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 dont know daisy.

I would certainly hope so. If the contents of that blog are theirs and are as alleged then the police should be informed.

Jess Bradley isn't just a NUS Officer. Jess Bradley is also a prominant TRA, founder of Action for Trans Health and TELI and has been a key witness /adviser (?) to government enquiries in recent years.

(that sounds a bit like an M&S advert )

In the various positions held by Jess Bradley, they have worked in partnership with GIRES, Mermaids, Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence etc etc

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

They issued a long statement on twitter about bullying which was quoted in the press: twitter.com/JBPersonalBrand/status/958885448952307712

The candidate supported was involved with some wrongful fire door opening exercise at a meeting in a London university www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/959123171873083392

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?

To paraphrase a well-known New Yorker cartoon, it would mean acknowledging that Jess isn't really about trans, he just wants us to see his penis.

I guess because they don't want to draw any more attention to the story. Is it being discussed anywhere else? I can't find my way round twitter.

Is there a reason why no JB part 3 thread has been created? Are the mods zapping them?

I think it is expected to turn up later - there is lots of material for thread III

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325623-Jess-Bradley-a-government-advisor-on-womens-rights-suspended-by-NUS-over-indecent-blog-Part-iii

Just thinking, it would only make sense to try and silence the press on this one if they were absolutely certain the matter wouldn't go to court, no? Because a trial would inevitably become public, especially in criminal court? Or is that not the case under UK law?

I think Carter Ruck had a rather shallow strategy over this matter. Which to me suggests there wasn't much funding.

Not reporting on ‘investigations’ only charges and trials is the main argument in the Cliff Richards case, no?

As in, barges and trials are based on factual evidence but investigations are speculative so damaging a reputation due to speculation rather than evidence of wrongdoing is problematic?

Thing is, no one can know where an investigation might lead, so while it might well be pointless to argue JB’s right to privacy in the long term (if JB is charged or dismissed from post, say) in the short term it’s just as valid as any other investigation-only stage case.

Carter Ruck might simply have seized the earliest opportunity to try out the CR ruling in real life, and this might’ve been arranged by one of JB’s TELI mates.

Carter Ruck had only partial success (prevented the Sun publishing but not the Mail on Sunday) so unless they are being paid they’ve probably lost interest by now and are simply waiting for the next opportunity (or have been so successful with another opportunity we’ve not heard of it).

The 'radio silence' from Bradley's erstwhile supporters on this is very telling.

ROwan

And yet, drizzling chocolate sauce over him in slow-mo would not make him palatable

ROwan

And yet, drizzling chocolate sauce over him in slow-mo would not make him palatable

Transplants Thanks for that!

How can we use this information in relation to the consultation? How can we ensure this gets heard?

ragged.media/2016/11/organizing-trans-equality/
November 18. 2016

article by SHANE BOOTHBY
Shane is the UK Editor of Ragged Media.

"Organizing for Trans Equality
The Trans Equality Legal Initiative links lawyers and activists in the fight against discrimination and inequality experienced by the trans community in the UK and abroad.

This week sees the launch and first annual conference of the Trans Equality Legal Initiative (TELI). The event, taking place in London, draws together human rights lawyers, trans third sector organizations, campaigners, journalists and academics for a day of discussion and knowledge sharing on key areas of the trans legal and activist landscape in the UK and more broadly.

Topics to be explored by panels both inside and outside the legal profession include health, justice, strategic litigation & impact of exclusionary provision, education and international protection... (continues)

"TELI’s founders themselves span a number of spheres, bringing wide experience:

Jess Bradley is the Director of Action for Trans Health, the UK’s largest campaign for democratic trans healthcare.

Michelle Brewer is a Barrister at Garden Court Chambers and advises members of the community on areas such as access to health, inclusion in education and challenging discriminatory practice.

Allan Briddock is a Consultant Barrister at Blake Morgan LLP and specializes in immigration and asylum with a particular interest in LGBTI issues.

David Bufton is an Associate at Linklaters LLP whose pro bono work for the firm sees him represent LGBTI asylum seekers to assist with their applications for asylum and provide legal counsel for Pride in London.

Tara Hewitt is a NHS Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Lead at the University Hospital of South Manchester and also works as a Diversity Consultant, supporting organizations across the UK.

Kate Hutchinson is Director of Training at Wipe Out Transphobia, where she provides training and support for a number of organizations including Barnardo’s, Welsh Women’s Aid and the NHS.

Cathy Jaquiss is a Pupil Barrister at 10KBW and intends to specialize in public law, drawing on human rights work in Togo, West Africa and experience of immigration law in the UK."

see current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3318961-Ultimate-betrayal-by-the-WEP

There are two separate things here:

1. An employment case.

The NUS has suspended Bradley and is conducting an enquiry into whether they can continue to employ her. They will have a process to follow involving their own legal advisers.

1. A stand-off between the press and JB as to whether it is in the public interest to publish details about her private behaviour. JB's funding source is unknown (someone with an interest in privacy or curbing the power of the press? someone with an interest in keeping the details under wraps to save a political campaign?)

I doubt that the NUS are involved in (2). There's a conflict of interest.
The NUS seems to have acted swiftly on (1) - which is a good thing.

Carter Ruck might simply have seized the earliest opportunity to try out the CR ruling in real life, and this might’ve been arranged by one of JB’s TELI mates.

You're right, a CR test case or something is the most likely scenario, given that the DM article is still up, so is the Manchester Evening News piece, these threads, Bradley's statement and the whistleblower twitter. They can't want it buried that badly.

"Just thinking, it would only make sense to try and silence the press on this one if they were absolutely certain the matter wouldn't go to court, no?"

The danger for Bradley is that she might be identified by a member of the public who did not consent to her indecent public displays.

Without witnesses to come forward, or someone who can identify children in indecent images - a police investigation is obstructed and may not even get off the ground for lack of corroboration.

That's why the police and press fight the Cliff Richard ruling.

• I use she/ her for Jess Bradley. For all I know she may even have a female passport/birth certificate like LilyM and Aimee Challoner. I want Gender extremists to wince when they see she/her, and lurkers to think ?wtf? Sorry if it offends, but that's my reasoning.

Bradley's Twitter profile says

rent-a-gob, views my own. (she/they)

twitter.com/JBPersonalBrand

@Iscreamforbenandjerrys - my first thought was Mr F1 too on this.

I work in both law and media. To be clear - there is no way a firm like Carter Ruck would take this on pro bono as a way to advance a hypothetical precedent set by the Cliff Richard case. It doesn't work like that. They have hundreds of high profile clients who actually pay them and it won't be long before they have an opportunity to press ahead on that case law with a paying client.

So someone is paying for JB, that much is clear (since there's no way he can afford it himself). The next question is obviously who.

I think there are two clear choices and they are:

1. Mr F1 - having been publicly outed for his own sexual predilections he is now pathologically obsessed with shutting down tabloids (not caring if he takes the rest of the free press down with them) and given this is a man who pays prostitutes it wouldn't shock me to think he'd be happy to fund a misogynist who likes getting his cock out in public

2. TRA lobby - could be any of a number of organisations or even just a big anonymous donor.

I would absolutely love to know who is writing the check though. Furthermore, I think it is a matter of public interest.

Furthermore, I think it is a matter of public interest.
I couldn't agree more. What can we do to get it heard?