Tempest v Rural Payments Agency Tribunal Thread 7

[myladydisdainisyetliving]

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5551375-tempest-v-rural-payments-agency-tribunal-thread-6

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.

From TT:

CA no when DB posted unpleasant things about the moderation panel, we made sure we had proper approval before removing any of those remarks, so that we weren't just removing criticism of ourselves
HH looking at log, 'no breach of comms principles, not removed' mod panel, said no

breach, not removed.
CA as I say, it appeared to me to be badly worded, it was trying to say there were other areas of protections
HH one of JH recommendations to seek proper legal advice, not to make interpretations
CA that's why we subsequently added to the PoC not to discuss

case law etc, but at that time, that provision wasn't there. And I think this row in mod document, refers to amended post.
HH but mod panel did not suggest to remove pending legal advice
CA because there was no prohibition against it at that point

I don't think she feels any need to ask any new things.

Does HH realise how absolutely insane she sounds reading from MBIM and arguing that it makes people feel harmed and unsafe?

In relation to an earlier conversation on pools/hot tubs there's currently a trending thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5552274-lynn-these-are-sex-people

From TT:

HH orig post remains visible for some time without removal.
CA yes
HH and across that period any colleague who had a notification across those 12 days could have read that post
CA if they had chosen to go into the SEEN group, it had discussion of GRA, EHRC guidance

J appreciate that there were discussions, and you thought it might have a wrong interpretation of the law, did you think about taking it down,
CA we just focused on getting it right
J but it was a post that was clearly concerning, you left it there for some days, could you not

have taken it down, until sorted as you did you with other posts
CA yes
HH on 16 June, DF made a post on his story line, in effect responding to EDW post, go to moderation log, row 187,
[spreadsheet shuffling]

<remind me to make an observation about this at the break>

J appreciate that there were discussions, and you thought it might have a wrong interpretation of the law, did you think about taking it down,
CA we just focused on getting it right
J but it was a post that was clearly concerning, you left it there for some days, could you not
have taken it down, until sorted as you did you with other posts
CA yes

😬

We’re now looking into people’s souls.

Excuse the AI (but too long to write). HH seems to be engaging along the lines of the infamous political tactic popularised by former US President Lyndon B. Johnson. As the legend goes, during a tight 1948 Senate race, Johnson told his campaign manager to spread a rumor that his opponent—a pig farmer—had engaged in illicit acts with his sows. When the manager objected that the story wasn't true, LBJ famously replied, “Of course not, but let’s make the bastard deny it”!

HH trying to put CA on the back foot, with absolutely no evidence, by going ‘j’accuse’.

From TT:

HH we can see that DF posted if someone tells you EQ doesn't cover gender, it's a lie,
CA yes
HH DF comment was removed same day by mod panel
CA because the mod panel met the same day
HH removed because not professional, bringing the org into disrepute
CA yes

HH but he was challenging post that you thought was dubious at best
CA we removed it because of the manner in which he made his response,
HH the challenge was reasonable, yes
CA the challenge yes, the language no
HH why not give that same feedback to DF

CA if you'd seen the size of the log, if we were explaining everything and rewording everything we'd still be working on it, we'd already removed a number of his posts
J so was it because you'd already told him or you didn't have enough time to do it
CA it was primarily because

J but it was a post that was clearly concerning,

Was it 'concerning' cos the transfolx didn't like it, or 'concerning' because it quoted the EA wrongly??
[rhetorical]

The speed at which HH zips through her questions is impressive.

😂😂😂

I'm very yeasty. 😂

From TT:

of the breach of the communications principiles
J was it 'no point because he knew the rules' was that the reason, hugely paraphrasing but it wasn't time
CA yes that was the reason
HH you had a post that was hostile from EDW
CA how hostile
HH it would be upsetting to trans

colleague,
CA they might be upset
HH by DF said it was wrong, and you never spoke to him
CA I am fairly certain we had removed posts of his previously, we had emailed him, we had correspondence with him
J did he have posts removed
CA okay I will modify that and say I believe

that he had had posts removed in the past but I'd have to go back through the log. This post was June 2023, and the CoP was Nov 2022, it was published.
J so we're talking 7 months later, thank you
HH Can you not see the frustration of trans colleagues, you left up post

