Newcastle Embarassment Tribunal : Judge Andrew James – The Great Tone Trial And A Dishonest Account

By /

My disability was not a footnote to a case about bad manners. It was central to my explanation of the reactions which Employment Judge Andrew James used to end my discrimination claim. The medical evidence described difficulty controlling emotions and managing frustration under stress. My submissions identified the situations which triggered that difficulty, the protection I sought and the conduct I disputed. James recorded those arguments, then rejected the suggestion that “all of this” came from my conditions as “fanciful”. Except that was not the argument he had just quoted. Welcome to the Great Tone Trial, where the claimant’s explanation goes into the machine and a more convenient fucking argument comes out.

I am not asking anyone to pretend that emails vanished or that I never used offensive language. I dispute the interpretation imposed on those words. My position is that my complaints, applications and critical reporting had legitimate purposes. Where my responses became dysregulated, I explained their connection to my documented disability and identified the pressures involved. Acknowledging the words does not concede the respondents’ case about what those words prove.

That distinction should run through the entire judgment. Instead, I consider that James bundled reasoned objections, deliberate satire and disability-related reactions into a single portrait of an intolerable claimant. Once that portrait took over, almost everything became another feature of my supposedly defective character. The recruitment allegations never received a merits hearing. My temperament received thirty-seven pages and a £20,000 invoice.

The Disability Was Already In The File

James did not face a bare assertion that I occasionally felt stressed. Paragraph 78 reproduces GP evidence describing depression, anxiety, difficulty controlling emotions and particular difficulty managing frustration under stress. Paragraphs 135 and 144 record my reliance on medical evidence and disability-related causation. The explanation was in the material he said he considered. It did not arrive afterwards wearing a hastily assembled fucking disguise.

The wording mattered because it described a functional difficulty, not merely a diagnostic label. The issue was how I reacted under pressure. My submissions connected that difficulty with panic, overload, feeling disbelieved and uncertainty about the proceedings. James records that account at paragraphs 145 and 146. He therefore knew what connection I wanted assessed, even though he ultimately rejected the sufficiency of the causal evidence.

A judgment may reject evidence, but it must explain the rejection adequately. My criticism is that the reasons do not sufficiently distinguish the particular reactions I attributed to disability from activity I defended on its own merits. Calling the overall picture a sustained campaign does not answer how its constituent parts arose. It gives the picture a name and leaves the difficult work underneath it.

The Trigger Was Not An Unrelated Detail

The January 2025 outburst followed a dispute about hearing notice and my ability to prepare. My account was that panic, overwhelm and being treated as dishonest triggered the reaction. Later submissions identified short-notice material, uncertainty about the Tribunal file, mounting costs pressure and unresolved requests for protection. Those were my explanations of the events, not medical findings that every interaction necessarily caused every response.

That still leaves a concrete case to examine. What happened before the reaction? What did the medical evidence explain? Which adjustment had I requested? Did the process reduce the difficulty or compound it? Those questions concern causation and participation. They cannot sensibly be replaced by collecting the angriest sentence and announcing that the claimant has a fucking attitude problem.

My argument is not that ordinary opposition in litigation proves misconduct by the other side. It is that the effect of the actual process on this disabled participant required assessment. The GP described vulnerability under stress. I identified the situations in which that vulnerability manifested. The respondents collected the resulting words. A fair analysis needed all three parts of that sequence.

Section 15 Was Not A Request For Sympathy

I expressly relied on sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act. Section 15 addresses unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, subject to its knowledge and objective-justification provisions. Its logic does not begin and end with whether somebody disliked the resulting behaviour. It requires attention to the connection with disability and whether the treatment can be justified.

There is an important legal distinction. Section 15 is not a freestanding immunity from Tribunal sanctions. Schedule 3 excludes judicial functions from the section 29 public-functions route. The challenge to a judge’s exercise of discretion therefore rests on the applicable procedural law and fairness duties, not an automatic statutory defence cancelling every adverse order. But that distinction does not remove disability from the analysis. In J v K, the Court of Appeal explained that disability remains a relevant consideration in judicial discretion. Rackham likewise addresses the duty to accommodate disabled participants.

