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.

Apologies if a double post....taking over from @myladydisdainisyetliving

CA - No says it's 'clearly discrim' The process was that email would go to line manager but when line manager CEO it felt like we needed to just check that out and deal with it. The email still went, but when you are dealing with the CEO, it was dealing with the seniority

FFS, not this again. No organisation should be making policy based on how many people kick off or who shouts the loudest or "show support" as HH claims this is.

We know this is a tactic that TRAs used. Turn up on mass and shout people down. It shouldn't be happening in the workplace.

HH - post from RAW, day after. Row 18. looks like she is responding to earlier commenter Ash Loakes - shocked and appalled SEEN his is the broad message of response to ST email CA common feature deemed to be not respectful you mentioned 600 odd posts, but we only looked at ones that were inapp worded HH - p310 please

They all are tbh

J - did you look at all posts?
CA eventually, yes
J - how many?
CA don't know with this in Nov, we set up mod panel because we anticipated we needed, the volume overwhelming. We met 8 Nov and again same day 5pm, first go skim through, subsequ went through thread in more detail
J - more than on mod log? What happened to others?
CA if not cause for concern we didn't (interrupted
J how many no cause for concern
CA don't know 600 mentioned?
J - did not give cause for concern?

CA is sounding very tired to me. I hope she holds on to her straight bat approach. She's batting like

HH I just want to go back and correct go back to post 284, I put to you 600 people commented, but 646 reacted not commented.
J - that was what I was drawing att to
HH - 84 comments (missed) some discussion about pages etc

HH the reason that a lot of the posts we removed was that you were placing a ban on people complaining that the launch of SEEN was discrim
CA - yes, but some were also inapp worded.

So not 600 comments, then, 84

Didn't ST say about 600 had liked his post? If so this error is not on him

HH - p310 -
HH - into this exch of views comes AM and this is a very challenging post from him, would you agree?
CA I think he is seeking to defend himself and colleagues, he saw a lot of hostile posts, and he felt he needed to intervene. There's been a large number of very hostile posts, opposing a SEEN network, and his post demonstrates his objective view to defend network. This is what this post is. I think on it's face it's clear what that is.

Some souls on Twitx already pointed out that 600 likes to, what was it, 17.000 views makes for about 3.5% liked vs seen (😏)

As the kids would say, quite a sick ratio.

HH - it goes further than that accuses C of defam comments
CA Yes HH - instigating a pile on?
J - can we read again?

Thank you @Madcats. I have prepared a new thread for when we need it and will keep checking in.

HH - I will need moderation logs now

Point 37 of ST witness statement "... and had received in excess of 650 likes"

HH - page 311 makes suggested that not acting in acc with Civil Service Code CA - yes
HH when we consider C original post, my ID not be debated,
CA I think C saying more than that

some discussion about posts ......
CA talks about SEEN as a network 'geared to my erasure' - AM saying not it isn't. (missed) harassment and victimisation....then (missed) anti abortion network

CA - so no I don't think that refers to C being simply left alone
HH - row 19 moderation - C's response - this is before AM's comment. It C says is 'emotional mess' and not trying to police people's beliefs, but that if (SEEN) is beneficial I refute. Just worried about impact

Likening SEEN to an anti-BLM and an anti-abortion network.

CA - says doesn't want to police, but doesn't want any other debate either
HH - making clear in post that 'allowed to just be at work' explaining we can make clear to defra that we want to be welcoming. Not a pile on?
CA - not at this point but prev one yes.
HH - AM characterisation of post hurtful and hostile (310 post)
CA he is responding to 284 post

I saw a thread yesterday, Amnasty International listing all the SEEN networks as anti-rights. I briefly entertained the thought that they were bankrolling this but I can't believe that's their style. It's just the timing made me suspicious.

HH - mod post row 44
J - was AM post moderated?
HH coming to that
HH - what we can see is that column G looks like you and Erin
CA no the panel 4 of us
HH 'potentially threatening tone' comments as to the posts being defam, creating hostile environment you describe as borderline and you leave up, subject to email from line manager, so we have seen a number of supportive comments from C supporters that SEEN posts discrim and you took down, but AM comments suggesting slander are left up

Shame we can't see the Spreadsheet of Doom

Sorry I omitted to thank the cut and pasters as well as TT. Following on Mumsnet enables other posters to give context I would probably miss 🙏

CA yes because they are responding to the comments to first post on thread. This was left because a clear response. What AM is saying is what is saying about SEEN is untrue
HH - this is eg of uneven mod approach to policing trans voices but not those of GC
CA no that is not the case, there were several borderline emails, we didn't reserve for SEEN, they went to other people.
J - 284 deemed borderline?
CA I think so yes
HH - EW the Detransition Day with Ritchie Herron page 734 of bundle.

HH - this is an article specifically posted by SEEN on 12 March 2023, not a post put on yammer by RH as an individual it is SEEN the network promoting to Detrans Awareness Day
CA yes

I hope to see someone on Mastermind, with their specialist subject being the spreadsheet of doom, in the near future.

They've branded Beira's Place as right wing, extremist hate group. With that in mind, I think it's easy to dismiss the rest of their crap without bothering to look; unless you're looking to support some of them.