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.

You don’t understand- Tink is a REAL WOMAN so he won’t need an actual woman advising him on to dress. He is more woman than all these professional women.

He will show these uterus havers how to dress like a REAL WOMAN.

Something floral with flounce / ruffles is my guess. Maybe some panty hose to keep his meat and two veg snug.

I suppose that the advantage of having a few more months before the Tribunal continues is that NC will have had plenty of time to analyse the SoD.

As with any case the client, in this case DEFRA, would be given guidance on the prospect of success. This is used to determine whether to settle or proceed to ET.

There are flaws in DEFRAs case, as there nearly always is, but they are relatively minor as they have followed a recognised G process. They also took steps to prevent ST seeing SEEN posts automatically, made SEEN a private group, developed communication standards guidance and put a moderation process in place. DEFRA also demonstrated empathy for ST but correctly protected SEENs right to exist etc. JHs recommendations obviously did not help but by any measure were not lawful - no judge is going to state an employer should shut down a group related to a pc when other s8milar groups exist.

pp,particularly @ProfLargofesse, are correct CA has moved the dial on what GC is and more importantly what it is not. Once you understand GC is not anti trans STs arguments disappear.

Edited to add so At this point DEFRA is unlikely to settle.

I can’t see DEFRA settling because if the judgement is in their favour and states SEEN is lawful it not only impacts DEFRA but the whole CS I.e. other departments can say - SEEN is lawful.

Apart from everything being a complete waste of the public purse, surely ST would have been advised what to wear to court? If not by his solicitor, then by someone senior in the CS. When I worked for the CS, albeit many years ago now, it was all about being appropriate. Not only what to wear for interviews, but how to sit! Knees together, ankles crossed, skirts that covered the knees so you did not flash the interview panel!
And to add, why has no one, no one, told this overgrown baby to grow the fuck up. We tell children the world does not revolve around you, I cannot explain how fucking furious I am at this shitshow of GI. And they are the puppet masters of the left, who generally want to 'be kind'. Fucking be kind my arse. Thank fuck some of us leftie hippies can see the woman hatred for what it is.

SoD! Brilliant. Perfect. No notes.

Because HH created the opportunity for CA to repeat this idea more fully than her WS(?) does this mean that NC will have more scope to interrogate the role that active misinformation campaigns in setting the ground for a perception of harassment where there is none?

Yes I think at this stage it suits DEFRA (& CS) to see this through to the bitter end even if it goes to appeal.

A judgment in court absolves the senior leadership of having to make difficult decisions themselves.

Even those who are sympathetic to TRA demands (or have never really thgt about them) must be sick to death of having to deal with the bickering and internal fighting on this matter. It’s a time sink.

I think the likes of DH - of which there must be many (the majority?) in CS - just want to get on with their 9-5, get their salary and have a nice life outside work; if they never hear of VivaEngage/Yammer ever again they wld be very happy. (Maybe I’m projecting…)

Brain bleach

I don't think it's terribly likely at this point, but my question was about the rules of the tribunal, and what exactly the role and rights of the intervener is. Just technically/legally speaking.
The judge seemed to treat NC as an inconvenient afterthought at times, and there have been questions of who granted SEEN the right to intervene, and for what purpose? Are they specifically allowed to be there to defend their reputation, or is their role something else?

Yes and with SEEN and Elspeth having been bullied and harassed so badly Naomi will be making sure the case for no settlement is made.

She has said before - total capitulation or no surrender.

Tinkerbell and Emma have all the intelligence of two flies in a freezer so we know no sense will be shown.

Maybe someone who is funding this takes another think.

Like with GLP v EHRC - they confirmed the law for workplace toilets in the High Court. Sammy will do the same here. It’s a risk they should assess.

Elspeth's Update 3 on the gardening site describes getting permission to intervene - it's long so I won't post the whole thing but she writes:

We have been granted permission to call a witness, to cross examine the claimant's witnesses and to make legal submissions to the Tribunal to resist this attempt to bully and silence us and to disband our network.
Permission was granted in the preliminary hearing on 29th May 2024, where we were represented by the phenomenal Naomi Cunningham, one of the leading barristers in this area.

