Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 5

[fanOfBen]

Previous thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549488-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-4

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.
I will also 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.

HH.. we saw in March it was going to upsetting and damaging to trans people
in other words, the thought police should have been on red alert because it was going to be IWD and something woman-ish might be posted, and trans people must be protected from anything woman-ish😡
The only positive in this incredible line of questioning is that it is exposing the extent to which anyone with bio-realist beliefs has to have ZERO freedom of expression, ZERO respect and dignity in the workplace, for ST&co to be satisfied.

Thank you very much to @FarriersGirl and @fanOfBen for c&p duties today.

I am available tomorrow apart from a short period late morning. I could commit to doing the afternoon if someone else could do the morning?

NB sounds like another grown up, it is reassuring that the three witnesses for the respondents so far have all seemed to be sensible and professional people.

NB was in charge of HR for 30k people: how many of those were delighted that women were featuring on IWD? Far more than trans who got tearful, I'm sure.

Ironically that may be their downfall because it was likely a big factor in the process taking so long, which may be the point on which ST actually wins...

So according to HH we are not allowed to cheer for sex realist women on IWD, for fear of upsetting none women.

What a load of rot codswallop i hope NC asks something to do with this erm catylist.

As @MarieDeGournay says 'The only positive in this incredible line of questioning is that it is exposing the extent to which anyone with bio-realist beliefs has to have ZERO freedom of expression, ZERO respect and dignity in the workplace, for ST&co to be satisfied.'

So clearly ST& co have GI beliefs that are NOT WORIADS as NOT compatible with the human rights of others to hold a different belief or accept reality..

ST was on Sulk leave for the most part and the length of time was over egged.

@TT people - Helen Hogben isn't a KC, although I've seen you list her as such.

Wish someone would challenge the trans extremism that seeks to silence everyone else and punish non believers in court as doesn't seem at all WORIADS.

One difference is that GC views were held by the court not to be akin to racism. At a different end to the spectrum to racism, It's possible that someone could be harmed by an innocuous statement about liking cheese, or not eating chocolate, but the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required.

Women's day, pride month.

Go figure.

Yes the Claimant apparently felt harrassed / upset at any reference, however vague, to biological reality, including anything for/about women that didn't include him (because he's a bloke).

But harrassment, upset and offensiveness works both ways. Many women feel harassed / upset/ offended at males in the ladies (whatever their GI belief or GRC status) or the suggestion a man becomes a woman if he grows his hair long (as I think the Claimant said a few days ago).

Am finding HH questionning a bit odd, and the HR witness isn't mentioning the need to consider female employees due to their PC of sex at all....

At this point I usually say 'In fairness, [name of barrister opposing NC] is just doing their job'.

I think HH is doing it too well! IShe's voicing extreme transgenderism demands as if they were universally accepted and established in fact, using emotive language.
What she's doing - presumably unintentionally😏 - is laying bare the unreasonable, egotistical, unfairness of it all.

End of day comments on NB:

She's a grown up.
She speaks softly and slowly.
Her responses are sensible and considered.
She has neat grey hair and is dressed appropriately for a court hearing.

Overall she's coming across as a mature, intelligent professional.

Thank you for that.
I hope that NB feels that it's a bit more OK to say reasonable grown-up things these days, I think that's a positive change from a few years ago when even the mildest departure from the trans script would have caused a storm of accusations of hate and bigotry and transphobia.

What is worrying me is that the judge still seems to be veering toward the claimant’s view of the world. Who will enlighten him about the legal failings in his views i.e. that women have a right exist without men telling the that they can’t?

Oo! I know this one! Naomi will!

Another day in which SEEN and GC views are presented in an uncontested way as merely a random group of nasty people who have bizarrely been granted a right to enjoy distressing poor innocent trans people for funsies.

SEEN exist because of the damage to women's rights and all sex based rights caused by transactivism and gender ideology. It only became necessary because of the behaviours of trans activism, it is a reaction to the endless infringements and dominance and determined open erasure of sex based rights and even sex based conversations. It exists solely to hold open the remaining contested corner of sex based reality and rights for women, and to note and resist the aggressive, controlling and oppressive behaviours of trans identified men and their political activist supporters.

This is never pointed out.

That ST would really like to erase the existence of women as a group, all resources and facilities, and those women's rights to argue back and stand up for their rights is exactly what all this is about. This is cry bullying on crack. But as usual, no one is speaking at all for anyone but the men with gender ID, and the J is being drowned in highly one sided information without balance.

Am slightly surprised that SM did not leap out of the witness box and force feed HH the bloody draft towards the end of that mess.

I just hope you’re right 🤞because this level of madness is doing nothing for my blood pressure.

She had a try last week, and the J repeatedly stopped her.

I do hope they were equally concerned about the distress to many women at having trans identifying men feted on IWD, and at the constant repetition of the anti-female-rights slogan "trans women are women"

This is a chat with NB on a 'Leaders in Conversation' podcast. A proper grown up.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/on-lifting-people-up-a-conversation-with/id1548733772?i=1000738443776

It's frsutrating but surely NB is doing what she's supposed to do in court which is answer the questions she was asked and no more. Arguing the politics seldom goes well - remember Kirrin Metcalfe? AL and NC will presumably get the chance to ask NB questions from the other perspective.

I do hope someone gets the chance to observe in passing that no matter what the civil service networks have might have convinced themselves it's not all trans people who feel harmed by SEEN or by GC views in general. Though the poor cleaners might have to mop brains off the walls as a courtroom full of heads explode.

which is exactly what’s worrying me although does she get a closing statement/summing up opportunity with no interruptions or if not could this give a right to appeal?

It is, fundamentally, a belief system that feelings create reality, not objective facts. With a further belief in a hierarchy of power as to who gets to state and impose reality and who gets to shut up, get on their knees and get busy creating that reality for their betters.

Hence the endless carrying on as if everything is an episode of Strictly and popular views, fixed and cheated/brigaded 'polls' and 'surveys', etc should compel everyone's compliance. And hence these court cases where objectivity and facts and process are irrelevant because a powerful person had feelings.