My case was not a request for sympathetic decoration. It was that the Tribunal needed to assess disability-related causes, practical barriers and proportionate ways to continue the proceedings. Whether the legal route runs through the Equality Act’s substantive protections or the court’s own fairness duties, putting the medical evidence in the summary is not the same as making it count in the decision.

A Significant Part Goes In. All Comes Out.

The clearest problem sits in consecutive paragraphs. At 176, James quotes my submission that “a significant part of my reactive conduct” resulted from the respondent’s approach and one-sided handling. It identifies the SRA complaint, costs pressure, bundle difficulties and the need to assess proportionality contextually. At 177, he rejects as fanciful the suggestion that “all of this” resulted from anxiety and depression.

Those propositions are different. A significant part is not all. A complaint about the interaction between disability and the litigation environment is not a claim that a diagnosis explains every publication. I defended some activity as legitimate. I explained other reactions through disability. Combining them and rejecting a universal medical explanation answers an argument broader than the one immediately before the judge.

That is why I regard this framing as intellectually dishonest. The reasoning should identify what it accepts as disability-related, what it rejects and what remaining conduct independently justifies ending the claim. Instead, the qualified argument becomes an absolute one and the absolute one gets demolished. Very efficient. The judge has manufactured a larger target and congratulated himself on hitting the fucking middle.

Foreseeable Is Not Inevitable

Paragraph 178 performs another revealing substitution. My description of an adverse reaction as foreseeable becomes a suggestion that I considered it inevitable. That change matters. Saying a situation predictably engages a known vulnerability does not mean the reaction cannot be prevented. It can be an argument for intervention before things deteriorate.

Indeed, my requests for clearer directions and protective arrangements only make sense if the outcome could change. I was asking for circumstances in which participation would become manageable. That is the opposite of announcing that nothing anyone did could make any difference. The reasoning turns a warning about avoidable difficulty into apparent insistence that the difficulty must be accepted.

James then says that emotional dysregulation cannot justify sustained harassment. But justification of behaviour and explanation of its cause are separate questions. The issue was what the medical connection meant for the court’s assessment and response. Telling me the condition did not make the conduct acceptable did not, by itself, decide whether destroying the claim was necessary. The judgment needed analysis, not a stern fucking expression.

The One-Outburst Allowance

James says at paragraph 177 that everyone could have moved on had matters ended with the January outburst. He then points to later criticism of judges. This makes the reasoning sound as though disability could explain an isolated emergency but became implausible once difficulties recurred. Where is the episode-specific assessment establishing that distinction?

My position was that the pressures and participation problems continued. Repetition therefore required examination of recurring triggers, not the assumption that the first crisis exhausted the explanatory value of my condition. A warning about consequences does not establish that the obstacle causing a disability-related reaction has disappeared. Nor does an apology promise that health problems will never manifest again.

I am not claiming the law supplies an unlimited allowance of offensive correspondence. I am rejecting the idea that recurrence answers causation. The Tribunal needed to explain why particular later episodes fell outside the account supported by my evidence. A disability does not become a character defect because the institution has grown tired of seeing it. The same trigger does not acquire a different medical significance merely because somebody has run out of fucking patience.

The Paragraph 179 Escape Hatch

The judgment also gives an alternative conclusion. Paragraph 179 says that even clear proof of a medical connection would not make the scale and content something everyone could reasonably bear. That means the decision did more than use the word “fanciful”. The stronger criticism is that its alternative reasoning still leaves the practical questions insufficiently answered.

Which conduct would remain unmanageable after effective adjustments? What would tighter control of late material achieve? Which restrictions on communication would preserve necessary applications without multiplying confusion? How would identified witness concerns be addressed? These are the questions that test whether ending the case was necessary, rather than merely understandable to people already exhausted by it.

James had already decided that the whole amounted to harassment. Repeating that label does not establish what a properly adjusted hearing could have looked like, much less why every alternative to strike-out was supposedly doomed. My GP had documented difficulty regulating emotions under stress. I identified the triggers, supplied medical evidence and repeatedly sought protection from circumstances I said were aggravating my disability. When the pressure continued and the reactions followed, those reactions were repackaged as proof that I was unfit to pursue the very discrimination claim for which I had sought protection.

