Who is really funding Jess Bradley's defence?

[NeensBeens]

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.

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).

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.

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?

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

They seem quite aggressive CR

Carter Ruck aren't defending JB

Carter Ruck are acting for prevent press intrusion, following the precedent set in the Cliff Richard case).

They are not defending her in a criminal matter, There is no criminal matter (yet). As far as we know, the police are not involved at this stage. They may be - and at that stage, you can expect Carter Ruck to withdraw.

We do not know the full details of Carter Ruck's attempts to to obtain a gagging order. We only know that the legal action centres on privacy on the one hand, and reporting details of a person's sexual activities in the public interest on the other hand.

Who's paying? I wouldn't be surprised if it was an organisation representing the press or an individual with an interest in curbing the press. Both sides want to test the Cliff Richard ruling and this case provides a timely opportunity.

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

Streisand Effect.

It'll be like in the Good Wife where the rich right winger finds little cases to fund legally to be able to set precedents. Why this is a good one and for what purposes, only time will tell.

The whole thing is extremely suspect. A humble NUS officer getting legal assistance for a gagging order over alleged misconduct at work. That in itself is extremely weird. The legal firm tries to suggest this 'privacy' is only fair while the NHS looks into the validity of the claim. But why on Earth do they think the public should trust the NUS's investigative powers and scruples? Is this going to become a criminal investigation?

Why was this leaked? Has JB outlived usefulness? Has JB gone rogue and started doing press interviews that let the side down? Does JB need some public humiliation to send a message out to anyone thinking of doing their own thing?

Who is behind it. Is JB part of a web similar to those that enabled Savile and Cyril Smith ? Is JB's exposure just a sign of being low down the food chain and a bit expendable?

Whatever it is, the fact that JB has disproportionate power and influence, such as in Parliament and is key to pushing for the perverts charter (self-ID) and is being given extraordinary legal support, makes this all creepy as hell.

Hi CovetClarice (for short!)

It wasn't leaked. A whistleblower broadcast the information on Twitter and the press were alerted.

The Daily Mail published anyway (a graduate trainee got the by-line) while other outlets focussed on reporting Carter Ruck's involvement in a gagging order.

Personally, I don't think JB's case is the right one to test the Cliff Richard ruling on privacy. There is a public interest that goes beyond JB's private fetishes, (ie not just prurience at work here) because JB had a high profile and influential role in the political and lobbying sphere.

It wasn't leaked. A whistleblower broadcast the information on Twitter

Thanks.

Can you point me towards the evidence?
I haven't seen anything that assures it is a whistleblower acting in good conscience. Are they a colleague at NUS or ATH maybe? I did read the original twitter thread but I don't recall them saying who they are or how they know the tumblr is JBs, or why they decided to blow the whistle now.

trainees in firms like that often do pro bono stuff to build up experience. Is any of the correspondence published?
I wouldn't assume there's a big budget.

Some posters are assuming The Sun was prevented from running an informative story as a result of a court order. That isn't in their report. The way I read it, they got a warning letter and rather than identifying Bradley, published a story about being gagged.

I think The Sun were going to run the Bradley story, got an aggressive letter from Carter Ruck, then realised with delight that they could comply with the letter while publishing a story that suited them much better, the chilling effect of the Cliff Richard ruling.

A humble NUS officer getting legal assistance for a gagging order over alleged misconduct at work

Jess Bradley has held a number of positions with considerable political influence and is also connected to other significant trans rights organisations etc.

Jess Bradley's other roles include being director / founder Action for Trans Health & TELI.

Recent threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3311038-Sky-News-9-30am-today-re-GRA

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3320513-Jess-Bradley-first-transgender-student-officer-suspended-after-flashing-photos

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3321764-Jess-Bradley-suspended-Part-II

Rowan. Just saying ta for the work u do.

Don’t know mu h more to say apart from 👏👏👏

And how muc( I appreciate how muc( u do and u say

Feck me iPad

Kk hope u got my message rowan

Thank you, you too!

Knowing what student politics are like I am just speculating that the supposed leak could be part of a faction fight either within NUS or whatever party Bradley is in.

@Iscreamforbenandjerrys Mr F1 wasn't under workplace investigation though, his case was a kiss-and-tell IIRC. And he won his case because kiss-and-tells aren't of themselves public interest (public is not prurient). His ability to run F1 wasn't compromised by his dodgy fetishes, which were acted on in private and legally, albeit with questionable consent from the prostituted women (because paying for sex limits the payee's ability to say no).

Bradley OTOH is very much public interest because of the illegality of the alleged lewd acts, his NUS position and ATH involvement, his influence over Govt, and the relevance of the alleged lewd acts to the sphere of policy that Bradley has influenced the Govt and resulting clear conflict of interests.

They are completely different legal situations so why would Mr F1 care? If Mr F1 were to back Bradley and it be discovered, it would harm Mr F1 a lot.

@bd67th - it is alleged that his family trust bankroll the only approved state press regulator. I see your point about the differences but if we are looking for extremely wealthy people interested in gagging the press he is definitely worth considering.

Knowing what student politics are like I am just speculating that the supposed leak could be part of a faction fight either within NUS or whatever party Bradley is in.

Speculating here further- but does this suggest is this something Bradley is open/arrogant about? For this blog to be discovered? iirc the original Twitter thread suggested this information had been sat on for a while and that there had been several complaints.

I wonder if the truth will ever get out.

The law firm appear to have been employed to silence the story, not to take on any kind of test case etc.

The original lawyers letter attempted to stop the press publishing the suspension and allegations with reference to the Cliff Richard case and was exposed in the Mail.

That was a silencing tactic and it looks like the letter was not supposed to be seen by anyone other than the Mail.

No reason to do any of that pro bono.

Someone who didn't want these allegations and suspension covered right now for whatever reasons must be prepared to and able to pay £££ to try and stop it.

I think for Carter-Ruck a case like this gives the opportunity to push the Cliff Richard ruling a bit further. Since the libel laws were softened a few years ago, there are no longer big bucks to be had in defamation cases (not to the same extent, anyway). Privacy litigation is where the money is to be made - and Carter-Ruck will have lots of wealthy clients with secrets to keep. But we don't yet know how they're going to play out in practice. So I would guess they're either acting pro bono or perhaps being funded by someone who has an interest in testing the boundaries of the privacy law (as PamAyres suggested).

Or, just possibly, Bradley is funding their own litigation. After all, so far all Carter-Ruck has done is to write a couple of warning letters, which can't be that expensive, even for a top law firm.

The way I read it, they got a warning letter and rather than identifying Bradley, published a story about being gagged.

So a bit of posturing on both sides. Carter Ruck is pretending legal action will be taken if the warning isn't heeded (but there's no money in the pot to take that action) and The Sun and The Mail on Sunday are pretending they believe the warning has teeth, to make the story more heroic.

My feeling is the trans juggernaut has used litigation (as well as other charming tactics such as barbed-wire baseball bats, masks in stairwells, males punching women half their size and twice their age, etc) to get this far there's a good chance Soros might dip into his deep pockets to help JB get 'her' cock waving freely around the world with impunity. For the cause like.