Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. This is the first morning session on 10th July, in the case of Samantha Tempest v DEFRA & Rural Payments Agency. We expect to start at 9.30am.

Our Substack page on the case contains all the previous sessions, background information, witness statements (after witnesses are sworn), a number of relevant documents, and a full list of abbreviations:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/tempest-vs-d…

Tempest (the claimant or C) is claiming discrimination, harassment and/or victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment. Central to the claim is the Sex Equality and Equity Network in the Civil Service (SEEN or IP). SEEN has been granted right to intervene.

We are a small group of volunteer citizen journalists. We receive no payment for our work. We accept paid subscriptions to our Substack to fund necessary expenses including travel, legal fees and digital costs. Please consider subscribing to our Substack, link in bio.

A reminder that our work is not a verbatim account or transcript of proceedings. We make our best efforts to report what is said and do so in good faith.

Abbreviations that may be used:
J - Employment Judge S.D. Robertson
P - one or other of the two lay panel members
ST/C - Samantha Tempest, claimant
HH - Helen Hogben, barrister for claimant
DEFRA/R1 - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, first respondent
RPA/R2 - Rural Payments Agency, second respondent

Rs - First and second respondents
AL - Alexander Line, Respondents' Barrister
SEEN - Sex Equality and Equity Network - Civil Service
SEEN-DEFRA - the DEFRA branch of SEEN
NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for SEEN as intervenor

CS: Civil Service
IX: Investigation
Grv: Grievance
WS: Witness Statement
CA: Carolyn Airs
ALB: Arm’s Length Bodies
NDPB: Non-Departmental Public Bodies
POC: Principles of Communication
DDTS: Digital Data and Technology
IAO: Information Asset Owners
GO: Group Owners

Still WFTCHTJ

Everyone taking seats now

J - I think we are cont where we left off
HH you recall we were looking at 284 of the bundle - 8 Nov 2022 announcement SEEN suggested to you that 600 trans or allied colleagues had posted messages in support of C post.
J - we can see 646 we don't know who they are do we

HH - I will need moderation logs now.
J - let's just stop now
(some discussion)

more reading of documents

HH - so beg at row 2 mod log, orig post ST and if we move along to row H and I we can see email sent to manager
CA - when we looked at posts if principles in effect, but because not in effect... (missed)

CA - No says it's 'clearly discrim'
The process was that email would go to line manager but when line manager CEO it felt like we needed to just check that out and deal with it. The email still went, but when you are dealing with the CEO, it was dealing with the seniority

HH - post from RAW, day after. Row 18. looks like she is responding to earlier commenter Ash Loakes - shocked and appalled SEEN

his is the broad message of response to ST email
CA common feature deemed to be not respectful you mentioned 600 odd posts, but we only looked at ones that were inapp worded
HH - p310 please

J - did you look at all posts?
CA eventually, yes
J - how many?
CA don't know
with this in Nov, we set up mod panel because we anticipated we needed, the volume overwhelming. We met 8 Nov and again same day 5pm, first go skim through, subsequ went through thread in more detail

J - more than on mod log? What happened to others?
CA if not cause for concern we didn't (interrupted
J how many no cause for concern
CA don't know 600 mentioned?
J - did not give cause for concern?

HH I just want to go back and correct go back to post 284, I put to you 600 people commented, but 646 reacted not commented.
J - that was what I was drawing att to
HH - 84 comments (missed) some discussion about pages etc

HH the reason that a lot of the posts we removed was that you were placing a ban on people complaining that the launch of SEEN was discrim
CA - yes, but some were also inapp worded.
HH - p310 -

HH - into this exch of views comes AM and this is a very challenging post from him, would you agree?
CA I think he is seeking to defend himself and colleagues, he saw a lot of hostile posts, and he felt he needed to intervene

There's been a large number of very hostile posts, opposing a SEEN network, and his post demonstrates his objective view to defend network. This is what this post is. I think on it's face it's clear what that is.

HH - it goes further than that accuses C of defam comments
CA Yes
HH - instigating a pile on?
J - can we read again?

HH - page 311 makes suggested that not acting in acc with Civil Service Code
CA - yes
HH when we consider C original post, my ID not be debated,
CA I think C saying more than that

some discussion about posts
CA talks about SEEN as a network 'geared to my erasure' - AM saying not it isn't. (missed) harassment and victimisation....then (missed) anti abortion network

CA - so no I don't think that refers to C being simply left alone
HH - row 19 moderation - C's response - this is before AM's comment. It C says is 'emotional mess' and not trying to police people's beliefs, but that if (SEEN) is beneficial I refute. Just worried about impact

CA - says doesn't want to police, but doesn't want any other debate either
HH - making clear in post that 'allowed to just be at work' explaining we can make clear to defra that we want to be welcoming. Not a pile on?

