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.

Exactly. If this is HHs laser focus what is her wide-angle like. FFS

CA - As a lesbian myself I do not trivialise this

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Helen

The judge should have stepped in to stop this exchange. HH isn't asking questions any more, she's arguing with the witness about unrelated matters.

HH - I think we've addressed various policies and don't need to take W to each individual provision.
AL - that reflects our approach not appriate to go through each
HH no more questions.

[Everyone - HOOORAY!!!]

HH -Oh actually judge, could I just pop out and just double check something with client.

[Everyone - ...sigh...]

Nooooooooo

Nearly everything in this song (which I adore, and ai was lucky enough to see them live in 2024) has become obsolete. Yet millionaires still buy art for the price of a hospital wing…

"HH given your experience in EDI including work on hate crime, given your background, comparing a restriction to systemic policy in US military is offensive in extreme
CA sorry you feel that way, not meant to be offensive at all."

I say unto thee m'luds, m'ladies, beetles and androids anthropomorphised beings all:

What. The. Fuck.

NC sorry to interrupt, my client was severely upset by the last questions.
HH - we talked about change from public to pte settings, email in October, concern raised.

HH is just Trolling everyone now.

Double check if your client still want you to represent them?😈
That was uncalled for and borderline sarcastic.
Moderate me, please, I deserve it😁

Poor Elspeth.

HH - email from CM to SH at end under mandating, it seems to suggest that org aware in June that communities of interest were changing settings back to public. Were you aware of that?
CA - I can't remember when that discussion was had in mod panel
HH any colleagues addressed whether that happened?
CA - I don't know.
HH that's all from me judge.
J - we don't think it is reasonable to put you under pressure, we are more about a fair hearing, but you have to have reasonable time to do what you do professionally. The q is can you do that in the time you have reasonable time this afternoon?

If this survey is to be given any real weight then they need to get a survey expert or statistician in to confirm that the a:gender's questioning is solid - clearly it isn't, you can't survey a club for vested interests and then claim it reflects the options of the general population

J - the q has to be asked. Given we also ask any q we have got and reexamination, the q is, is there enough time.
NC- it's touch and go, I have a fair bit of ground to cover. I think it's worth giving it a shot, if the choice is between this witness to come back or not

HH that's all from me judge

J - we will break until 1.45. will that be acceptable.
NC - what i have said now is provisional subject to conv with client J

• we will decide what to do. Don't want to be stuck half way through for a period of time. J see where we go after quarter to two.

,

Didn't CA say earlier she was happy to stay late if needed?

As someone (please feel free to remind me who deserves the credit) said in a prior thread "I asked the members of the Agrees-with-me club and 168 of them said they agree with me."

I am keeping that line.

Yes!

This is very interesting because, for all we are moaning about HH, she is under instruction from her client. Now she may, or may not, have advised that it was a good idea to go through everything in laborious detail. But we need to bear in mind that clearly ST thinks that the existence of SEEN is 'denying her reality/lived experience/existence etc'. It sounds tedious to us because we see it as all one point and we disagree. But ST may see each individual very small point as a big deal in themselves, and an even bigger deal put together. And may have instructed HH to make that clear.

J - we don't think it is reasonable to put you under pressure, we are more about a fair hearing, but you have to have reasonable time to do what you do professionally. The q is can you do that in the time you have reasonable time this afternoon?

Judge sounds smarmy, running scared of being caught out being unfair to NC?
Again?. Arguably. I am not advertently or inadvertently stating or implying that the judge has been unfair to NC, whether advertently or inadvertently. Or not or both or either.
😄

It'll be interested to see how he speaks to NC over the course of the afternoon..

Isn't that 168 out of 1,700 (members and allies) or 168 out of 600 (full members) Either way - in percentage terms not that much of the Agrees-with-me club actually agree

I wonder whether she really expressed that as a triple negative?