Who is it...??

[Gullscorer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecret.html

Anybody have any idea as to who this might be? Was the tribunal right or wrong not to allow her name to be published?

Seems to be one rule for the rich and famous and another for the rest. One rule for (dare I say it?) women and another for men.. My feeling is that, if the tribunal find for the employee, this woman should be named and shamed, regardless of her charity work, or more especially because of her charity work.

I'm not fully acquainted with the appropriate law and regulations here. I only know that the law is sometimes an ass and there are bad laws as there are bad politicians and bad people. But there are also wider issues here. I concur with the comments of John Hemming MP.

So, any guesses...??

[PhilGull]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Gullscorer]

Innocent until proven guilty.

We're agreed on that. But that's a different issue.

[PhilGull]

How is it different? Someone has been accused of something, just because they are 'famous' you think we have a right to know of the allegations? If it were you or I in our workplace the papers wouldn't care to mention it.

[Gullscorer]

Because you're looking it this from the wrong angle. The real question is, why should people involved in cases like this have their names kept secret, whether by a tribunal or a court, simply because they're rich and famous.

The Employment Tribunal confirmed that a reporting restriction had been granted because 'it involves an allegation of sexual misconduct. When it comes to that we don’t name the parties.’ Yet the names of claimants and respondents are usually reported in employment tribunals involving sexual discrimination and harassment. The listings for upcoming tribunals are freely available and members of the press and public are allowed to attend. There is a presumption of open justice unless naming a particular party would put the case at risk.

As MP John Hemming said: ‘I’m very uncomfortable with secrecy being used, because secrecy normally acts to conceal the truth over time. I don’t think that in any way the argument that someone is well known justifies keeping their name secret.’

Not only does such secrecy conceal the truth, it can also hide injustice, as many victims of the closed Family Court system can testify. The old maxim 'justice must be seen to be done' still holds good, and not without good reason.