From TT:

p291 Joananna Heiser hits nail on head, equality and equity can't be achieved bby denying experience [missed]>CA No. they are not denying anybody