Consider the grotesque logic. A claimant whose symptoms remain manageable might navigate the proceedings without incident. Someone whose impairment causes significant emotional dysregulation may struggle precisely because the process fails to accommodate that difficulty. The more severely the disability manifests, the more material the respondents can accumulate under the heading of misconduct. Eventually, the claimant’s disability-related reactions become the justification for denying him a hearing on the allegations that brought him there.

The very disadvantage the law is supposed to recognise becomes the mechanism through which its protection is lost. James called my explanation “fanciful”. I consider the failure to meaningfully confront that contradiction considerably more fanciful. An institution cannot claim to have grappled with disability merely by acknowledging the medical evidence before treating its potential consequences as an intolerable character defect.

And there, beneath the legal terminology, the procedural gymnastics and the £20,000 fucking invoice, sits the perverse outcome I believe Newcastle Employment Tribunal has produced.

If you’re disabled enough, you can be discriminated against.

My Complaints Had Subjects, Not Just A Tone

Before the extensive public criticism, I wrote to Horsfield Menzies’ senior figures. The March 2025 complaint named Sam Butler and raised medical-information issues, contact with my medical provider, disputed statements, costs pressure and bundle arrangements. It asked the firm to address identifiable conduct. The complaint was forceful because the subject mattered to me, not because the existence of a solicitor automatically triggered an urge to shout at one.

On 25 March, Daniel Rubin said the firm would not engage further about allegations against itself or its staff. He also reserved the right to use my recent correspondence as further evidence of unreasonable conduct. That response did not supply findings answering the underlying questions. The refusal and the warning belong together because they changed the significance of any further attempt to obtain an answer.

I dispute the idea that continuing to care about an unanswered complaint proves an improper purpose. The firm could reject my legal analysis and explain why. What it could not do, merely by closing correspondence, was turn every underlying issue into an invention. The allegation did not cease to exist because the recipient discovered the fucking delete key.

Entry 46: The Complaint Becomes The Accusation

TCAP’s archived examination of the respondent’s evidence identifies entry 46 as an “SRA Complaint”, accompanied by five classifications: scandalous, vexatious, unreasonable, disruptive and abusive. Those were the respondent’s classifications. They were not findings by the regulator. The distinction becomes vital when a complaint about the solicitors returns as material supporting the solicitors’ case against the complainant.

My submission quoted at paragraph 176 also explains that the SRA complaint had been referred back to the Tribunal. That was my account of the referral, not proof that the regulator upheld it. The question is what substantive examination occurred when the issues returned. A referral does not provide an exoneration, and an opponent’s adjectives do not supply an investigation outcome.

This is the sequence I wanted rationally assessed: concerns raised, engagement refused, escalation pursued, complaint extracts classified, then the complainant condemned. Regulatory complaints can contain mistaken allegations. But their substance needs examination before their existence becomes another sinister feature of the person seeking scrutiny. Otherwise the accountability mechanism resembles a help button wired directly to a fucking disciplinary bell.

The Medical-Centre Contact Needed Answers

My concern about Horsfield Menzies contacting my medical provider had a substantial factual basis. Healthcare arrangements were being investigated by an opposing solicitor in proceedings where my disability, treatment and ability to attend hearings were already contested. I wanted to know what had been requested, what information had been obtained and how it was being used against my applications. Those questions did not become unreasonable because I expressed them angrily. I was correctly furious at what I regarded as an invasive misuse of medical information supplied in confidence for a specific legal purpose.

What Butler actually did was considerably more intrusive than making an innocent enquiry. My medical records had been supplied to establish disability in Employment Tribunal proceedings. He used information contained in those records to identify my GP practice, contacted the practice to investigate alternative appointment availability, and subsequently used what he learned to oppose postponement. He even advanced the proposition that rearranging my healthcare would be more expedient than rearranging the Tribunal hearing. My medical evidence had effectively become a fucking directory for the opposing solicitor to investigate my treatment arrangements.

I maintain that this was a breach of the UK GDPR’s purpose-limitation principle. Medical information supplied to establish disability was repurposed to investigate my healthcare arrangements and strengthen the respondent’s procedural position. Health information attracts particular protection, and the existence of litigation did not provide Horsfield Menzies with unlimited permission to process it however its solicitors pleased. Even where processing for legal claims is permitted, its necessity, proportionality and compatibility with the original purpose remain important questions. What justified using my medical records to locate my practice and approach it directly, rather than asking the Tribunal to determine the postponement application on the evidence properly submitted?

