Some judgments arrive like medicine. Others arrive like a bin bag dripping quietly onto the kitchen floor.
Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney’s judgment in Thompson v Cummins Limited arrived in two servings.
The first was delivered orally on 2 August 2024. It was hot, rancid and apparently prepared without the inconvenience of a filter. There was inflammatory speculation about my GP, contempt for my mental-health disability, disbelief about an optician’s appointment and the familiar judicial trick of turning poverty into dishonesty.
Then came the written version.
By 6 September, somebody had wiped down the counter. The uglier ingredients had disappeared. The racist or linguistic conjecture concerning my GP was gone. The suggestion that I had influenced a doctor vanished. Other inflammatory remarks were replaced with cleaner, lawyerly language.
The contempt remained.
Sweeney still described one passage as a “rare moment of insight”, called my argument “specious”, repeatedly invoked my “suspicious mind”, labelled me a “game-player”, declared matters existed “all in the Claimant’s head”, referred to my “vitriolic dislike” of Cummins and accused me of “pedantic nitpicking”.
Cummins, meanwhile, was “exemplary”.
Its managers acted “commendably”.
Apparently, the company could recreate documents, repeatedly fuck up my wages, fail to communicate agreed adjustments, introduce unserved evidence from the witness box and obstruct attempts to verify it, yet remain a corporate sunbeam.
I was the darkness.
That is not judicial analysis. It is character assassination with a court seal stamped on the body bag.
The Microphone Has A Better Memory Than Sweeney
That matters because the recording does not have a career to protect, colleagues to impress or a written judgment to sanitise. It does not suddenly develop amnesia when inflammatory bullshit becomes inconvenient.
The microphone simply remembers.
It remembers what Sweeney said before he had several weeks to consider how his words might look to appellate judges, judicial-conduct investigators and the public.
The written reasons are the polished restaurant menu. The recording is the kitchen inspection.
One tells you there is a beautiful jus.
The other shows a sweating man scraping something grey from the floor.
The exact oral wording should be taken from that official recording. The substance, as I heard it while sitting in the tribunal, was unmistakable.
What He Said Before The Coward’s Red Pen Arrived
Sweeney diminished my recognised mental-health disability as “only depression and anxiety”. How progressive. Perhaps being needled and harassed whilst on sick leave prevented me from getting a more accurate diagnosis. Something I’m going through the process of now that I don’t have this cunt downplaying it.
He rejected the reality of an optician’s appointment despite my evidence that I had attended an optician in Durham and possessed a purchase receipt. I’ve still got the fucking receipt, you stupid little arsewipe.
My lack of petrol and transport, during a period when Cummins had repeatedly mangled my wages, became another excuse.
Most offensively, he wandered into speculation about the GP who advised that I should not be exposed to a decision meeting at that stage of my recovery. Sweeney questioned the wording of the letter, a doctor ghat was clearly not a native English speaker and whether I had influenced the wording. HIs questioning of the doctor’s integrity was absent from the written reasons was absent. Funny how you can be an obnoxious, small-minded little cunt when delivering oral judgement and the worst of it disappear from the written reasons. Surely he’ll be questioned, disciplined, held to account. Lol. No.
Nobody called the GP.
No linguistic evidence was presented.
Nothing established that I dictated, manipulated or coerced anything.
Sweeney simply reached into the judicial offal bucket, pulled out a theory and slapped it onto the plate.
Then, when the written reasons appeared, the theory had gone.
What happened, Seamus?
Did it cease to be true?
Did somebody point out how it sounded?
Or did you finally realise that publicly speculating about the wording from doctor of different ethnicity, use of language and supposed manipulation, without a gram of supporting evidence, might make you look like exactly the sort of cunt you had spent the hearing proving yourself to be? Cunt.
The GP Conspiracy That Disappeared
My GP wrote:
I agree that being subjected to a decision meeting isn’t something that Mr Thompson should be exposed to at this stage of his recovery.
The meaning was not difficult.
My doctor considered exposure to a decision meeting medically inappropriate during that stage of my recovery.
Cummins claimed to want medical evidence. A doctor supplied medical evidence. Unfortunately, it did not arrive wearing a Cummins badge and apologising for the inconvenience.
Sweeney’s written reasons call the letter “carefully worded”. They say it did not expressly state that I was “unfit to attend”. He then declared that it was not for a GP to decide whether Cummins should hold its meeting.
What, then, was the fucking point of demanding medical evidence?