<personal note - based on the TT posts only, between them HH and the judge are wearing down CA, time for a hydration break!>

had engaged in illicit acts with his sows

Isn't that what 'animal husbandry' means?😄

[no need to explain, as with 'sex pool', thank you, I know iwhat 'animal husbandry' really means; I also know that 'mixed farming' means farms where there are men and women - I'm fully qualified to work at DEFRA😁]

HH you had a post that was hostile from EDW
CA how hostile

CA coming across as no fucks left to give

HH you had a post that was hostile from EDW
CA how hostile
HH it would be upsetting to trans
colleague,
CA they might be upset

If you place this exchange in a bowl of warm water, it will expand to form the whole tribunal, like those little paper flowers we used to get when we were kids..

From TT:

misleading on law, but took down posts because of violations of communication policy.
End of 2nd thread afternoon 9 July

<court is still sitting, TT obviously managing X threads>

This is part 3 - no break.

HH : final Q on this. Intent is to minimise protections available to T colleagues.
CA - no. Sets out the law accurately. Comes from frustration at slides in training misdescribing PCs . Refers to EHRC guidance for more info.

HH : Move on
J - Can I just catch up?

AL _ asks for break.
J suggests 10 minute break.

Discussion over laptop for CA's use. Break.

This an earlier one on the same issue, long comment/discussion section
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/07/05/is-misgendering-always-harassment/

have to say, bit annoyed that
religious/disability/trauma reasons not to use preferred pronouns seem to be considered more 'respectable' than simply having gc views.
I kinda get it in regards to autism/trauma as that is more of a 'I can't' than 'I don't want to' reason, but why is Quakerism a more understandable reason to refuse pp than being gc?! It's not even central to that belief!

this is your reminder

That thread is hysterical - tears running down my face 😂😂

HH but it is your job as inclusive HR to make judgements about content

HH advocating censorship of what adults can read. 🙄

(while we're having a break)

Documentary, yes, a series of interview clips around "what is a woman". Matt Walsh's right wing and sexist but he is also very clever and every now and again he is totally on point and then he can be very funny indeed. AFAIK the documentary is now paywalled.

His interview with Dr Michelle "does a chicken cry?" Forcier was a classic of "let them speak". These bits are still on YouTube but he's wrapped them in commentary which is much less enjoyable. Still, skip to the interview segments (the highly viewed bits) and cringe for Dr Michelle Forcier and still more for her poor patients and their bamboozled parents.

"Does a chicken cry" was funny but she is also terrifying. Especially talking about puberty blockers:

Forcier (poison-sweet voice and sweeping hand gestures just in case we are yoo young or not bright enough to understand her words)
"Puberty blockers - which are completely reversible and don't have permanaent effects - are wonderful because we can put that pause on puberty. Just like if you were listening to music you put the pause on and we stop the blockers and puberty would go on right back to where it was, the next note in the song, just delay that period of time."

Walsh (stock still hands on thighs and controlled stony voice) "One of the drugs used is Lupron, right, which is used to chemically castrate sex offenders."

Forcier "You know what I'm not sure we should continue with this conversation"

At first I thought Forcier was just the most extreme nutjob that Matt Walsh dug up and put in for the comedy but it turns out that Forcier is very influential and besides being a practitioner in gender medicine she also mentored the doctor who wrote the policy on transitioning children for the American Paediatric Association.

The sex pool thread was great light relief but it did make me feel I couldnt take up the suggestion of sex in the cockpit.

████ ████ ███ ████ ████████

No one was sadder about this than me.

#sadsadtimes

It's reminding me of what went on at the Harper Valley PTA, acc to Jeannie C Riley -
"Well, there's Bobby Taylor sittin' there
And seven times he's asked me for a date
And Mrs. Taylor sure seems to use a lotta ice
Whenever he's away
And, Mr. Baker, can you tell us why
Your secretary had to leave this town?
And shouldn't widow Jones be told to keep
Her window shades all pulled completely down?"

"Well, Mr. Harper couldn't be here
'Cause he stayed too long at Kelly's Bar again
And if you'll smell Shirley Thompson's breath
You'll find she's had a little nip of gin
And then you have the nerve to tell me
You think that as a mother I'm not fit
Well, this is just a little Peyton Place
And you're all Harper Valley hypocrites"

No, I wouldn't put you on, because it really did
It happened just this way
The day my mama socked it to
The Harper Valley PTA"