Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 8

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-7

TT substack: https://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 I understood what CA was being accused of, but "offensive in the extreme" comes across as an attempt to smear CA in the mind of the judge as the last parting shot. Especially as her arguments remained clear and reasonable throughout the tedious questioning. If you can’t attack the arguments, then attack the person.

I haven't caught up in full yet but I had a thought that explains the J a bit better to me further to last speculations.

He is allowing HH all this nonsense because he will have to adjudicate the claims within the nonsense.

Which is why there is an imbalance between his approach to HH and NC. He doesn't have to adjudicate on anything NC brings and so it annoys him that he has to even listen to it. He wants to concentrate fully only what he will have to adjudicate.

Whilst HH approach to evidence has been nothing less than shambolic it is a key part of the claim that moderation favoured GC. He has to allow her to support that claim even if her way of doing it us utter rubbish.

He is motivated, in my view, mostly in not making any mistakes and by that I mean missing anything that might be construed as objectively offensive and which should have been taken down whilst taking down only mildly offensive posts from TRAs.

Not because he is seeking to find that the moderation showed bias but because he doesn't want to make a mistake. He is minded in this of the pounding Kemp has received for errors and his entire focus is on not making any errors himself. That is, I think, his entire focus. Me Me Me.

In my view, also, his mindset with regard to what might be considered objectively offensive is tainted by a legacy of Stonewall Training and an insufficient curiosity about what SEEN actually is and represents.

We shall see.

Lunch at Lord's too. Ind 122-3.
Sooooooo much more exciting than HH🙄

Some of this language reminds me of the host's 'reveals' on the TV game show 3-2-1.

ETA: In my mind everyone just looks at each other bewilderedly in court mirroring the show's contestants

At the risk of prolonging the torture, I wonder now that NC and team have the SS of doom if they can do a quick tally of what the moderated comments related to, pro or anti SEEN. Of course the missing info is total moderation on Defra platforms non SEEN related - probably very little.

Also how the hell it was deemed appropriate to share the spreadsheet presumably with staff names and line managers.

Some things.

Firstly, I know one of Del Amitri. Or as we call them Derek Amitri.

2, Can you IMAGINE the reaction if SEEN did a survey?

3, They make the fuss, they do the surveys, they blow all things out of all proportion and wail and cry and use the key words 'distress', 'lived experience', 'erasure' when all actual women want is the basic stuff.

But all the way along all the women did was put up with all the bullshit and got on with their jobs whilst all this 'men'ufactured rage was being orchestrated out of thin air.

And nobody is allowed to say this in a court! Everyone has to pretend all the pretendy bollocks ever needed to be a thing.

They forget that L is part of the acronym too. And also, we are only supposed to care about the male lesbians, not the boring female variety.

TT missed a bit but from the bit that was reported I assume CA had referred to, or used the phrase, "Don't ask, don't tell" which was US military policy for gays and lesbians for a while

Imagine having to take instruction from ST? I suspect this is a result of such instruction, not her choice. I think the fact the SSofDoom was not originally included because she had decided it didn't amount to much and would be unhelpful, ST had agreed originally, then changed his mind and so she has had to get au fait with it in less than a day. That being said, NC, has had less time than HH and seems to be pretty damn au fait with it.

Lunchbreak observations on this morning.

The judge was definitely losing patience with HH's continued ramblings, repetition and inefficiency. Impatient tone as he had to repeatedly cut in to get to the point.

His tone was much more conciliatory to NC today. I think she impressed him this morning by immediately offering him her nailed on verbatim note of a section of CA's evidence that he hadn't been quick enough to write down. The contrast with HH's performance today was stark.

Of course, it may all change this afternoon but NC is starting off on a much better footing with him than she's had so far.

I imagine NC is a secret spreadsheet queen.

Just musing, will there be any benefits to the rest of the hearing being delayed? Between Sandie Peggie part one and part two (I think) we had FWS. We still got a dog's dinner of a judgement, but I'm assuming it would have been worse had FWS gone the other way.