CA - not at this point but prev one yes.
HH - AM characterisation of post hurtful and hostile (310 post)
CA he is responding to 284 post

HH - mod post row 44
J - was AM post moderated?
HH coming to that
HH - what we can see is that column G looks like you and Erin
CA no the panel 4 of us

HH 'potentially threatening tone' comments as to the posts being defam, creating hostile environment
you describe as borderline and you leave up, subject to email from line manager, so we have seen a number of supportive comments from C supporters that SEEN posts discrim and you took down, but AM comments suggesting slander are left up

CA yes because they are responding to the comments to first post on thread. This was left because a clear response.
What AM is saying is what is saying about SEEN is untrue

HH - this is eg of uneven mod approach to policing trans voices but not those of GC
CA no that is not the case, there were several borderline emails, we didn't reserve for SEEN, they went to other people.
J - 284 deemed borderline?
CA I think so yes

HH - EW the Detransition Day with Ritchie Herron page 734 of bundle.

HH - this is an article specifically posted by SEEN on 12 March 2023, not a post put on yammer by RH as an individual it is SEEN the network promoting to Detrans Awareness Day
CA yes

HH - email from EW to yourself and others on 10/11/22 she is attaching draft of SEEN objectives, have a look at them for a moment

HH - the objectives - challenging sex discrim
posting an article promoting Detrans Awareness - has nothing to do with objectives?
CA - not directly that I can see
HH go back to post itself at 734.

move down to 735. It's clearly a chat with RH with a member of SEEN group.
CA don't know this is cross gov SEEN
HH the reason that SEEN is promoting this post and detrans awareness is because seeking to undermine trans

CA no, it's supporting detransitioners.
HH - the entry by RH, read to next page.

HH - we can see from that RH describes people stopping making comments, but then I found this staff network that empowered him and that is when I started saying everything transphobic even though it isn't. Jimmy describes this as bad advice. The purpose of this article is to have a go at trans networks and allies.

CA - no it's on lived experience and when so much importance placed on lived experience suprised so much focused on this.
this is an article on post gov SEEN it's a personal experience, that's all there is to it really

J - clarifies where the post is.
CA a link was posted in Defra SEEN Yammer group

Date of post?
CA don't know I imagine it would have been 12/3/23 if not on that date. I don't know if in bundle
J - did Defra SEEN exist at that time?
CA on Yammer a Defra SEEN group

CA it gets confusing between defra and yammer group
J - Defra SEEN network didn't exist at that time,?
Rather than go to yet another doc what date?
NC - August 2023
HH no a later post

HH - the C says the article originally contained link to Lotus Eaters. If you have the C suppl bundle and go to p214

HH - the post we see at 747 is amended version.
CA - yes
HH the C describes in WS Lotus Eaters argue affirming identity is a delusion, do you know what they are about?
CA no defra has no control over this (links to Lotus Eaters)

J - was there an earlier version that does have link?
CA - I don't know this is cross gov seen
HH but does have control over yammer and a link was posted, ED describes Lotus Eaters as 'far right' , that trans is a 'delusion'
CA I don't know about Lotus Eaters

HH - pull up Moderation Log again please. Go to row 162. (Judge reads)

H - this is the mod log entry following complaint by colleague about article where a link had been put on yammer, suggests it's 13/3/22 but it's wrong, it's a typo.
Look at col F it's clear what is being referred to is post 12/3/23

HH no action taken by SMN as no breach of communication princ
CA the complaint is that the subject of detrans is offensive.
What you are saying is not correct.

CA - no action on post is taken, but links to external websites.
J may be me but I am not getting what this is about at all, it is intensely confusing.

J - what is correct date of complaint?
HH - 13/3/23

Some discussion about numbering of documents

J - a very long section about the what the post is about...and the decision was that there was no action was by SMN.
HH what witness has clarified, not that there is no action, no action about breach of communication

HH - SMN may well have picked up on link to Lotus Eaters
CA - she may have, but eventually that may have lead to future decision on links to external websites.
HH - EW witness statement please

HH - it is a section para 144 of EW statement, the Ritchie Herron (RH) post.

HH - specif para 146. she describes making an error with the post, not checking links to other interviews Mr Herron had done.
The reason she describes removing the link is because she had been alerted to the issue by the cabinet office

HH -one final doc to take you to in main bundle. That NC ref to earlier - 1117. We know from both EW statement and this that the article was reposted without link in August 2023.

A post with links to what has been described as 'far right anti trans website' was allowed to remain live on SEEN yammer for five months
CA no post to article on post gov website has remained on yammer. Links to cross gov websites are permiss, common and expected, cross gov networks deal with cabinet as they have in this case.

HH but you have ultimatively responsible in Defra for Yammer and Viva your focus is that SEEN can express protected belief. But nobody has looked from C perspective
CA our focus to adhere to legal requirements.

CA we were moderation the way SEEN issued comms we were frequently publishing messages that Defra doesn't support bulling of trans colleagues and GC, many messages of support of trans colleagues from senior figures

judge asked for repeat of all this.