Perhaps the GP needed to complete Sweeney’s secret incantation:
Lee Thompson is unfit to attend this precise meeting, under this exact title, at this particular hour, in this specific corporate dungeon.
Anything less could apparently be fed into the judicial mincer.
The oral reasoning was worse. Rather than analyse the letter in front of him, Sweeney speculated about the doctor’s English and whether I had influenced the wording, focusing on the “I agree” part of the wording. Well yes, Seamus, it was not a one way conversation. I had to tell the doctor the circumstances in order to obtain the requested letter. She wasn’t clairvoyant.
That was not evidence.
It was judicial fan fiction, scribbled in crayon by a bench goblin who had already decided which character was the villain.
The conjecture disappeared from the written reasons, but the adverse conclusion survived.
That became a recurring feature of Sweeney’s work. Remove the inflammatory scaffolding. Keep the finding it was used to support.
It is the judicial equivalent of wiping the fingerprints from the knife and leaving the body where it fell.
“Only Depression And Anxiety”
Cummins accepted that I was disabled by anxiety and depression. Paragraph 14 of the written reasons records that concession.
There was no “only” about it.
My evidence described panic attacks, escalating medication, withdrawal, inability to work and an increasingly severe deterioration witnessed by my family.
Depression and anxiety are not cute little administrative labels printed on a fit note. They can affect concentration, perception, communication, resilience, decision-making and a person’s ability to navigate prolonged conflict.
My statement described exactly that.
Sweeney’s oral phrase exposed the attitude beneath his reasoning. Depression and anxiety became something small, tiresome and faintly embarrassing. Like dandruff. Or a waiter interrupting him halfway through dessert.
The written version performed the respectable form of the same trick. It detached my distress from everything Cummins was doing and presented my reactions as evidence of a defective personality.
A company was repeatedly pressing on an open wound.
Sweeney’s contribution was to criticise the noise I made.
The Case Sweeney Pretended He Had Just Discovered
Paragraph 212 is where the corpse starts moving.
Sweeney wrote that, during the hearing, it appeared I “may have been suggesting” that my conduct and correspondence arose from my mental impairment.
He claimed the tribunal raised this with me, that I denied my emails were rude or confrontational and that the disability-related causal argument “was not the case” I had advanced.
That is not merely wrong.
It is contradicted by the witness statement sitting directly under his nose.
At paragraph 11, I wrote:
When I showed distress at the deliberate campaign of abuse I was suffering, my reaction was then used to bring my character into disrepute and obstacles were being erected to prevent my return to work.
Paragraph 17(k) was even less subtle:
I contest that the Respondent engaged in baiting tactics … in order to cause a distress response in an employee with a mental health condition. This distress response was then weaponised and used in the move to dismiss me.
Paragraph 29 alleged deliberate mind games designed to create conflict and obstruct Occupational Health advice.
Then Paragraph 35 said Cummins pressed buttons to exacerbate my depression, anxiety and stress before using my reactions to create a false narrative.
Paragraph 37 repeated that Cummins baited me and weaponised my condition.
This theory was not hiding in a crypt beneath the tribunal.
It was repeatedly fucking pleaded.
There is also no contradiction between denying that emails were inherently rude and saying that disability affected my distress, urgency, persistence or reactions.
A person can reject an employer’s hostile characterisation of correspondence while explaining that its volume and intensity developed during a mental-health crisis the employer was aggravating.
That distinction is not advanced jurisprudence.
It is English.
Sweeney collapsed two different propositions into one, attributed the confusion to me and announced that the causal case had not been advanced.
Either he failed to understand a short witness statement or he deliberately stepped around the part that would have poisoned Cummins’ defence.
Neither possibility looks especially attractive beneath a judicial robe.
The Corporate Meat Grinder
The causal sequence was simple.
I was signed off with anxiety and depression.
Cummins knew its actions were worsening my condition.
The company continued generating pay disputes, capability pressure, contested Occupational Health referrals, shifting explanations, unanswered questions and barriers to returning.
I reacted with distress, suspicion and repeated correspondence.
Cummins then detached those reactions from everything that caused them. It relabelled distress as hostility, persistence as bombardment, anxiety as game-playing and mistrust as insubordination.
Finally, it dismissed me for the breakdown it had helped manufacture.
It was a tidy little corporate meat grinder.
Put the employee in at one end.
Add payroll errors, procedural pressure, unexplained referrals and a few carefully placed lies.
Turn the handle.
