An Employment Tribunal judge used harassment language in a public judgment about my blogging, public criticism and regulator complaints. The judgment names him as Employment Judge James. Public Judiciary material appears to identify him as Andrew James. That matters only because public judgments have public consequences. If a judge is going to brand a disabled claimant’s speech with criminal-coded language, the record gets read back in public. Slowly.
The Judgment Names James
The judgment identifies the judge as Employment Judge James. Public Judiciary material appears to identify Employment Judge James as Andrew James, appointed as a salaried Employment Judge of the Employment Tribunals in 2019.
This article focuses on the judgment.
Its wording.
Its consequences.
Its repeated use of harassment language against blogging, public criticism and regulator complaints.
Because this was not private correspondence. This was not a side remark. This was not some pub-corner mutter from a solicitor who had lost the room and found a thesaurus. This was a public Employment Tribunal judgment placing harassment language into the public record against a disabled litigant in person for writing, publishing, criticising and documenting.
That is not a tiny drafting issue.
That is reputational ordnance.
And TCAP was built to pick through wreckage with gloves on.
The Word Was Harassment
There are words an Employment Tribunal can use when it wants to sound stern.
“Unreasonable”.
“Vexatious”.
“Scandalous”.
“Offensive”.
“Disruptive”.
“Intemperate”.
Those words are ugly enough. They still live in the procedural shed. They are the kind of words tribunals use when they want to criticise conduct without wandering into criminal-adjacent territory.
Then there is “harassment”.
That word is different. It does not walk into a public judgment wearing neutral shoes. It arrives with police-station air on its coat. It carries criminal and quasi-criminal weight. It suggests pursuit, intimidation, menace, targeting and unlawful conduct. It does not merely say a litigant was sweary, angry, excessive, disabled, distressed, provocative, difficult or politically inconvenient.
It says something darker.
Employment Judge James used that word about my blogging and public commentary.
Not as a carefully separated allegation by a party.
Not with a clear statement that no legal finding of harassment was being made.
Not after a properly pleaded harassment claim.
Not after a criminal trial.
Not after a structured analysis of publication, public-interest speech, context, disability, provocation and the conduct of the lawyers and institutions being criticised.
The word just lands in the judgment like a stain somebody wanted on the carpet.
Employment Judge, Not Magistrates
Let us keep the lane markings visible.
Employment Judge James is an Employment Judge.
Not a magistrates’ court.
Not a criminal court.
Not a harassment trial.
Not a police charging decision with a custody clock, a charging standard and a file waiting for CPS review.
The case before him was an Employment Tribunal case. It concerned disability discrimination, recruitment conduct, professional representation, disclosure, strike-out arguments, public commentary and the conduct of a disabled litigant in person under litigation pressure.
It was not a criminal harassment prosecution.
It was not a harassment claim.
It was not a trial of whether TCAP, my X account or my regulator complaints amounted to unlawful harassment.
So what exactly was he doing with that word?
If Employment Judge James meant harassment legally, where is the legal analysis? Where are the elements? Where is the evidential route? Where is the finding that distinguishes public criticism from unlawful harassment? Where is the serious treatment of blogging as speech? Where is the analysis of regulator complaints as protected procedural activity rather than sinister conduct?
And if he did not mean harassment legally, why the fuck did he put harassment language into a public judgment?
That is the rot point.
Either he made a grave public allegation without the necessary work, or he used a grave word loosely because it carried the stain he wanted.
Neither version is clean.
The Blog Became The Crime Because The Blog Works
The real problem was not that I wrote.
The real problem was that people could read it.
The blog made the case visible. It pulled the machinery out from behind the tribunal curtain. It named professional actors. It preserved screenshots. It linked documents. It described the tactics. It put pressure on regulators. It exposed the way represented parties and their lawyers could turn a disabled claimant’s reaction into the offence while treating their own provocation as background furniture.
That is what made them twitch.
The old system prefers a disabled litigant in person quiet, exhausted and alone. It likes him proceduralised. It likes him bundled, listed, redirected, ordered, corrected, warned, misunderstood and slowly drained of usable hours.