I looked for an official document relating to this hearing but didn't find one.

They have a right to be there - this affects their individuals, their right to exist in the workplace - so they should be treated as another party.

The judge wanted to shut everything down to a narrow track - but the SHROOM blew that nonsense wide open.

I do think Tink being familiar with the spreadsheet and then it being admitted into evidence during the trial was very odd.

But he thought what he had was evidence of moderation that discriminated against him. But that was an unwise decision. It’s powerful evidence of the vitriol poured on SEEN.

And now there is months to go over it, tally it up and evidence the opposite.

Thank you, I will have a look at that. It's a shame though that there isn't the official reasoning for granting intervener status, because SEEN's interests and the court's interest don't necessarily align.
I'm still not clear if an intervener's role is strictly to help the court decide between the claimant's and respondent's position, or if they can advocate for their own interests beyond that.

If Defra tried to shut down SEEN they'd be facing another employment tribunal from SEEN - and with more chance of success than Tink has with this one. That would be silly.

Civil Service staff networks had restrictions imposed on them last year - and about time! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/civil-service-staff-networks-to-only-meet-outside-working-hours-and-have-all-events-signed-off-by-senior-managers

Anne Widdecombe's speech for an Oxford Union debate on Free Speech seems relevant here:

"Nobody has a right to live their lives being protected from insult, or from offence, or from hurt feelings".

Settlement needs both sides to agree. The Claimant wants SEEN shutdown and DEFRA know that would be illegal.

Quite - the more I think about it the more it looks like that ST was directing the show. Badly.

We should it be inappropriate to send thank you cards via HH?! 🤣

ST can apply to withdraw his claim. Either unilaterally, or if he reaches an agreement with DEFRA. The tribunal can permit that if it wishes; and either or both DEFRA as defendant and the intervenor can ask the court to continue to a full judgment if they wish. I think that’s procedurally correct.

I don’t think it’s likely that DEFRA will settle with ST at this stage. It’s possible he could withdraw the claim entirely; for instance if his backer says they won’t pay for any more of HH’s time. I think that gets a bit complicated: Because she is already conducting litigation HH would have to ask for permission to withdraw from representing ST and the tribunal I think can deny her permission.

In researching this answer I came across this document:

https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Returning-instructions-in-criminal-cases-February-2022.pdf

It partially answers some questions about whether ST can direct HH what questions to ask - and I think the answer is on the whole, no: HH can’t be made to argue the case in a way she feels is unwise; she would have to return the instructions. That doesn’t mean ST and HH can’t discuss things or that HH can’t (willingly) take ST’s suggestions, but if they disagree fundamentally then HH has to withdraw.

EDIT; I see that document is in respect of criminal cases; so it may not apply in the tribunal. I’ll look for more.

It is certainly an option. HH by her questioning has opened up a lot of areas for NC to explore. Plus NC now has 7 months to interrogate the SS and to formulate her lines of questioning.

EDIT; I see that document is in respect of criminal cases; so it may not apply in the tribunal. I’ll look for more.

I personally think that Tink’s behaviour towards his colleagues is criminal 😁

IANAL but my understanding is that SEEN is an intervenor because ST wants them shut down. I think originally EDW and AM were also respondents but ST withdrew. EDW then made the case for SEEN to be the intervenor.

If DEFRA settle then ST is also settling so the whole case is withdrawn. I don’t believe SEEN could stop this but happy to be corrected.

I agree. This paragraph is unequivocal about all view points being equal.

The guidance also provides further clarity for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) networks specifically. Including the need to promote all view points equally, and ensure their role - to promote equality and inclusion in the Civil Service for everyone - is not lost in pursuit of a particular issue.

The case against EDW and AM was not allowed to proceed because all three did not share the same employer, so Tink couldn’t sue them. He certainly managed to get a lot of his grudge against AM into this tribunal though, in spite of AM not being part of proceedings.

Thank you. I agree ST clearly has an issue with AM.