Horsfield Menzies maintained that the medical centre had disclosed no confidential clinical information. How fucking reassuring. That answer misses the allegation. The question was not simply what the surgery revealed. It was why the solicitor used my disclosed medical records to identify and contact the surgery in the first place. The absence of a new diagnosis or other clinical disclosure does not establish that the preceding use of my information was lawful. I had supplied sensitive records to substantiate disability, not to facilitate an opposing solicitor’s investigation into whether my treatment could be rearranged for his client’s convenience.

This was among the matters raised in my formal complaint to Horsfield Menzies’ partners, alongside costs pressure, disputed representations and disability-related treatment. These were contemporaneous objections to identifiable conduct, not grievances invented after an adverse judgment. Daniel Rubin subsequently closed further correspondence about allegations against the firm while reserving the right to use my correspondence as evidence of unreasonable conduct. What a splendid little complaints mechanism. Raise concerns about a solicitor’s behaviour, receive no substantive determination of those concerns, then discover that the complaint itself may become ammunition against you.

At paragraph 162, James dismissed my comments about the instructing solicitors as having “no reasonable foundation”. That sweeping conclusion demands considerably more explanation than it received. The medical-centre contact was not a fictional episode manufactured by an angry claimant. It concerned identifiable medical records, an actual enquiry and information subsequently deployed against a postponement application. James was not required to adjudicate a standalone UK GDPR claim, but he chose to pronounce upon the foundation of my criticism. Where is his examination of the original purpose of the medical disclosure, the secondary use made of it and the justification for that use? How could he reasonably dismiss my objections without meaningfully confronting the events that prompted them? An allegation of a statutory breach might ultimately succeed or fail, but the factual basis for raising it does not disappear merely because the opposing solicitor finds it inconvenient.

My medical records were evidence of disability, not a fucking permission slip for Horsfield Menzies to investigate my healthcare arrangements. Yet James found considerably more to say about my jokes than about the solicitor who used those records. The claimant received a judicial autopsy, complete with exhibits, commentary and a painstaking examination of his temperament. The solicitors’ conduct received a sweeping dismissal and what appears to have been a fucking express lane past meaningful scrutiny.

Salter Was Evidence That I Could Recognise Fairness

I have publicly distinguished Judge Salter’s order from the Newcastle decisions I criticised. I regarded it as balanced and protective. The directions followed the September 2025 hearing and came through Leeds administration. My point was not that every decision from one city is good and every decision from another is bad. It was that I recognised and welcomed an attempt to make the process workable.

That matters to the portrayal of someone supposedly unwilling to accept judicial authority. I did not need to win the underlying claim before recognising fair treatment. Nobody had decided the recruitment allegations in my favour. What I valued was case management that I believed could prevent overload and allow participation. That is not the reaction of somebody demanding that every judge surrender to his wishes.

I describe the Newcastle sequence as judges “hunting in packs” because successive decisions felt as though they reinforced the same adverse account. That is my criticism of the institutional pattern, not evidence of a private agreement between judges. The Salter contrast explains the criticism. I am making a valid observation, not conducting an indiscriminate campaign against anybody who owned judicial fucking stationery.

The Protective Order Was Breached. Newcastle Did Fuck All.

Employment Judge Salter — from Leeds, not Newcastle — made protective case-management directions on 8 September 2025. Those directions were intended to restore control over proceedings already overwhelmed by late and excessive material. They also mattered enormously to my ability to participate as a disabled litigant in person. For once, somebody wearing judicial robes appeared to understand that managing litigation involved rather more than issuing orders and blaming the claimant when the machinery broke down.

It was the one order I considered balanced, practical and protective. I publicly acknowledged that distinction. Apparently, I was capable of recognising fair judicial treatment after all. How terribly inconvenient for Newcastle’s emerging theory that I simply refused to respect judges.