I'd imagine any delays will be agonising for Elspeth, who I'm sure just wants to get this over with. But I guess a delay might give her a chance to think about how she will present her evidence, now that she has seen how HH works and what her attack lines are.

I agree. I believe that he is also on the same circuit as the EJ in the Darlington nurses case and will have seen the media circus around that case and judgement and will want to try to avoid having similar here (whilst also not jeopardising his retirement day rate project....)

Yes, I understood that CA suggested that the GI position was that it was in theory acceptable to be GC as long as you didn't express it in any way shape or form at work, and that was similar to the don't ask don't tell policy of the US military: you could be gay or lesbian as long as you kept it hidden.

HH found it offensive, apparently, perhaps because she didn't like her client (and those who agree with him) - who presumably consider themselves very liberal - being likened to the US government, illiberal on this topic.

1. Never let Arthur play charades
2. Isn't the Agrees with me club from West Wing?
3. The tribunal room must have really, really good air con.

CA made pretty clear that many groups may have thought the migration (I think from Yammer to Viva Engage where groups more siloed anyway) meant they didn't have to return to being private. Not that SEEN going public had been inadvertant as such but in the migration the private setting needed reinstating but the direction for reinstate private setting from on high had not been clear. As soon as it was made clear this was a mandated requirement SEEN acted and apologised for the error. Entirely reasonable, of course.

C wants HH to assert they purposefully went public to purposefully harass poor TRAs. No evidence supporting that whatsoever.

Looking back at TT, HH said
HH given your experience in EDI including work on hate crime, given your background,
and I wonder if that was a nudge nudge wink wink we all know you're a lesbian, and lesbians should be supportive of their trans 'siblings', LGBTQ+++ and all that...

CA may have been annoyed rather than offended, that HH seemed to bring up her sexuality like that to score a point.

Not that CA was hiding the fact that she's lesbian, just that she isn't giving evidence as a lesbian, and HH may have mentioned/implied that aspect of CA in order to make a point, namely that CA was trivialising the experience of lesbians and gays though gay herself - and possibly case aspersions on CA's objectivity, because the L is is not very welcome in the LGBTQA+++++ 'community'

It was after this accusation of trivialising that CA said
CA - As a lesbian myself I do not trivialise this.

That's forcing her to say something personal, when up to now she has been dealing in facts.
I'd be ...perhaps not offended, but unsettled/upset that somebody had said something that referred to my sexuality in a context where it was not relevant.

That's just my personal speculation on what HH said and how CA may have reacted.

Dipped into the WS real quick, it was right near the end:

"The suggestion that SEEN members were entitled to hold their beliefs but should not be permitted to express them in the workplace (particularly in the context of other groups being entitled to express their beliefs) was reminiscent, in my view, of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach to gay people in the American armed forces, but I put a lot of effort into ensuring that the way they expressed their beliefs would cause as little distress as possible to other staff who did not share their views, and when I needed to be I was quite firm in making clear to SEEN members what would not be acceptable – for example my correspondence with EDW at pages 854 – 860. Aside from the general complaint that allowing SEEN to exist and treating them as any other network amounted to harassment, I am not aware of any individual complaints of instances of bullying or harassment of trans members of staff during this period."

Actually we could do an agender style poll here now

[If you agree]that HH is deliberately carrying out a mind numbing, apoplexy inducing filibuster, with inane, ill prepared, inept (not accepting that is inadvertent) performance.

Press the agree icon

If you really agree press the heart icon

No need to offer a disagree is there.........

What other example is there to use?

It really is quite an interesting and appropriate analogy, thanks CA. If you ever read this...

Are they still playing? I saw them supporting Diesel Park West (who are still playing) in 1989.

I bet she can pivot table the shit out of this. Mmm hmmm.

Catching up @Madcats the lack of reference to trans in Invisible Women was the complaint I think. Everything must centre them.

Yes!

DATES | Del Amitri