When the employee emerges traumatised and furious, point at the mince and say:
Look what he has done to himself.
Sweeney did not merely accept that framing.
He licked the fucking plate. Ugly cunt.
The Dismissal Letter Sweeney Apparently Did Not Read While Reading It
The dismissal letter acknowledged that my conduct might be connected to my medical conditions. Cummins also admitted it lacked the medical answer.
Instead of obtaining a focused mental-health assessment, the company treated disputed behaviour as deliberate subversion.
Sweeney then converted Cummins’ admitted uncertainty into certainty against me.
Paragraph 215 says my absence was merely “contextual”. It supposedly had no material influence and was not a significant reason for dismissal.
That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the dismissal letter Sweeney praised as “extremely comprehensive”.
The letter relied on:
- My absence levels.
- Alleged refusal to engage with Occupational Health.
- Supposed delay to my return.
- The claimed unlikelihood of a foreseeable return.
- Communications produced while Cummins managed my disability-related absence.
- The company’s alleged inability to understand whether my behaviour was medically connected.
Sweeney himself catalogued these matters at paragraph 158.
At paragraph 184, he correctly stated that, under section 15 of the Equality Act, the matter arising from disability need not be the sole reason for unfavourable treatment. It need only be significant or more than trivial.
Thirty-one paragraphs later, he effectively demanded that disability-related absence be the principal reason.
Everything connecting my disability to the dismissal was pushed into a shallow grave marked “context”.
That was not application of the legal test.
It was a getaway car.
The Optician Who Ceased To Exist
On 7 September 2022, Cummins arranged an Occupational Health appointment at short notice.
I explained that I had another appointment and would be travelling to it. My appeal material identified it as an optician’s appointment in Durham and said I had a purchase receipt.
In his oral reasons, as I heard them, Sweeney dismissed the optician’s appointment as though it had never existed.
By the time he wrote the reasons, he had grown more cautious.
Paragraph 85 records only that I said I had “another appointment”. The optician disappears. The receipt receives no analysis.
Sweeney then finds that I was “simply coming up with excuses” and “game-playing”.
Again, the oral accusation vanished while its corpse continued providing useful evidence.
Once Sweeney had branded me a game-player, he no longer needed to decide individual disputes carefully.
Every road led to dishonesty.
An optician’s appointment was an excuse.
No petrol was an excuse. He suggested orally that the way to get petrol money for a pay that I had no money to put petrol in was to drive to work with no petrol for a month or two to get petrol money. Now, I was building engines at Cummins. Combustion engines don’t work on IOUs. They need the fucking petrol up front you thick cunt.
Mental distress was an excuse.
A GP letter was an excuse.
Questions about an Occupational Health referral were excuses.
Sooner or later, even breathing would presumably have been characterised as a calculated attempt to postpone the capability process.
Sweeney built a machine in which every fact entered at one end and emerged stamped:
Lee Thompson is lying.
It must have saved a tremendous amount of judicial energy. Yet no evidence existed of lying on Lee Thompson’s side, only on Cummins. Odd who he chose to believe, the little prick.
No Petrol, No Sympathy, No Problem
The written reasons acknowledge that my wages were wrong.
They describe multiple calculations, an undercalculated correction and further money remaining due.
The judgment also records my explanation that I could not afford petrol.
Then it calls that explanation another excuse. As above, I could get money for petrol by driving a car with no fuel in to work! Logic of a plank of wood.
There is no serious analysis of the obvious chain.
Cummins mishandled the wages of an employee already signed off with mental-health problems.
The employee said the shortage left him without petrol.
A late email mentioning a company-funded taxi did not resurrect an appointment already missed.
Sweeney converted the financial consequence of admitted payroll failures into evidence of dishonesty.
Poverty was not treated as a material circumstance.
It became seasoning for a sneer. Probably because this overpaid cunt couldn’t comprehend an employee that relied on being paid properly in order buy fuel. Yes Seamus, we’re not all upper middle class.
Perhaps Sweeney imagined petrol stations accepted corporate apologies. Maybe I could have poured a Cummins values statement into the tank and driven to Occupational Health powered entirely by integrity.
My Mam Needed Ink. Cummins Needed A Pulse
My mother, Tracy Morgan, supplied a short witness statement.
She lived with me, witnessed my decline and was present during the SAL3 telephone meeting. Her evidence supported the distinction I had always made: Hot Test was an acceptable distance from the toilets, while Team 4, where Cummins kept moving me, was too far.
The written reasons reduce her evidence to “unsigned and undated”.
They do not analyse its substance.
Nobody asked me to obtain a signature, although I could easily have done so.
Chris Paling’s statement also ended with blank signature and date lines.
Paling did not attend.
Sweeney expressly says the tribunal read his statement.
Paul Hardy’s statement was unsigned and undated too. Hardy never entered the witness box because Sweeney refused my witness-order application.
Nevertheless, paragraphs 76, 199 and 222 reproduce Hardy’s training-sheet explanation as fact, despite paragraph 13 not identifying his statement among the evidence the tribunal was asked to read.
My Mam’s firsthand corroboration met a border checkpoint.
Cummins’ unsigned managers floated through diplomatic arrivals with champagne and tiny fucking sandwiches.
One side needed ink.
The other barely needed a pulse. Weird.
The Witnesses Sweeney Kept Safely Away From Questions
I sought witness orders for Chris Paling, Paul Hardy and Lucie Lake.
Those were not names pulled from a tombola.
Paling “recreated” (fabricated) a dated pay letter.
Hardy was the team leader involved in the Team 4 exchange and had apparently never been told about the adjustment.
Lake wrote the Occupational Health email referring to the legal team, an “employment tribunal scenario” and the business choosing a physician assessment.
Sweeney refused the applications.
His written summary says I wanted the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examining them.
Yes, Seamus.
That is generally what happens when evidence requires testing.
The resulting arrangement was exquisite.
Paling’s statement could be read without Paling answering questions.
Hardy’s explanation could become fact without Hardy confronting the Team 4 conversation his statement avoided.
Lake’s email could be interpreted by everybody except the woman who wrote it.
Sweeney locked the witnesses in the cellar and complained that I had not brought enough light.
The Letter Paling Created To Cover His Tracks
Paragraph 95 accepts that Paling recreated a letter after the event.
It finds that he did so, “at the very least, to cover his own tracks”.
The tribunal says he “clearly should not have” done it.
Then the laundering cycle begins.
There was supposedly no fabrication.
No fraud.
No detriment.
Later, paragraph 240 says the employment relationship broke down through “no unreasonable actions” by Cummins.
A manager recreated a dated document after the event to cover his tracks.
He should not have done it.
Yet Cummins committed no unreasonable act capable of contributing to my distrust.
The letter apparently materialised in a moral vacuum, delivered by the fucking stationery fairy.
Imagine the roles reversed.
Suppose I had recreated a dated document after the event, inserted it into an evidential history and admitted doing so because the original could not be found.
Would Sweeney have called that harmless administration?
Would he have praised my conduct as exemplary?
Or would the words “dishonest”, “game-playing”, “gross misconduct” and “suspicious” have descended from the ceiling before the first tea break?
There is no need to speculate.
We have 65 pages showing exactly how Sweeney described me for considerably less. Wanker.
Wando’s Magical Trundle
Wayne Anderson arrived at the witness box with a private experiment nobody had seen.
His written statement casually estimated that Team 4 was no more than 30 seconds farther from the toilets. No route, map, notes, timing sheet, date, photograph, video or trundle record appeared.
The detailed performance began while he was giving evidence.
According to Sweeney’s reasons, Anderson had measured the journeys “to satisfy his own curiosity”.
How charming.
Some men collect stamps.
Some restore motorcycles.
Wando apparently wanders around factories with an evidential trundle wheel whenever litigation makes him curious.
Hot Test station 1 allegedly took 76 seconds.
Team 4 Headline allegedly took 99.
Sweeney admitted that the exercise was “not scientific”.
Then he accepted it.
The difference was 23 seconds, but also 30.3 per cent.
Sweeney used the smaller-sounding description. Twenty-three seconds resembles loose change found behind a sofa. Thirty per cent sounds like something requiring an answer.
No medical evidence established what additional toilet journey was insignificant for someone with unpredictable bowel symptoms.
The experiment had not been served.
I could not inspect the route, starting points, pace, production conditions or raw measurements.
Cummins later refused my attempts to arrange a site visit, including outside production hours.
My Mam’s statement lacked a signature.
Wando’s magical wheel lacked almost fucking everything.
Guess which one made the judgment.
The Occupational Health Email Sweeney Read Backwards
Lucie Lake’s email referred to information supplied by Gemma Penk.
It mentioned HRDEP questions posed by the legal team.
It described a physician as suitable “particularly in the event of an employment tribunal scenario”.
