Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 6

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549959-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-5

TT substack: 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.

It's already driving me nuts!

From TT:

meetings etc
CA Mod panel set up 8 Nov 2022
HH You were inc in attending meetings, drafting responses, moderation
J Page 497 - appears your position is that things should come through you. Complaints of this nature won't be entertained. complaints c existence of SEEN

CA Yes, it would come through me, not elsewhere. I would be the one to send responses out. A group of us made decisions, not one person.
HH You discussed with someone in EAg. AM?
CA Yes
HH Any notes of that meeting by you?
CA Possibly handwritten in notebook. No formal minutes

HH Clear you had some sympathy for his position
CA I understood that people with GC beliefs had not been heard by Defra or elsewhere in CS> I realised Forstate judgement and implications not widely known or understood. I wanted to let him know concerns were being heard

The new feature is a hot topic on Site Stuff.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff

I wouldn't mind so much if they'd set it to truncate much longer posts than the line limit they have set. Maybe they were trying to help in situations where people quote a really long post making their reply even longer?

Staff cannot tolerate the merest existence of SEEN, yet are fully on board with validating, at every turn, the very special existence of ST and others so identified.

SEENs very existence somehow invalidates or denies their existence.

From TT:

CA and what we were going to do as GC beliefs are PCs under Religion and belief
HH This is July 2022. A year after judgment
CA It hadn't permeated into consciousness of quite a number of people
HH Including senior leaders like NB
CA Don't know c NB.

CA But having been approached after AM post on IWD I understood that what I was telling senior people was new to them
HH Your discussion with EW. Any notes
CA Not in a form that I kept.
HH Sympathy for her position?
CA Letting her know that she was being heard.

HH You agreed a position with colleagues in NE and EAg. That GC posts would be permitted on open platforms, Y etc
CA Yes. That is would be discriminatory to stop GC posts on Yammer.
HH You reached that position before you spoke to networks that represented t colleagues

Maybe 10 days by canal!

CA I understood that people with GC beliefs had not been heard by Defra or elsewhere in CS> I realised Forstate judgement and implications not widely known or understood. I wanted to let him know concerns were being heard

That's good.

And this was a year after the judgement!

HH You reached that position before you spoke to networks that represented t colleagues

The world does not revolve around the bloody wants and whinges of those who are complaining the loudest.

2 threads in site stuff already!!!

Please add your voice. The ‘show more’ is coming up for almost every post!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5551949-truncated-posts-with-show-more-not-quoted-sections?reply=153408942

HH You agreed a position with colleagues in NE and EAg. That GC posts would be permitted on open platforms, Y etc
CA Yes. That is would be discriminatory to stop GC posts on Yammer.
HH You reached that position before you spoke to networks that represented t colleagues

What??! You reached a position on the law without consulting trans people??!

From TT:

CA We looked at our position re discrimination and Eq law and how we were going to go forward with that.
HH The only voices you had heard before finalising position were GC
CA We were well aware of position of those who took opposite view of GC. GC voice was new within Defra

CA We were also saying to them leave it with us while we work out what to do next. We saw what we thought was correct legal position and then would go on to engage with people with additional guidance
HH Your conversations with other networks was

telling them what was going to happen
CA Consulting with them re additional guiadance for Y under the legal position. Unlawful to discriminate against people on grounds of GC belief.
HH You don't talk c Forstater c difference of holding belief and expression

I cannot believe that this abject nonsense is being thrashed out.

In a court.

Of law.

A complete waste of time, energy and resources.

What a feckin' time to be alive. 🙄

CA Yes. That is would be discriminatory to stop GC posts on Yammer.
HH You reached that position before you spoke to networks that represented t colleagues

Like talking to anybody makes anything more or less discriminatory..😒
A principle is a principle is a principle.

HH You agreed a position with colleagues in NE and EAg. That GC posts would be permitted on open platforms, Y etc
CA Yes. That is would be discriminatory to stop GC posts on Yammer.
HH You reached that position before you spoke to networks that represented t colleagues

Why should they??

Five now.

HH You agreed a position with colleagues in NE and EAg. That GC posts would be permitted on open platforms, Y etc
CA Yes. That is would be discriminatory to stop GC posts on Yammer.
HH You reached that position before you spoke to networks that represented t colleagues

So, like asking a men's group before women can discuss sexism?

Or, asking the vegan group before anyone can discuss farming?

You beat me to it.

The holy T-Veto!

And PRONOUNS are "an open manifestation" of the belief in Gender Identity.

From TT:

CA We were in v early stages re how GC beliefs expressed
HH You were aware of difference holding belief and manifesting
CA Yes, we were trying to talk to people about being able to hold belief to start with.
HH Open platform is c manifesting belief

CA. Yes. At this stage just getting across to people the notion that GC belief protected
HH Did you discuss with AM/EW re not on a platform of 25k people
CA Difference between holding and manifesting belief, but I thought must be acceptable to express you hold a belief.

CA Not wrong for someone to say this is my belief, if the belief is protected.
HH You hadn't conducted assessment of impact on t colleagues
CA> No . Aware would not be popular with T colleagues. So next was to start talking to people, networks etc re the position.

<personal note - this witness is giving very sensible replies>

I'm now finding it difficult to follow this thread. Having to click on each post is so annoying I can't concentrate on the substance of the post.

Have they turned it off?

<personal note - this witness is giving very sensible replies>
Yes, she seems to be less in thrall to the T than anyone else.