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.

Making contemporaneous notes - good.

Saying you’re making contemporaneous notes - bad.

The double standards here makes me want to scream. This is such a load of bollocks.

no interest in attacking anti trans folks

🤔🙄

HH - para one a sarcastic ref to ST 'actual scientists' that sex is immutable.
CA - where is this directed at ST
HH you're quite right it's Caitlin.
HH - final para - he threatens people 'personally making note of slanderous comments' . If we look at mod log
J - you didn't ask a question
HH if you go to log row 44.

<seriously, HH, give it up...>

She must have flogged every deceased horse in the UK by now.

CA is having to correct HH now.......she's on the ropes and needs to be put out of her misery.

HH - SMN may well have picked up on link to Lotus Eaters
CA - she may have, but eventually that may have lead to future decision on links to external websites.
HH - EW witness statement please
HH - it is a section para 144 of EW statement, the Ritchie Herron (RH) post.

Catching up - this from 10.37

Am I right in understanding that HH has gone to two levels of indirection to find this (the Lotus Eaters link is from a document that was linked from Yammer)?

You start to get an understanding of the difference in approach from the two sides.

GC - people can look at stuff and evaluate its relevance using their own experience
GI - the center will control everything that you are allowed to view in order to ensure that 'the message' is never contradicted

It all sound a bit height of the soviet union

HH - not row 44. Forgive me. Going to come back to this point, will check references, will go on to other issues
J - can anyone help with this.? Don't want to jump around with this, it's confusing isn't it

There is a pause, assume reading

<the farce continues>

I wanted to watch the Fery match this afternoon, but now I'll have to chose between NC and Fery.

Or am I being optimistic that NC will actually get to question CA today?

Thankyou! In other professions is very VERY normal to screen a spreadsheet FOR SHARING onto a large monitor or tv screen. Somebody with an modicum of experience can drive the spreadsheet under guidance. Hence sort and filter rows etc. Attendees can concentrate on the content and not navigate.

Maybe there is a business idea for someone to supply a service. To draaaaaaag HH beyond the world of inkwells and quills. No wonder everything takes so long if IT skills are so woeful.

Maybe the vet who has been supplying her with the dead horses could assist in that.

Does anyone else feel.like running out into a field and screaming WHAT THE FUCK WERE TOU ALLNFUCJING DOING ALL FUCKING DAY LONG WHEN YOU SHOULD BE FUCMING DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB YOU BUNCH OF FUCKING WANKERS

Or just me?

Still waiting

HH I think it might not be.
J - a lot of us looking but not finding. Want to ask a question?
HH if you allow me one moment judge

<oh dear lord...>

God this is taking so much time. Can’t find references, spends ages before she asks her question, the answer is often very short. Like one word. I hate faffers.

Can you watch tennis, but listen to NC?

I think the problem is that me and you have been working under the assumption that the spreadsheet owner would have actually set up the spreadsheet properly in the first place!

HH - look at 1762. You do remove this post on 15 Nov
CA - I think so
HH - thank you
HH - sorry for confusion, it was my notes that led everyone down the garden path
HH - turn to letter beginning 2090. Asking q to comments made by spotlight on SEEN event. Four allegations to what occured at that event. A letter from a.gender March 2023. At 2091 one of allegations is that AM attended this event along with no of colleagues from SEEN.
CA yes

Not just you

I know barristers have to have thick skins/hard necks, but I wonder is HH getting an Oh shit this isn't good feeling, because she knows she doesn't have strong points to make, and she is faced with CA who knows her stuff, knows BS when she hears it, and seems completely unflappable.

She's just blundering on, losing her place, making mistakes, sending the judge off in wrong directions, getting corrected on matters of fact by the witness -
maybe HH would like the judge to step in and stop the fight so she doesn't have to take any more punishment, or her side throw in the towel, or something...

I’m being reminded of being pulled aside years ago by an external consultant to be told that there’d be a complaint against me about being sarcastic. Implied it was service users.

I was mortified to have upset a service user and asked who had complained so I could apologise. External said it didn’t matter who, but I insisted on being told. Turned out to be her and only her who was upset by my ‘sarcasm’ (sense of humour).

God, how I hated that petty and stupid power hungry tyrant.

I'm ready to gnaw my own arm off with frustration. The FAFFING. This is the umpteenth time HH has got her references in a mess and can't find something.

CA I didn't attend but yes
HH - they attended event. Within that platform we can see that the speakers gave a speech about book Invisible Women, Miss Dunn explains for exclusion of TW, NB women women of colour. It was at the Race Forum wasn't it.
HH - the final speaker was AM
CA - I don't know
HH - we can see complaints there in relation to transgender ideology. Further complaints - another speaker spoke to boxer ceiling -

Meant to quote this ^

HH - sorry for confusion, it was my notes that led everyone down the garden path

at 2093 - there are the criticisms we can see gender affirmation is the equiv of grooming children. You worked closely with this person, he must have made you aware of what happened at this event
CA it wasn't me personally, it was cross gov event, no reason necess to speak to defra. The cross gov networks involve people from diff depts but not necess to raise if not a disciplinary matter.
HH - ask you about mod more generally in relation to what you say in your WS para 32.
J - was there a q?
HH I have taken that as far as can

<I have my head in my hands at this point>