Talk

Advanced search

Who is really funding Jess Bradley's defence?

(106 Posts)
NeensBeens Wed 01-Aug-18 11:29:54

There's talk that actually Stonewall is defending Jess Bradley, suspended Transgender Student Officer. ?? If this is untrue, then where is the money coming from? Always follow the money.

hackmum Wed 01-Aug-18 11:31:54

Does Bradley need a defence? Jess has engaged lawyers to try to stop the media publishing the story about her.

placemats Wed 01-Aug-18 11:36:32

Well then Jess needs to get better lawyers as social media is all over this and the Daily Mail, biggest online newspaper in the world, has published it too.

It's no secret. Whether Jess did something illegal is a moot point.

LaSquirrel Wed 01-Aug-18 11:56:59

Stonewall would have the pockets for it (abt £7m pa I read today). If not Stonewall, and say, some darkweb types - you'll never find out. You could call the lawyers' office and ask if they accept bitcoin as payment. /joking.

I doubt that it is a mere privacy/work disciplinary issue, and very likely other investigations going on.

Indierockandroll Wed 01-Aug-18 12:08:14

It's probably bankrolled by somebody with equally dubious motives for penetrating women's spaces.

Either way, it's scary as hell.

CholloDeNombre Wed 01-Aug-18 12:09:23

Stonewall was just speculation, not accusation. Nobody knows for sure.

Dragoncake Wed 01-Aug-18 13:30:24

Do Stonewall have to publish their accounts? If it were SW paying for Carter Ruck, would this eventually somehow come to light?

BettyDuMonde Wed 01-Aug-18 13:36:26

Sex offenders often have ‘associates’ - the posh lawyers might not really be about Jess at all (hence the Mail on Sunday article getting out).

I reckon there are others that could be exposed (pun intended) and it’s their privacy that is really be being paid for.

Occam’s razor and all that.

Tanith Wed 01-Aug-18 13:38:04

More to the point, why are they funding Jess Bradley's defence, whoever they are?

Why is this NUS officer so important? Why aren't they distancing themselves as fast as they possibly can from this sordid scandal and condemning the alleged behaviour?

TiredPony Wed 01-Aug-18 13:46:48

Tanith you are spot on. Why is indeed the question.

nauticant Wed 01-Aug-18 13:50:49

Because Jess Bradley is now toxic PR and either needs to disappear or be defended. A critical examination of who Bradley is and why they behave as they do would be very damaging to the cause.

You know the scene near the end of The Wizard of Oz when they pull back the curtain? The TRAs are scared that something similar will happen and the public will watch in horror as the curtain is pulled back revealing Jess Bradley showing off his cock.

ReluctantCamper Wed 01-Aug-18 13:56:23

If some of the implications from that twitter account that published the redacted pictures of Jess's blog are true, Jess's taste for exhibitionism may be the least of the issues.

The twitter account made reference to 'survivors'. However I can't say that I was able to draw a clear picture of what they were getting at really.

TiredPony Wed 01-Aug-18 14:02:42

They've actually really drawn attention to themselves with this privacy thing haven't they?

Bibesia Wed 01-Aug-18 14:06:24

Interesting that her lawyers are citing the Cliff Richard case as a reason to close off publicity. It demonstrates how right the BBC were to point out the dangers of the ruling.

MorrisZapp Wed 01-Aug-18 14:07:59

Carter Ruck offer a no win no fee structure, maybe Bradley has engaged them on this basis.

Indierockandroll Wed 01-Aug-18 14:12:46

Did Carter Ruck represent Max Clifford? (Shudders)

Procrastinator1 Wed 01-Aug-18 14:14:31

Yes MorrisZapp and Carter Ruck will want to test the Cliff Richard ruling even if it is to be appealed. I'm still not sure whether there are any criminal charges here and perhaps that's where a full Cliff Richard argument about whether charges should be made public would be being had.

nauticant Wed 01-Aug-18 14:17:11

The use of "survivors" was eye-catching wasn't it ReluctantCamper? No matter how I read the tweets, I couldn't make the word mean anything useful in the context. I have a suspicion it was an obfuscatory term, put there to confuse.

nauticant Wed 01-Aug-18 14:20:25

The no-win, no-fee thing doesn't make sense to me. It's based on the idea that winning would mean damages but I can't see how there could be a reasonable expectation of damages over Jess Bradley (allegedly) choosing to show off their cock and put images on the Internet.

I think Carter Ruck have been given a budget of a few grand and told to make the best of it.

Kyanite Wed 01-Aug-18 14:22:22

Sexual Offences Act 2003

66. Exposure

[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and

(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

Kyanite Wed 01-Aug-18 14:24:01

Can Jess get away with not being a "he" when the offence clearly relates to showing a penis?

It doesn't seem that there was an intention for someone to see and be caused alarm or distress.

MipMipMip Wed 01-Aug-18 14:25:17

I put this on another thread so I'm being lazy and copy and pasting.

I've been wondering if Farter Fuck and assisting JB Pro Boneras a test case. There is a lot of money to be made if they can quickly show an example of being the first to use new precedent with regard to the Cliff Richard case.

They obviously don't give a shit about JB given that comment in the Press Gazette where PG just said a union and CR mentioned the student element and made him easier to identify.

HotRocker Wed 01-Aug-18 14:25:46

Judging by some of the content on that blog, I’d be surprised if flashing was the only issue here. Also, and I might be wrong about this, didn’t that Twitter feed hint at there being more than one abuser? Apologies if I’m wrong about that, I didn’t save the link to the Twitter feed.

CuppaTeaAndAJammieDodger Wed 01-Aug-18 14:27:23

Ah yes Kyanite - but this was lady dick, therefore it won't apply.

Bowlofbabelfish Wed 01-Aug-18 14:34:03

They are doing one of a few things.

-protecting someone else associated with JB
-protecting the cause
-testing the limits of the cliff Richard case (appears most likely) which will benefit them either way. There are a lot of people with deep pockets who would love the press to be unable to report on any allegations about them. If they are unable to enforce the privacy then it’s win win because they have again set a precedent.

That blog allegedly contained a lot worse than cock images. The screenshots harvested from it seem to allege rape/incest images as well, and some of those involved are allegedly minors.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »