Law Lecturer fired by the Open University for questioning gender ideology

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

What do you expect the University to say?
After their ridiculous inclusion policies they have made ridiculous allegations against her about comments made online they regard as harassment and discrimination.

It's a case by case and judges play some role but what you linked at the end it's another case not related to her case.

Interestingly enough she has fundraised over £45,000 in the last two weeks out of the £70,000 she needs to take her case in the employment tribunal. It seems the Brits have had enough of this gender nonsense in schools and universities.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Respectfully, I know what you're getting at, but unfortunately like I said earlier this situation and many others like it are institution centric and outside of the jurisdiction of common law.

If these teachers were in say Trafalgar square and arrested by police, we'd have a huge issue. But that's not happening.

Look at it this way, racism and prejudices were fought by allowing those people and groups to speak their minds and slowly they were weeded out, the crazy nu leftists are going down the same path, let the natural progression of human society take its course.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: AlienBorg

Respectfully, I know what you're getting at, but unfortunately like I said earlier this situation and many others like it are institution centric and outside of the jurisdiction of common law.

If these teachers were in say Trafalgar square and arrested by police, we'd have a huge issue. But that's not happening.

Look at it this way, racism and prejudices were fought by allowing those people and groups to speak their minds and slowly they were weeded out, the crazy nu leftists are going down the same path, let the natural progression of human society take its course.

But there is definitely a employment tribunal coming up. And there have been many employment tribunal in the past few years with often very good results for those who were treated unfairly and discriminated against for their views. An example is Maya Forstater who won £100k for a similar case involving comments she made online by stating facts. She isn't an academic but the case is similar.

Adding to this, the lecturer is trying to fundraise for her case and a little over two weeks she has raised around £46,500 out of £70,000 she needs. It seems there is plenty of support from the british public.

Nobody has argued this is a matter of criminal law. But definitely is a matter of an employment tribunal and a case of free speech and human rights. It's not unlikely she will win the case (but I can't be sure about the outcome)

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

As I said previously, morals are internal - the law is external. But in this case Open Uni. will be defending themselves and if indeed this woman discriminated against an employee, of which the university committee found to be true, then there is no hope in hell that this woman will win her case.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

As I said previously, morals are internal - the law is external. But in this case Open Uni. will be defending themselves and if indeed this woman discriminated against an employee, of which the university committee found to be true, then there is no hope in hell that this woman will win her case.

The employment tribunal is about her against the University. The allegations is that her employer discriminated against her and treated her unfairly. That's what is going to be examined at the tribunal. She had to show she was discriminated against because of her beliefs or statements she made.

Whether there is another case it has nothing to do with this one. But as the matter of fact there isn't any case against her either civil or criminal.

You need to read before you post.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

As I said previously, morals are internal - the law is external. But in this case Open Uni. will be defending themselves and if indeed this woman discriminated against an employee, of which the university committee found to be true, then there is no hope in hell that this woman will win her case.

The employment tribunal is about her against the University. The allegations is that her employer discriminated against her and treated her unfairly. That's what is going to be examined at the tribunal. She had to show she was discriminated against because of her beliefs or statements she made.

Whether there is another cases it has nothing to do with this one. But as the matter of fact there isn't any case against her either civil or criminal.

You need to read before you post.

Well I assume the University will submit a defense to her case. Are you saying the tribunal doesn't want to hear the uni's side only her side?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

As I said previously, morals are internal - the law is external. But in this case Open Uni. will be defending themselves and if indeed this woman discriminated against an employee, of which the university committee found to be true, then there is no hope in hell that this woman will win her case.

what is this internal/external nonsense, a good place to start would be to admit you are clueless on English/welsh employment laws and the legal interpretation of said laws, i've come across a number of canadian hr ladies since lockdowns started and i find the legal framework the are in puzzling.

as for discrimination that really does depend on the allegations and how they've interpreted 2010 eq act, this is where you gloss over what i said about interpretation to get to your end bias of her being at fault..

this blindness is why so many of these orgs fail in court and have judgements against them., take Alison Baily her employers where legal chambers and even they lost because they interpreted the law wrong.

this always comes down to how the org interprets and implements the eq act. and how it competes with the human rights act, which gives rights in one hand and take them in another..

in terms of current legal interpretation of employment laws employers are generally advised never to take a sledgehammer approach, ie sacking as they risk either losing the case, its the same with drunks or druggies you don't sack them but rasther send them down the occupational therapy route..

so in that context the eat will already be looking at the employer through that lens, the current amendments (workers rights 22) places more onus on the employer and the cross party equalities committee want to take that further and place total onus on the employer in these cases to implement the equalities act..

this is why most settle first especially if they have insurance, the cost per day is very high for employment tribunals so this might not even see a tribunal and e settled before then..

a reply to: nickyw

to add a 2 day eat with barrister comes in at around £30,000, a week could push it to £100k hence why many settle first, the ones that have gone through have set the precedents that many will settle first as it costs less in both monetary and reputational terms..

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

As I said previously, morals are internal - the law is external. But in this case Open Uni. will be defending themselves and if indeed this woman discriminated against an employee, of which the university committee found to be true, then there is no hope in hell that this woman will win her case.

what is this internal/external nonsense, a good place to start would be to admit you are clueless on English/welsh employment laws and the legal interpretation of said laws, i've come across a number of canadian hr ladies since lockdowns started and i find the legal framework the are in puzzling.

as for discrimination that really does depend on the allegations and how they've interpreted 2010 eq act, this is where you gloss over what i said about interpretation to get to your end bias of her being at fault..

this blindness is why so many of these orgs fail in court and have judgements against them., take Alison Baily her employers where legal chambers and even they lost because they interpreted the law wrong.

this always comes down to how the org interprets and implements the eq act. and how it competes with the human rights act, which gives rights in one hand and take them in another..

in terms of current legal interpretation of employment laws employers are generally advised never to take a sledgehammer approach, ie sacking as they risk either losing the case, its the same with drunks or druggies you don't sack them but rasther send them down the occupational therapy route..

so in that context the eat will already be looking at the employer through that lens, the current amendments (workers rights 22) places more onus on the employer and the cross party equalities committee want to take that further and place total onus on the employer in these cases to implement the equalities act..

this is why most settle first especially if they have insurance, the cost per day is very high for employment tribunals so this might not even see a tribunal and e settled before then..

None of that matters if it is true that she discriminated against another employee as the uni. claims. There are two sides to this case and the judge will determine which side is truthful, not you, nor I, nor anyone here on ATS who can only interpret this case per their varying bias'.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

To remind you of the fact the lecturer was fired because of online comments she made criticising the gender ideology and the impact it had in delivering the course she was teaching

I read that the lecturer was fired because she discriminated against another employee. We need to see the court document to ascertain facts here.

Her legal case will be in something named Employment Tribunal, whatever that is. Is it in a court of law or a branch of government?

My legal case
Assisted at no cost by the Free Speech Union, I am launching a legal claim in the Employment Tribunal. I am arguing that I have been unfairly dismissed, harassed, and discriminated against because I reject gender ideology and believe in academic freedom. My case raises complex points of human rights, academic freedom, free expression and equality law.

www.mumsnet.com...

Here's another case' hearing verdict against Open Uni from a Mr. Cave:

1 The claimant’s belief in English Nationalism does not fall within
section 10 Equality Act 2010 as he has not shown it is worthy of
respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with human
dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

2 His claim for discrimination because of a philosophical belief is
dismissed.

If she gets the same judge, it may be the same verdict.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

an EAT or employment tribunal is part of the English/welsh judiciary..

on this topic the general issue in england and wales is that many orgs have adopted an interpreted version of the 2010 equality act and written their internal rules according to that interpretation, its why those who follow what is known as the stonewall law or their interpretation of the 2010 equality act have a habit of losing when that interpretation is tested in court,

you can obviously interpret any law however you please, but your interpretation really only has meaning if it gets tested in a court, as an employment lawyers this one will know she has case law on her side..

its these legal precedents that are forcing the hr profession in the uk to come to terms with these how inclusive interpretations have started to becoming exclusive and embed a form of systemic discrimination into the fabrics of orgs.

that is why there are 2 key pushes re the 2010 act, to alter the act to say gender is biological sex, or to repeal the act..

the key issue with these cases is that westminster sticks to blurred laws its already passed,but these topics are forcing a serious change in uk politics as westminster can't follow the latest fashion and get also elected so they'll be critical to whoever wants to be elected in 2024, so be prepared for lots of lies to get elected or even the destruction of the current lot as punishment for the existing lies..

