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.

CA - I think from mod log it's clear that SMN was looking into links on article on cross gov SEEN website, I wasn't part of that discussion.
J - when you look at this, there are 2 posts ref posts on cross gov SEEN. Was it enough mod to say it's enough (missed) Poor sound from mic
HH - like to go on to posts by AM
J - before we go on I am now really really concerned about the length of this cross exam. You have had warnings about time. It is still very very long, repeated referenced, you have to finish by lunchtime

I'm out of image allowance, so: I would if I could but I can't so I won't.

J - we tried to understand how long but I am no longer confident we got the answer to that. That we are putting witness in unfair position.
HH I will try will laser focus.
J - focusing on the issues still raises the poss that we are not going to finish

<ooooh!>

& FWS & LGB Alliance & Legal Feminist etc etc

It's utterly bonkers.

https://media.amnesty.org.uk/documents/Report_-_A_growing_threat__the_anti-rights_movement_in_the_UK_July_2026.pdf

J - not trying to limit, but you do understand the problem with time. If this witness is not completed, she will have to resume whenever we get to it. Can I just ask Miss Cunningham, you thought about 3 hours
NC - I do yes.

It's a filibuster.

Judge has finally had enough.

HH - like to go on to posts by AM
J - before we go on I am now really really concerned about the length of this cross exam. You have had warnings about time. It is still very very long, repeated referenced, you have to finish by lunchtime

You are pulling her up on timings much to late in the proceedings judge.

J - we know what's going to happen then, see the diff?
CA - happy to stay late
HH next issue comments by AM on murdered trans teenager. Mod log 159 please
HH - we can see col f the original post from BW is in row F, we can see that it's written clearly, fair to say we know the crime talking about. P673 main bundle please

HH I will try will laser focus.

HH - this is the offending post from AM the C says in reply to BW. And what we know isn't simply on open yammer, AM sought out the LGBT network
CA - all networks open to all employees, don't know if he's gone looking
HH we can see is that rather than express concern he uses platform to defend GC views.
HH in fact he double down on it - mod log 158 159, look at reason for concern

HH he complained about these post. Your action in row F was to say no mod action was needed, quite rightly.
HH - happy to move on J? J - yes having to find entry, just bear with me.
Issue with J viewing docs on his screen

I found this beetle last night was wondering if it’s a member of boileds family tree?

This argument by analogy is weak and unhelpful and it is time professionals put it in the bin.

Judge reading from panel member's screen
J why were they left up ?
HH the post that was left up was Ben W not offensive
HH go back to 673, C posts in response to AM pointing out nobody had mentioned GC, highlights need for him to LGBT network to make that post upsetting. 674 - where AM replies highlighting 8 Nov post and C closes the issue down. 'pure harassment shameful'
CA - fair comment it was inapprop to go into that conversation at that time

HH para 70 to 71 grounds of resistance, says that the C and AM comments were removed. But no reason to remove C comments?
CA - I don't know which removed.
HH - you might or might not be able to assist us on logs that AM comments were removed, can you help with that?

That's my cousin Barbara's house. She couldn't just get a normal house name plaque like the rest of the street. Always has to outdo the neighbours.

Worst bit is Barbara doesn't live in the end house.

around 23/2/23 date of original post.
CA -I remember to look at this - it's confusing the cross over between logs, I believe I have seen an email (missed) line manager was removed, can't remember where. I think in defra log...43 or 143?

CA - there's a column where there is a list, underneath it refers back to those posts, it says there they were removed.
HH oh yes thank you for that
J what was removed?
CA - AM was removed
HH - the R defence to this claim was both removed, can you say one way or another or not
CA - I think that it right
HH - if we go back to final Q on that 2096 please

HH - this does confirm email from CM to C line manager on 20 Feb informing him C post had been removed and if we look at Mr M response on 1 March he indicated that not done anything wrong he's right isn't he>

Just to add that during the discussion when HH was asking for SSoD to be admitted in evidence, she said one of the reasons for the late application was that they'd been flummoxed on how to produce a physical hard copy that was a manageable size. So they dithered on whether they wanted to rely on it but finally decided they did and it would have to be in electronic form.

It was the claimant saying allowing SEEN to exist is like allowing anti-BLM and anti-abortion networks to exist

CA - no I don't think it's just defending self - it ('shameful) was prob the key reason for that coming down. Some confusion with some sections
HH - ensuring that anyone who is concerned about harassment or inapp posts, you are silencing it being called out
CA - we are trying to stop people squabbling on yammer If ST had stopped and not gone on to additional post. We want people to do it in respectful way Discussion on who dealt with Yammer Viva after CA retired.

I tried explaining it to a friend some years ago.
She stared at me as if I had walked off Mars.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5552674-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-8