It can cope with a claimant who complains privately.
It cannot cope with a claimant who publishes.
Because a blog does something a tribunal file does not want done. It lets other people see the sequence.
So the system reached for the familiar move.
Do not answer the criticism.
Pathologise it.
Do not examine the conduct being criticised.
Criminal-code the publication.
Do not ask why a disabled claimant is furious.
Call the fury “harassment”.
Cute.
Also transparent as piss on glass.
The Judgment Wanted The Stain Without The Trial
A public judgment saying a claimant used a blog to harass people does not sit quietly in one case.
It travels.
It gets searched.
It gets quoted.
It gets waved around by respondents, recruiters, lawyers, regulators and any future bastard who wants to say, “Look, a judge said this man harassed people”.
That is why the word matters.
It is not just description. It is payload.
No criminal trial.
No pleaded harassment claim.
No separate evidential hearing on harassment.
No structured speech analysis.
No proper findings on the difference between public criticism and unlawful conduct.
Just a public Employment Tribunal judgment loading the word into the record as though it were an office staple.
That is reputation damage with a judicial stamp.
And then everyone is supposed to pretend the stamp makes it clean.
No.
A court file is not a defamation laundrette.
The Tribunal Had Softer Words Available
Employment Judge James had options.
He could have said the posts were offensive.
He could have said the posts were intemperate.
He could have said the posts risked disruption.
He could have said the posts were relied upon by the respondents as part of a conduct argument.
He could have said the Tribunal was not determining any criminal or civil harassment allegation.
He could have drawn a careful line between lawful public criticism and conduct he considered procedurally relevant.
He could have acknowledged that public commentary about public litigation, professional representatives and regulators is not automatically harassment because the targets dislike being named.
He did not do that.
He used harassment language.
Repeatedly.
That choice matters. Judicial wording is not accidental wallpaper. A judgment is supposed to be a disciplined document, not a moral panic in Times New Roman.
If Employment Judge James did not understand the weight of the word, that is alarming.
If he did, it is worse.
They Called The Archive Harassment
The thing they labelled harassment is also the thing that preserves the record.
That is the sick little joke at the centre of this.
Emails.
Screenshots.
Bundles.
Review requests.
Regulatory correspondence.
Complaint trails.
Judgment extracts.
Posts.
Mirrors.
Indexed articles.
The machinery hates the archive because the archive survives the mood of the room. It does not care who looked tired at 4pm. It does not care which barrister sounded polished. It does not care which solicitor used “vexatious” like a comfort blanket. It does not care whether an Employment Judge preferred the claimant quiet.
It just sits there.
Date.
Document.
Sequence.
Consequence.
That is why TCAP is dangerous to them. Not because it shouts. Plenty of people shout. TCAP is dangerous because it keeps receipts and gives them headings.
So when the judgment reaches for harassment language, it is not merely criticising tone. It is trying to put a criminal stink on the very mechanism that preserves the paper trail.
The archive became the offence because the archive was effective.
This Was A Public Branding Exercise
Let us not dress it up.
Calling a disabled claimant’s blogging and commentary harassment in a public judgment is a branding exercise.
It tells the world how to read the claimant before the claimant gets to speak. It turns criticism into conduct. It turns conduct into character. It lets lawyers and institutions say the problem was not the tactics, the disclosure, the provocation, the ignored concerns, the public judgment, the regulator failures or the structural imbalance.
The problem was the man who wrote about it.
That is the trick.
Call the blog harassment.
Call criticism intimidation.
Call regulator complaints part of the pattern.
Call the archive a campaign.
Then pretend strike-out is just tidy case management.
The body goes into the paperwork. The paperwork says the room is clean.
Not this time.
Public Judgment, Public Answer
This judgment is public.
The hearing was public. The case was public. Cepac’s side wanted public process when it suited the strike-out theatre. The judgment then made public findings about my conduct, my blog, my commentary, my complaints and my supposed harassment of professional actors who chose to participate in litigation against me.
