Who is really funding Jess Bradley's defence?

They seem quite aggressive CR

This is so important. Someone must know how to get this information.
Nauticant - someone needs to draw that as a cartoon.

Privacy of public individuals you say. A certain child of a now deceased controversial political figure invests a lot of money into campaigning. They started after their fetish was made public in the newspapers. Could that be where the money is coming from?

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.

I was wondering if it was referring to 'survivors of the cult' sort of thing?

I think it's a transperson who made the twitter posts, and they appear to be suggesting that there are more people like Jess hiding behind the transgender shield - using true transsexuals as a cover for some seriously awful stuff.

Don't know if I'm making any sense, but that's the vibe I was getting from their posts - like they were encouraging others to speak out about what people like Jess are really like & what they are doing because the end-state of this is going to seriously affect those people who are truly suffering with gender dysphoria & who just want to be accepted & allowed to get on with their lives.

I suspect they are covering for a bigger, slippier fish. Somebody who really doesn't want his dirty secrets out there.

It's dark alright, and after the whole Saville business the likes of the BBC need to uncover this.

It's disturbing that fancy lawyers can try to bury the filth that lies beneath.

Whole post full of poor cliches but the whole sodding mess is one big cliche.

Those who petition to access where girls and women go get caught with their trousers down and sharing, celebrating, the vilest images (allegedly).

Theoretically damages for a civil breach of privacy case. However how much privacy can you expect it you blog things?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Did Carter Ruck represent Max Clifford? (Shudders)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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