The First Respondent breached Salter’s protection before the hearing on 24 April 2026. Horsfield Menzies introduced further late, widened and respondent-curated material, recreating the precise overload the directions were intended to prevent. It was the third consecutive hearing affected by substantial late respondent-side material. This was no abstract concern raised retrospectively after an unfavourable result. I identified the breach before the hearing, challenged the state of the Tribunal file, highlighted the portal problems and requested corrective directions.

Newcastle did not enforce the protection or resolve the difficulties before proceeding.

Instead, Employment Judge Brain refused postponement. Employment Judge T. R. Smith subsequently indicated that I could raise my concerns at the forthcoming hearing. The same fucking hearing I had explained I could not safely attend because the protections necessary to enable participation had failed.

Apparently, the prescribed remedy for an inaccessible hearing was to attend that hearing and complain about its inaccessibility. Kafka would have taken one look at the script, pronounced it insufficiently believable and fucked off to write something less ridiculous.

Then came Employment Judge Andrew James.

His judgment reproduced my objections to the late material, the uncertainty surrounding the Tribunal file and my resulting participation difficulties. He therefore had the chronology before him. Nevertheless, his eventual conclusion attributed the collapse of proceedings solely to my conduct. The breached protection, respondent-side filing practices and unresolved administrative difficulties received nothing approaching the same scrutiny as my absence.

Consider the sequence. Salter made a protective order. The respondent breached it. I protested before the hearing and requested enforcement. Newcastle failed to provide an effective remedy. The circumstances preventing safe participation remained unresolved. Then the hearing proceeded without me, and the consequences became part of the case against my conduct.

The protective measure failed. The claimant was blamed for the consequences of its failure.

That distinction goes directly to causation, disability and proportionality. James could not properly assess my non-attendance as though the events preceding it were irrelevant. The question was never simply whether I appeared on 24 April. It was why an order designed to facilitate my participation had been breached, why the problem remained unresolved and why the resulting disadvantage was ultimately attributed to me.

This was not some minor scheduling irritation. It was a substantive failure in the management of proceedings against a disabled litigant whose medical evidence expressly identified difficulty regulating emotions under stress. The Tribunal had been told about that vulnerability. It had a protective order. It knew what I said had gone wrong.

Newcastle had every opportunity to address the breach before holding a case-ending hearing. Instead, the protection went unenforced, the hearing proceeded in my absence, my discrimination claim was struck out and I was ordered to pay £20,000. Apparently, the claimant’s obligations were compulsory while the protection afforded to him was fucking optional.

I Asked For A Hearing I Could Actually Participate In

My non-attendance was not a declaration that I rejected the Tribunal’s authority. Nor was it a refusal to have the discrimination allegations examined. My correspondence expressly explained that I remained willing to attend once the identified barriers had been addressed. I sought a clear Tribunal file, controlled material, enforcement of existing protections and arrangements that would prevent another episode of short-notice overload.

James reproduced that position in his own judgment. It was hardly a secret.

The distinction matters because an unwillingness to participate and an inability to participate safely under the conditions imposed are not the same thing. Yet the proceedings repeatedly treated the resulting absence as evidence of my unwillingness to engage, without adequately resolving the circumstances I had identified beforehand.

The instruction to raise my concerns at the hearing was particularly absurd. I had explained that the unresolved problems prevented safe participation. Telling me to attend before those problems were addressed reversed the entire purpose of the protective measures. A disabled person does not establish that a process is accessible by somehow surviving its inaccessible fucking components unaided.

James referred to earlier postponement refusals and the absence of a specific GP opinion establishing unfitness for the April hearing. But that reasoning did not resolve the separate procedural complaints. Medical evidence about my ability to attend and compliance with Salter’s protective directions were different questions. A doctor could address my health. A doctor could not repair the Tribunal’s portal, enforce case-management directions or determine which late documents the respondent was entitled to rely upon.

Those responsibilities belonged to the institution administering the case.

Worse, the resulting participation difficulties were then examined through the lens of my supposed misconduct. The Tribunal was prepared to scrutinise my reactions, language and correspondence in extraordinary detail. Yet the failure of the safeguards intended to prevent those difficulties never received comparable examination.

This is the fundamental dishonesty I see in James’s account: the consequences of procedural failures and disability-related disadvantage were treated as evidence against the person affected by them. The events that preceded those consequences were reduced to background noise.