Then came the line:
Please note the business opted for the OHP assessment.
Those words were inconvenient.
Sweeney therefore read the email like a man examining a menu upside down and refusing to admit he had ordered the fish.
His reasons say Lake independently recommended the physician and Cummins merely accepted her recommendation.
He then invented an explanation that Lake probably deduced the tribunal scenario from my legalistic emails.
The actual email mentioned the legal team and said the business opted for the physician.
Lake never gave evidence because Sweeney refused my witness-order application.
That left him free to perform CPR on Cummins’ explanation without the author wandering in and ruining the operation.
Evidence from Cummins was apparently entitled to emergency medical treatment.
Mine was pronounced dead in reception.
The Adjustment That Existed Wherever Nobody Could Find It
Occupational Health recommended that I work close to toilet facilities and be able to reach them at short notice.
Sweeney accepted a workplace practice of positioning workers without regard to toilet proximity.
He then concluded that I suffered no substantial disadvantage because I could supposedly refuse a move to Team 4.
Alternatively, he held that Cummins had made the adjustment by ensuring I could say no.
This is circular enough to generate its own gravitational field.
The supposed ability to refuse was the adjustment in dispute. It could not simultaneously prove there was no disadvantage and that the duty had already been discharged.
Hardy’s contemporaneous email showed that he needed to ask Robert Cole whether the condition had been agreed.
Cole replied that he had no SAL information because of a grievance.
That was evidence of the adjustment failing to reach the person moving staff.
Sweeney transformed the communication failure into proof that the system worked.
Hardy asked because I complained.
I could complain, therefore I could refuse.
I could refuse, therefore the adjustment existed.
Pressure became freedom.
Ignorance became communication.
Failure became compliance.
It is a Möbius strip constructed entirely from bollocks.
Warning Me Would Have Been Pointless Because Sweeney Knew Me Better Than I Did
I argued that Cummins had not warned me that the tone or volume of my communications might become a conduct issue.
A warning could have clarified expectations and allowed behaviour to be modified before dismissal.
Paragraph 238 does not seriously ask whether a reasonable employer should have tried.
Sweeney simply predicts that a warning would have inflamed me and confirmed my suspicions.
Cummins did not need to attempt the fair procedural step because Sweeney had imagined my response in advance.
I was denied the opportunity to respond because the judge had already written the response inside his own head.
That is predetermination.
Curiously, predetermination became respectable when Sweeney practised it. When I alleged it against Cummins, it was evidence of my suspicious mind.
A lovely arrangement.
House always wins. Hopefully his collapses with him in it.
Saint Cummins And The Difficult Employee
By paragraph 227, Sweeney had stopped judging and started writing Cummins a Valentine’s card.
The company managed a “very difficult employee extremely well”.
Morley acted “commendably and thoroughly”.
Cummins’ efforts were “exemplary” and “very much to the credit” of its managers and HR professionals.
This was the same company whose manager “recreated” a dated letter to cover his tracks.
The same company repeatedly got my pay wrong.
Failed to communicate an adjustment.
The same company introduced late evidence and an unserved factory experiment.
The same company used reactions generated during disability-related absence management as material supporting dismissal.
None of that disturbed the hymn.
Once Sweeney cast Cummins as exemplary, every contradiction needed a claimant-shaped explanation.
Missing documents were paranoia.
Shifting explanations were nitpicking.
Admitted errors caused no detriment.
Unanswered questions showed I was impossible to satisfy.
Distress became hostility.
Persistence became bombardment.
Distrust caused by documented misconduct became proof of an irrational personality.
The argument was circular because the verdict had become personal.
Cummins received context, forgiveness and rescue.
I received adjectives.
The Vocabulary Of A Judge Who Had Lost His Distance
Judges are entitled to reject evidence.
They can find witnesses unreliable.
They may decide that claims fail.
That is not the problem.
The problem is the cumulative language Sweeney used to describe me:
- “Rare moment of insight.”
- “Specious.”
- “Suspicious mind.”
- “Game-playing.”
- “Nonsense.”
- “All in the Claimant’s head.”
- “Vitriolic dislike.”
- “Pedantic nitpicking.”
Those are not isolated factual findings.
They reveal a judge who had formed a global view of my personality and used it to resolve almost every ambiguity.
Once I became the unreasonable, suspicious game-player, evidence barely mattered.
Cummins’ managers could forget, recreate, omit, introduce evidence late and contradict documents. Each received an innocent explanation.