NC - we have been engaging with trans networks throughout this. Sarah Homer is chair of LGBTplus board and is in constant contact with network leads (missed poor sound)

NC is quoting statement that Defra doesn't tolerate bulling or harass of trans colleagues or those with GC beliefs. Several messages of support published on intranet. Written down with senior leaders. That is what I captured.
NC repeated for J

HH - 1732 please. Note from Cabinet Office - a pointer to our responsibility of civil servants to work on cross gov networks - look at 4th para - 'impartiality' 'avoid politicising'....'recommend research on external groups'
Well SEEN hadn't done that in March

J - give her a chance to answer
CA first was subsequently withdrawn can't remember the second point is primarily looking at events and speakers networks organising

HH - on any analysis SEEN not conducting reasearch?
CA - I don't know for def because this is cross gov seen and it wasn't event or speaker which this guidance is driected at
J - when was it withdrawn?
CA trying to remember, think it might have been 2022/23

CA - I think from mod log it's clear that SMN was looking into links on article on cross gov SEEN website, I wasn't part of that discussion.

J - when you look at this, there are 2 posts ref posts on cross gov SEEN. Was it enough mod to say it's enough (missed) Poor sound from mic

HH - like to go on to posts by AM
J - before we go on I am now really really concerned about the length of this cross exam. You have had warnings about time. It is still very very long, repeated referenced, you have to finish by lunchtime

J - we tried to understand how long but I am no longer confident we got the answer to that. That we are putting witness in unfair position.
HH I will try will laser focus.
J - focusing on the issues still raises the poss that we are not going to finish

J - not trying to limit, but you do understand the problem with time. If this witness is not completed, she will have to resume whenever we get to it. Can I just ask Miss Cunningham, you thought about 3 hours
NC - I do yes.

J - we know what's going to happen then, see the diff?
CA - happy to stay late
HH next issue comments by AM on murdered trans teenager. Mod log 159 please

HH - we can see col f the original post from BW is in row F, we can see that it's written clearly, fair to say we know the crime talking about. P673 main bundle please

HH - this is the offending post from AM the C says in reply to BW. And what we know isn't simply on open yammer, AM sought out the LGBT network
CA - all networks open to all employees, don't know if he's gone looking

HH we can see is that rather than express concern he uses platform to defend GC views.
HH in fact he double down on it - mod log 158 159, look at reason for concern

HH he complained about these post. Your action in row F was to say no mod action was needed, quite rightly.

HH - happy to move on J?
J - yes having to find entry, just bear with me.

Issue with J viewing docs on his screen

Judge reading from panel member's screen

J why were they left up ?
HH the post that was left up was Ben W not offensive
HH go back to 673, C posts in response to AM pointing out nobody had mentioned GC, highlights need for him to LGBT network to make that post upsetting. 674 -

where AM replies highlighting 8 Nov post and C closes the issue down. 'pure harassment shameful'
CA - fair comment it was inapprop to go into that conversation at that time

HH para 70 to 71 grounds of resistance, says that the C and AM comments were removed. But no reason to remove C comments?
CA - I don't know which removed.
HH - you might or might not be able to assist us on logs that AM comments were removed, can you help with that?

around 23/2/23 date of original post.

CA -I remember to look at this - it's confusing the cross over between logs, I believe I have seen an email (missed) line manager was removed, can't remember where. I think in defra log...43 or 143?

CA - there's a column where there is a list, underneath it refers back to those posts, it says there they were removed.
HH oh yes thank you for that
J what was removed?
CA - AM was removed

HH - the R defence to this claim was both removed, can you say one way or another or not
CA - I think that it right
HH - if we go back to final Q on that 2096 please

HH - this does confirm email from CM to C line manager on 20 Feb informing him C post had been removed and if we look at Mr M response on 1 March he indicated that not done anything wrong
he's right isn't he>

CA - no I don't think it's just defending self - it ('shameful) was prob the key reason for that coming down. Some confusion with some sections
HH - ensuring that anyone who is concerned about harassment or inapp posts, you are silencing it being called out

CA - we are trying to stop people squabbling on yammer
If ST had stopped and not gone on to additional post. We want people to do it in respectful way

Discussion on who dealt with Yammer Viva after CA retired.

J - do you know who moderated
CA no
HH - AM response to trans activists acting to bully women - AM did a thumbs up
CA no that this is June 24 but never our policy to moderate likes, thumbs up and that sort of thing.

HH - moving on to a post from 20 June 2023, in relation to Guardian article posted stated that women had bigger concerns than bathrooms. AM stated that **talks about AM's objections to this, that it is a concern for women**
HH a post from Liz Willow, attaching a link to Obs/Guard

Would you argree her description is to unite women rather than be divisive
CA - not read
J - can we get on to post not article

HH what AM does is rather than reject polarised view, he embraces it. he posts that the author doesn't understand safeguarding, implication that 'transwomen are effectively a risk to women and children'

CA - this is one of the misunderstanding - the title of article trivialises concern of GC - of single sex spaces AM responding to that. The misunderstanding is that TW are a risk but if you had self ID then you open door to men who may be a risk

HH - LW response to AM comments, yet again we see from AM a mocking sarcastic reply can't we
CA - it is sarcastic but it's just making the point, who is deciding who is genuinely trans and who is not

HH - mod log for this, row 192 please.
J - are you going to be ref to mod log regularly from now on? I will need a break to reload.
HH - one or two
J can we concentrate on posts or log?
HH log on this occasion
J - any other?
HH - at least 2
J - can we have a short break

J - ten minute break
Resume 11.25

@threadreaderapp unroll