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.

So a bit of posturing on both sides.

Yes. This business suits Carter Ruck because they want there to be a contentious environment and to burnish their reputation of being an effective scrapper. It also suits The Sun which can say "Look! Cliff Richard will destroy us all!"

I'm not sure how much it suits Bradley though. The story's now out there and those interested are now very interested in his antics. The NUS know that trying to brush this under the carpet would be unwise.

I'm not sure how much it suits Bradley though.

Yes. It all seems a bit odd. Perhaps the extra 'rights' to pretty extreme privacy laws (in the GRA 2004) which are exclusively enjoyed by those who claim to be trans, (hence all the 'they are going to out me!' wailing as a defence for everything including premeditated assaults on grandmothers), is making TRAs feel immune and above the law so the likes of Bradley are acting pretty recklessly now.

Wanderabout seeing if they can use Cliff Richard to silence papers is the test case. It doesn't need to go to court in order to see if the gagging works, although that might be better for CR. This could be enough if it shows that papers aren't running stories because of warning letters.

The Mail ran it (and good for them) so it's backfired for Bradley quite badly. Will be interesting to see what happens from here.

Someone should call Carter Ruck and get a quote for a hypothetical lawyers letter 😂

I know my old head of department had an hourly rate of £720. I can't see them being much cheaper.

If it doesn't go to court Carter Ruck are going to look pretty toothless - undermining their claim to have the power to 'silence enemies'.

If it does go to court, since the cat is already out of the bag The Sun and The Mail on Sunday will end up looking great - they will have all the public sympathy. No one will think an alleged pervert with this alleged degree of perversion, inciting others (possibly minors) to perpetrate sex crimes "if you are at the urinal keep wanking if someone walks in" (- ie to cause alarm/distress), who has the ear of the government around weakening safeguarding laws, should be entitled to privacy from press intrusion.

The best thing for the TRAs & JB is if this all quietly disappears.

I suppose we have to wait and see.

"if you are at the urinal keep wanking if someone walks in"

🤮

He's a fucking sick pervert that shouldn't be around children.

Regardless of the whole 'access to female spaces' agenda that he is trying to force, what about the little boys that could potentially walk in on people like him?

He's disgusting.

Iscream: "I know my old head of department had an hourly rate of £720. I can't see them being much cheaper."

In that case, I take back what I said about a single letter being cheap! But who knows, perhaps they do deals whereby the initial letter is free or cheap, in the hope that they rack up costs later?

Their website says that they will occasionally represent poorer clients on a no win, no fee basis:

www.carter-ruck.com/media-law-defamation-libel-and-privacy-lawyers/no-win-no-fee-funding

I also found this, t about how they manage people's online reputation, which is interesting:

www.carter-ruck.com/media-law-defamation-libel-and-privacy-lawyers/online-reputation

Bear in mind, Patriarchy is run along the same lines as the Mafia. Both have a similar Bro Code. So if one of their own becomes a 'liability', they will be 'eradicated'. It may be that some other line was crossed, that this phase gets kicked in, or not.

I think back to that list of high profile names that fell post-Savile. The likes of Max Clifford, Rolf Harris etc. Tumbled like dominoes. One does wonder what else went on that caused them to face the Patriarchy Guillotine. Pretty sure that there was more than what came out.

But what we do know, is that some 'greater cause' was at work (not the public good I might add). And we may never know what really triggered their downfall. That's the nature of it.

Given all the speculation on this thread, it is likely that one or several theories probably hit the mark or came close.

But yeah, bringing in CR and trying to ban-hammer it on privacy grounds, huge red flag that other shit is at play in the background.

I think back to that list of high profile names that fell post-Savile. The likes of Max Clifford, Rolf Harris etc. Tumbled like dominoes. One does wonder what else went on that caused them to face the Patriarchy Guillotine. Pretty sure that there was more than what came out.

Could be purely age-related. These were all older men who probably had many years distance from their crimes. Those who are still active would easily sacrifice a few elders before they start rambling with dementia and letting out secrets. JB may have had some temporal power but no financial clout, making them an easy sacrifice too.

I mean, I probably read too many historical sagas and dystopias and am seeing Machiavelli where there is only a monkey, but that's how I'd play it.

I wonder what is going on with all the hundreds implicated in the Elmhouse Scandal and cover up. All the nonce judges, Tory Politicians, police, etc didn't just disappear into thin air. Their networks still exist.