I could possess a receipt and still apparently invent an appointment.
That is not a level playing field.
It is a loading dock tilted towards Cummins while Sweeney stands at the top pretending gravity is impartial.
The Coward’s Red Pen
Employment law generally treats written reasons as the authoritative account, even where they differ from oral reasoning.
That principle does not make oral remarks irrelevant.
The Partners of Haxby Practice v Collen recognises that oral reasons may need to be examined where they could reveal actual or apparent bias, or help explain ambiguity in the written reasons.
That is why the audio matters.
I am not arguing that every edited sentence overturns a judgment.
I am arguing that Sweeney’s omitted remarks expose the attitude with which he approached the evidence.
They help explain why unsupported conjecture harmed me.
And they explain why unserved evidence assisted Cummins.
They illuminate why his written reasons repeatedly replaced analysis with character abuse.
Written reasons may supersede oral reasoning.
Superseded does not mean erased.
Authoritative does not mean honest.
The microphone heard him before the coward’s red pen arrived.
The Corpse He Called A Judgment
Sweeney’s final product gave Cummins a clean sweep.
Every claim failed.
Unsurprisingly, every important corporate explanation survived.
Every contradiction was either neutralised or buried beneath another insult about my personality.
Reaching that result required Sweeney to:
- Misdescribe a causal case stated repeatedly in my witness statement.
- Separate disability-related distress from a dismissal built around absence, Occupational Health and return to work.
- Treat a recreated letter made to cover a manager’s tracks as causing no detriment.
- Accept an unserved and expressly non-scientific trundle exercise.
- Reduce my mother’s evidence to a missing signature while reading unsigned evidence for Cummins.
- Refuse witnesses whose evidence required testing.
- Read an Occupational Health email mentioning the legal team and the business’s choice as an independent clinical decision.
- Excuse the absence of a warning by imagining I would have reacted badly to receiving one.
- Declare that Cummins contributed nothing unreasonable to a breakdown built amid admitted failures.
That is not a handful of debatable findings.
It is a pattern.
Uncertainty bends towards Cummins.
Corporate failures become evidence of my instability.
Distress becomes misconduct.
The employee is blamed for bleeding on the machinery.
Employment Judge Sweeney Accountability
Sweeney was entitled to reject my claims.
He was not entitled to invent evidence, erase the case actually advanced or indulge Cummins’ procedural deficiencies while sneering at mine.
He could scrutinise my emails.
But he could not honestly detach them from an expressly pleaded disability-related distress cycle and then write that the cycle was not my case.
He could analyse a GP letter.
But he had no evidential basis to speculate about the doctor’s language or my supposed influence over its contents.
He could refine his reasons before publication.
He could not reasonably expect the inflammatory oral material to become historically invisible merely because he cleaned the written page.
What Sweeney said matters.
What he removed matters.
The contempt that remained matters most because it shows that the sanitisation could only go so far.
I do not call Seamus Sweeney a cunt merely because I lost.
I call him a cunt primarily because he is one, but also because he used a disabled litigant’s distress as courtroom entertainment, substituted hostile conjecture for missing evidence, applied one evidential standard to Cummins and another to me, and then removed the most inflammatory material before signing the public version.
That is my opinion.
It is based on the documentary record, the published reasons and the oral judgment I sat through until I’d heard enough and left quietly to stop myself from breaking his nose.
Seamus, consider retirement.
A courtroom is no place for a coward who treats disability as an irritation, corporate evidence as a rescue mission and his own ugliest words as something to bleach before publication.
The robe does not stop a cunt being a cunt.
It just gives him somewhere expensive to hide the stains.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project
Sources
- Employment Tribunal Written Reasons, Mr L Thompson v Cummins Limited, case 2501831/2022.
- Official audio recording of the oral judgment delivered on 2 August 2024. Oral wording should be checked against the retained recording.
- Witness statement of Lee Thompson, particularly paragraphs 11, 17(k), 29, 35 and 37.
- Witness statement of Tracy Morgan.
- Witness statements of Paul Hardy and Chris Paling.
- Dismissal outcome letter dated 17 February 2023.
- Lucie Lake/BHSF email dated 24 November 2022, supplementary bundle 1, page 230.
- Occupational Health reports and SAL3 documents held by TCAP.
- The Partners of Haxby Practice v Collen, UKEAT/0120/12/DM.
- Equality Act 2010, sections 15 and 20.
- Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98.