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 today, no. I'm watching it! Historic day for the teams.

Sly insinuation that Seen was public as deliberate antagonism. Trying to create doubt in J’s mind about their motivations. But my god, you’d have to be incredibly self centred to the point of paranoia to assume everything is about you to this nth degree.

She's not making an argument. She's leaving a smell in the air.

CA don't accept unsafe environment for anyone who has chosen not to be in that group
👏

At this point if I had a whiteboard in front of me I'm fairly confident I could give a 5 minute presentation to the court on how moderation on Yammer worked and explain the changes made when it changed to new system

Somehow the words 'brief' and 'Helen H' don't quite sit well together.

I think this is correct. She just stopped short of accusing SEEN of deliberately staying public.

HH - allow me one minute I don't want to repeat myself

HH just want to move on to 2nd pcp that all colleagues..protected characteristics do you accept this applied. Put to you this disadvantage trans colleagues, as network for spreading anti trans views
AL not accepted
There is some discussion between J, AL and HH whether something is a proposition or a question about whether PCP applied.
J - why asking witness about it?
HH stepping stone
HH that PCP put trans colleagues at disadvant as allowed creation
CA allowed creation of network of colleagues who held protected char, and don't accept spreading anti trans views.

You can put any kind of allegation you like to a witness in cross examination, you don't need evidence. Their response becomes the evidence: "She said she didn't do it, but she's an habitual liar, from which the court should conclude that she did do it."

@MarieDeGournay

as requested on previous thread. Was busy before. Only on page 2 here.

No, she absolutely meant to accuse them of staying public deliberately, most likely a transcription error by TT. It's a perfectly proper thing to put to the witness, and for the panel to conclude either way.

I take my hat off to CA for standing so firm and resolute in the face of this barrage of crap from HH.

HH:.... Put to you this disadvantage trans colleagues, as network for spreading anti trans views

To repeat my earlier post:

Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off.

HH - it created distress and unsafe as no other group of people having reality questioned
CA nobody having reality questioned. We understood concern which we sought to address. Not unsafe, all measures to ensure safe for GC and trans
HH third PCP that is agreed - that was applied in written word from May 2023 CA can't remember prob May
HH in practice from Nov 23, when a number of posts removed for that reason
J this is policy, this is an allegation, when do you say policy applied?

<bold mine!>

I’m considering allowing Arthur to play charades.

Even though CA would not be involved in any decision to remain public made by SEEN?

Yes, that's what she said but then seemed to draw back from the abyss.

We are in total agreement. She just didn’t say the words ‘they did it deliberately’. She used double and triple negatives.

I would have been swearing like a trooper by now if I was faced with HH's utter nonsense, credit to CA for staying so calm and measured when even the Judge is getting tetchy.

HH - let me just double check list of issues to make sure got this right
J end of 22? Jan 23?
CA initial version Nov Dec 22, can't remember in initial or May refresh
AL are you saying that wording in initial version
HH early iteration. In practice applied from Nov 22
J - that wording? [some reading by J of document]
AL it was May 23 Principles of Communications.
HH - that put the C and trans colleagues at a disadvantage as invasion of own freedom of speech about offense and discrim
CA to label an entire network as discrim was not appropriate and that's what we sought to stop

I would be an extremely hostile witness by now.

That's lovely thank you Myrtle!
I'd wear it!I t would confuse the f out of people, and I like that in a t-shirt😃

HH - it created distress and unsafe as no other group of people having reality questioned

 They are having someone else's reality imposed

If someone had included in the bundle, dare I say it, a spreadsheet of systems, networks and their owners, moderation methods and when systems were private or public we could have been done and dusted last week.