As I said previously, morals are internal - the law is external. But in this case Open Uni. will be defending themselves and if indeed this woman discriminated against an employee, of which the university committee found to be true, then there is no hope in hell that this woman will win her case.

what is this internal/external nonsense, a good place to start would be to admit you are clueless on English/welsh employment laws and the legal interpretation of said laws, i've come across a number of canadian hr ladies since lockdowns started and i find the legal framework the are in puzzling.

as for discrimination that really does depend on the allegations and how they've interpreted 2010 eq act, this is where you gloss over what i said about interpretation to get to your end bias of her being at fault..

this blindness is why so many of these orgs fail in court and have judgements against them., take Alison Baily her employers where legal chambers and even they lost because they interpreted the law wrong.

this always comes down to how the org interprets and implements the eq act. and how it competes with the human rights act, which gives rights in one hand and take them in another..

in terms of current legal interpretation of employment laws employers are generally advised never to take a sledgehammer approach, ie sacking as they risk either losing the case, its the same with drunks or druggies you don't sack them but rasther send them down the occupational therapy route..

so in that context the eat will already be looking at the employer through that lens, the current amendments (workers rights 22) places more onus on the employer and the cross party equalities committee want to take that further and place total onus on the employer in these cases to implement the equalities act..

this is why most settle first especially if they have insurance, the cost per day is very high for employment tribunals so this might not even see a tribunal and e settled before then..

None of that matters if it is true that she discriminated against another employee as the uni. claims. There are two sides to this case and the judge will determine which side is truthful, not you, nor I, nor anyone here on ATS who can only interpret this case per their varying bias'.

You're mistaken again and you seem clueless as nickyw said earlier. Perhaps you didn't see or you ignored my earlier reply although you replied to it.

The employment tribunal is about her against the University. The allegations is that her employer discriminated against her and treated her unfairly. That's what is going to be examined at the tribunal. She has to show she was discriminated against because of her beliefs or statements she made.

Whether there is another case it has nothing to do with this one. But as the matter of fact there isn't any case against her either civil or criminal

There is no case against her.
There is only one case where the defendant is the Open University. She alleges discrimination, unfair treatment, and harassment by her employer, as well as unfair dismissal.

Even if she did treat others unfairly this has nothing to do with her case. Her case is whether she was treated unfairly harassed or discriminated by her employer. This is what it will be examined in her employment tribunal and nor whether she discriminated against others.

Clearly you don't know what is going on.

a reply to: nickyw

what is this internal/external nonsense, a good place to start would be to admit you are clueless on English/welsh employment laws and the legal interpretation of said laws, i've come across a number of canadian hr ladies since lockdowns started and i find the legal framework the are in puzzling.

I would say absolutely clueless about the case and what is going on. Still the other member hasn't understood who the defendant is, in this case, and what an employment tribunal is.

A little more in this story.
Dr Gadow is fundraising to be able to take her employer to an employment tribunal. She needs £70,000

Amazingly the British public has been very generous and with 4 days to go she has managed to raise £67,385

I can't out the link as the site doesn't allow links to fundraising pages but with a simple search of her name and the keyword fundraising you will get to the page you're looking for.

It's now definite she will take her employer to court in relation to her alleged unfair dismissal over the gender identity nonsense.

So far Dr Almut Gadow has managed to fundraise £69,515 which is incredible. The target is £70,000 and will be achieved in the next few days.

It's truly amazing how the British public responded to a case where freedom of speech was violated as well as violation of common sense. It only took a few weeks to raise almost $90,000

The fundraising has now exceeded the £70,000 barrier needed for the lecturer to take her case to an employment tribunal, thanks to the generosity of thousands of people in Britain who stand for free speech and ate against this gender ideology nonsense.