So TCAP will answer publicly.
No whispering into the institutional vent.
No polite little private complaint left to rot in an inbox while the public judgment keeps doing damage.
No “lessons will be learned” nonsense from the same system that appears to think a disabled claimant’s speech can be shoved into criminal-coded language and stapled shut.
If a public judgment makes a public allegation, the public gets to examine the allegation.
If the judgment says my blogging was harassment, TCAP gets to ask what evidence supports that.
If the judgment treats criticism of lawyers and regulators as intimidation, TCAP gets to ask whether the Tribunal understands the difference between scrutiny and criminality.
If Employment Judge James wants those words in the public record, he can live with the public record being read back slowly.
A Tribunal Is Not A Reputation Laundrette
You do not get to launder a defamatory-looking allegation through a public judgment and call it case management.
You do not get to call blogging harassment because the blog was effective.
You do not get to turn regulator complaints into menace because regulators dislike paperwork arriving with fingerprints.
You do not get to treat criticism of barristers, solicitors, respondents and tribunal conduct as criminal-coded behaviour just because the people being criticised prefer silence.
A public judgment is not a bin where legal actors can dump their embarrassment and ask a judge to staple it shut.
The language either has an evidential basis or it does not.
If it does, show the work.
If it does not, correct the record.
Halfway house bullshit will not do.
Not criminal court.
Not civil harassment claim.
Not proper harassment analysis.
Just an employment judgment branding public commentary as harassment because the commentary made the machinery sweat.
The Disabled Litigant Was Supposed To Fold
That was always the assumption.
A disabled litigant in person is expected to break quietly. He is expected to run out of sleep, money, patience, printer ink, family capacity, concentration, stomach lining and basic faith in the fucking species before the paper trail becomes dangerous.
He is supposed to become a file note.
A conduct paragraph.
A warning to the next claimant who thinks equality law might mean something.
The system was not prepared for a disabled claimant who built an indexed public archive while being processed by it.
That archive now exists.
The emails exist.
The bundle exists.
The BSB correspondence exists.
The withdrawal letter exists.
The judgment exists.
The posts exist.
The screenshots exist.
The public record exists.
And now the words in the judgment are going to be read back into that record, where they belong.
The Question For Employment Judge James
The question is brutally simple.
Did Employment Judge James intend to make a public harassment finding against me?
Yes or no.
If yes, where is the lawful basis, evidential analysis, legal test, jurisdictional route and procedural fairness that justified placing that allegation in a public Employment Tribunal judgment?
If no, why was harassment language used at all?
That is the whole scalpel.
Employment Tribunal judges do not get a free criminal vocabulary because a claimant’s blog made the profession uncomfortable. Words have consequences. Public judgments have consequences. Calling a disabled claimant’s publication campaign harassment has consequences.
So now the judgment gets consequences too.
Surgical Summer Starts With Reading The Words Back
TCAP will now read the judgment back.
Not vaguely.
Not apologetically.
Not as a tantrum.
Line by line. Word by word. Finding by finding. The way institutions hate, because paperwork is only sacred when they are holding it.
Employment Judge James, publicly identifiable from Judiciary material as Andrew James, put harassment language into the public record.
Fine.
The public record is open.
Employment Judge, not magistrates.
Blogging is not a crime.
And if a Tribunal wants to dress criticism up as criminality, it had better be ready for the blog it tried to bury to come back with a fucking shovel.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Source List – Documents Held By TCAP
- Employment Tribunal Judgment, 2026
- Relevant Judgment Extracts Concerning Blog And Harassment Findings
- Wendy Miller KC Withdrawal Letter, 20 February 2026
- BSB Wendy Miller Mini-Bundle
- BSB Complaint Regarding Wendy Miller KC, 7 June 2025
- BSB Decision Letter, 9 September 2025
- Request For Review Of BSB Decision, 9 September 2025
- BSB Independent Review Correspondence
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary – Employment Tribunals Judges
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary – Appointment of Employment Judge Andrew James