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.

I guess she might say she can see the issue from both sides. I think she says pretty much this in her witness statements.

But yes, the fundamental point is that there is a (wilful?) misunderstanding of the GC position, which isn't about not wanting people to exist as has been claimed over and over again in this tribunal, but about recognising that there are competing rights that need to be balanced, as well as legitimate safeguarding concerns. Once somebody understands this, it makes the GC position seem much more reasonable and hard to argue with.

You may laugh, but you realise, don't you, that HH has only quoted examples of sarcasm in emails so far, she has yet to move on to quoting examples of dramatic irony, bathos, puns, parody, hyperbole, litotes and satire on the SEEN network.😁

As if CA will suddenly be able to bear it all no longer and get up and shout:

"YES, damn it! I sing the Two and a half men song in my head whenever I see a TW! If I say Samantha I totally secretly think SaMANtha! I start my day with Betty Hutton's It's A Man so I never forget!"

I'm impressed that HH is about to push JR off the top spot in the tedious questioning of witnesses league.

If you don't navigate spreadsheets all the time it's not easy. Even less easy if you're on a laptop and not two screens and a proper keyboard and mouse.

I can't imagine how deeply the judge must regret allowing this spreadsheet malarkey.

I think it would be pretty extreme to cut off counsel completely and would give them grounds for appeal. He's given her a deadline of lunchtime. I think yesterday she said she'd need only 40 mins today. She knew what she had to cover today, not like NC whose time estimate is a moving target while CA is being x-examined. So I think HH is filibustering. And in the circs the judge may be pretty firm, perhaps a late or reduced lunch break but insist she wrap it up.

Being sarcastic is now a hate crime.

I guess she might say she can see the issue from both sides.

From the point of view of one side, anyone who can see both sides is on the other side.

From the last thread:
Justabaker · Today 10:45
Amnesty are taking a page from the Southern Poverty Law Center (sp on purpose) - call anyone that disagrees with the extreme views of progressive politics far right. Far right has ceased to have any meaning except - they disagree with the org or person hurling the words.

Time to remind them of Everyone I don't like is literally Hitler:

I completely agree. Which is why people who create them should arrange them properly for the ease of other users. Anyway I digress...😊

Very true

The deal seems to be that HH gets to ask questions until CA says something -anything! - that helps HH.

We could be here forever.

In time, when we look back we'll see 'Transgender Ideology' and 'Gender Identity Theory' as the apotheosis of the politics of fragility and Identity. A sort of bottomed out low point in American culture. Indicative of every type of excess.

[We resume. From TT]

HH - so we can see at row 193, 20 June 23, post in Col F can see that a complaint raised AM policing gender equality network and sort out by going into network What we can see in terms of mod, reviewed on 21 June, were you involved?
CA - I cant remember
HH - seen as some degree of sarcasm but not over line.

HH the outcome was that Liz decided to close thread down, quite reasonable response from Ms Willow, but AM assessment of conduct was sarcastic OK. Another eg of downplaying GC comments
CA - don't accept, we were endeav to be fair to everybody
J - how many people on mod panel
CA - there was a core group of four I think, and then there were one or two others who came and went.
J - met?
CA - in Nov and Dec 22 two or three times a week. From Jan 23 we would meet weekly.

J - any formal principles for moderation?
CA - against princ of communications once issued in Nov 22
J - when mod panel met was it always same people
CA - mostly yes
J - remind us who were
CA - myself, EW-V, manager of EDI team in Env Agency Harley Malling DDTS, the digital team
CA - Sally Williams Env agency
J - decisions always unanimous
CA - yes

She may not identify as GC. But she's got it for sure - she's explaining it as well as Forstater or Bindel and in a way that seems to cut off further qs from HH.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre who get funding to tackle racism, and who were recently found to be funnelling funds, to the KKK?

To keep up the racism which they were being paid to tackle?

That Southern Poverty Law Centre?

Please can somebody reassure me that the other two witnesses for the Respondent had nothing to do with the Spreadsheet of Doom

Sympathies to the TT'ers who get asked to pop back for the final week of this tribunal

CA - to be completely accurate,Sally recused from some decisions because the poster was someone in her team so she stepped back from those decisions.
HH asks who the person was
CA I think I shouldn't say
HH was it Beth Gordon
J I don't think it matters,
HH why shouldn't you say?
CA someone involved in other proceedings
HH - move on to next issue AM stating making notes of colleagues comments, the internet doesn't forget and neither does he
J - we need page number first please

HH - so we can see at row 193, 20 June 23, post in Col F can see that a complaint raised AM policing gender equality network and sort out by going into network What we can see in terms of mod, reviewed on 21 June, were you involved?
CA - I cant remember
HH - seen as some degree of sarcasm but not over line.

Ah, so AM is "policing" the gender network? AM might well be a member of the gender network as it's an "inclusive network" that's open to "all genders". But when ST and allies go trawling Yammer, the work intranet and private Teams chats for things to complain about, this is not policing, but is a perfectly legitimate action.

HH - this comment made in response to thread by Paula Austin the RPA LGBTplus champion. She expresses concern about launch of SEEN and she requests support. (HH quotes some supportive responses in thread at 325, bottom entry EB, issues with menopause and preg)
HH - exh between Luke Brookes at ST - that we shouldn't have this discussion in workplace. Look at 327 in particular, ST response to LB 'no interest in attacking anti trans folks just don't want their views shoved in my face at work'

<oh the irony>

HH - move on to next issue AM stating making notes of colleagues comments, the internet doesn't forget and neither does he

Was he making <gasps> contemporaneous notes?

HH my point is that by the time AM posts, there has been a polite exchange of views
CA in parts yes, but also people saying they had a protected belief and they don't - parts like that
HH - AM intervention at 332 accuses people of sharing misinformation, and ST advancing strawman argument.
CA - I'd have to read whole post
CA - yes there has been misinformation about protected beliefs

Who is Beth Gordon and what other proceedings is she involved in. Anyone know?