Perhaps the difference between Savile's death and Cyril Smith, was the role of social media and campaigns like We Believe You meant that the age old pervy nonce poshos suppression networks had something new to grapple with, so Yewtree couldn't be stopped.

Since Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe apologised for it and Judge Sir Richard Henriques put an end to the historical blip of police believing victims, we'll be back to calling them liars, fantasists and money-grabbers ASAP if radfems don't keep up the pressure.

I cannot remember the details, but I read an interesting blog by a young transwoman who spoke about the different types of trans people (male to female). The author was talking about how the young transwomen were sexually objectified and leered over, even in the waiting room of the GIC, by the older AGP type men. That is what the comment about ‘survivors’ reminded me of; I read it that there were predatory trans people demonstrating male pattern behaviour to victims within their own community.

That is all very convoluted language, but basically I read survivors in the whistleblower tweets in the same way I would read survivor in the context of male on female sexual violence, but where both perpetrator and victim were within the trans community.

I don’t think it had any other meaning.

The point about restorative justice was about mending the trans community, I think, whilst keeping matters in house. While we focus on the risks to women and children, I think there are undoubtedly risks to young or vulnerable people who see themselves as part of the trans community as well.

I wish I could remember the blog. It gave me pause that a young trans woman would see the danger from older AGP type men, and not predatory men in general. It made sense in the Blanchard typology of some transwomen being people who had been always more feminine and homosexual from an early age, and distinct from AGP types. Whereas for women and children, the issue is predatory men.

Tired, so maybe that does not make sense.

@DaisyTwirl if the google trail I've followed is correct, he lives with children (or did live with children til fairly recently) No idea whose children, could be his own I suppose? I feel it's not really fair to say more as it's his home and even he is entitled to not have that identified on MN but tbh it's easy to find if you join the dots in the publically available information online.

I read that blog too, DaisyTwirl. I can't remember the name either.

Am I the only one who is wondering why these MN Jess Bradley threads haven't been shut down by Carter Ruck, yet most of the press has been effectively silenced? If you're standing up to them, MNHQ, I salute you.

Anyone else think Cliff Richards may come to rue his legal action? His name (attached to the ruling) is being mentioned in lots of reports of other people’s dodgy doings? A touch of the Streisand effect?

I suspect the BBC may well win their appeal on the Cliff Richards case anyway. The major concern with that decision was the effect on freedom of the press, and this is one of a number of cases where the adverse effects are already being felt.

I think the judge refused the BBC's request to appeal, didn't he?

At the High Court, yes. The BBC can appeal to the Court of Appeal and if that's refused as well to the Supreme Court. I think they should appeal further and I think some aspects of the original judgement are likely to be set aside. Cliff Richard will still get his moral victory and his money.

The Cliff Richard/BBC thing is so frustrating & common sense seems to have evaded both of them.

Was it in the public interest to report on the investigation & raid?
Yes.

Was it ok to have a helicopter flying overhead to broadcast footage of the raid & make it a massive spectacle?
No.

As with everything, extremes are the problem.

Will be interesting to see what happens from here.

Will there be anything to see though? The tabloids have run their stories, CR have sent out their letters and the NUS are investigating. Who's to say it won't all get brushed under the carpet now and quietly go away? How do we stop that from happening?

Has anyone actually reported him to the police?

Not just for his indecent exposure & encouraging others to do the same, but his other content (incest & paedophilia references)?

If he's ok with publicly sharing the disgusting things he has, then I dread to think what horrors he keeps private.

Didn't Jess Bradley have a big falling-out with the NUS President? There might not be much love lost there. Ah, yes, at the end of this article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5340529/NUS-president-accused-bullying.html

NUS trans liberation officer Jess Bradley wrote on Facebook: 'This string of complaints about Shakira’s bullying behaviour towards fellow officers and people in the movement has drawn this crisis in NUS into sharp focus for me.

'I can honestly say that becoming an NUS Officer often results in a sharp decline in mental health, and this hostility from the President is only making things worse.'

Jess Bradley supported one of the other candidates & criticised the incumbant NUS president (who was re-elected)

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?

I expect because this one student officer proves pretty much everything feminists have been saying for years now about this whole topic. Its not good for TRAs to have something like this in the open, as it casts doubts on the entire movement, even if it is 'just' one person (which its not)

Its also not good timing for this to come out while the consultation is on. I imagine there are a few with very deep pockets willing to lose a fair chunk of cash to get self ID passed before people realise the issues.