My absence became part of the explanation for why a fair trial was supposedly impossible. But the protective order was supposed to help make that trial possible in the first place.

The missing participant was recorded more decisively than the missing protection. And somehow, after all that, Newcastle decided the disabled claimant was the fucking problem.

The Emails Were Attempts To Solve Things

The correspondence concerned matters such as disclosure, hearing arrangements, medical evidence, the portal and the contents of the Tribunal file. I did not send it because I had confused the court office with a pen-pal service. My stated purpose was to obtain answers and protect my ability to present the case. Volume alone cannot decide whether that purpose was legitimate.

Some questions may have received decisions I continued to contest. Others, I maintain, remained unresolved. A meaningful assessment had to separate those categories, then examine how disability affected the reactive correspondence. My defence was not that every message became necessary merely because I sent it. It was that the judgment needed more than a count and a collection of its sharpest sentences.

Paragraph 54 itself records bundle difficulties attributable to material from both parties. Paragraph 180 ultimately attributes the loss of the merits hearing solely to me. That transition needs explanation. The respondent’s part in the process cannot simply vanish when the final allocation of responsibility begins. You do not establish who flooded the bathroom by counting the number of times the person downstairs shouted about the fucking ceiling.

The Complaints About Miller Were Not Simply About A Brief

My objection to Wendy Miller’s inrvolvement arose from my experience of her in the earlier Cummins litigation. Paragraph 149 records that explanation. I believed tactics I had experienced as hostile had returned in another dispute involving me. That perception was part of the context of my distress and the criticism I published.

Paragraph 158 nevertheless describes the harassment finding as concerning her simply accepting instructions. That compression matters. Prior representation against me did not itself disqualify her, but the right to accept a brief did not answer every complaint about professional conduct. The judgment needed to assess my actual concerns rather than reduce them to resentment that a barrister had agreed to do her job.

Her withdrawal also did not prove misconduct by her, and the judgment treated it as a consequence of my conduct. My criticism concerns the reasoning connecting these events and the dismissal of my explanation. The cab-rank rule governs professional obligations. It is not a sheet of judicial clingfilm which renders every act of advocacy beyond fucking inspection.

Huntley, Epstein And The Great Conduct Blender

I am not asking a diagnosis to explain my entire sense of humour. My satire is deliberate. I write provocative material because I intend to provoke thought, ridicule hypocrisy and occasionally make people laugh at things they would rather not discuss. My disability-related emotional dysregulation is an entirely different matter. It arises in circumstances of stress, frustration and overwhelm, precisely as my GP documented. One is an exercise of editorial judgement. The other concerns a medically identified impairment. James managed to throw both into the same fucking industrial blender and label the resulting sludge “conduct”.

Notice which words received the most conspicuous treatment. Ian Huntley. Jeffrey Epstein. Two names calculated to make any reader’s eyebrows disappear into their hairline. James reproduced my jokes about Wendy Miller using those references, then condemned the remarks without adequately examining their satirical meaning. The Huntley joke was backhanded praise for her exceptional ability as a defence advocate. The Epstein remark was cash-register humour about potential clients. Neither alleged that she knew Epstein, represented Huntley or participated in anybody’s crimes.

But context is terribly inconvenient when the objective is to portray a claimant as irredeemably objectionable. Lift the most radioactive names from a body of satire, display them prominently in a judicial judgment and allow their associations to do the heavy lifting. Add a generous seasoning of moral outrage. Suddenly, a joke about professional ability becomes another exhibit in the prosecution of my character.

The rest of the material was subjected to a different kind of reduction. My complaints about Horsfield Menzies, challenges to procedural decisions, repeated requests for protection, public criticism and episodes of acute emotional dysregulation were increasingly absorbed into the same overarching narrative. Conduct. A wonderfully elastic word. It sounds forensic, carries an air of misconduct and saves the inconvenience of examining whether every incident belongs in the same category.

That distinction was fundamental to my defence. Deliberately publishing a sarcastic article does not establish that a subsequent reaction during a period of acute distress was equally calculated. Nor does the existence of intentional criticism extinguish the medical explanation for other behaviour. Yet James’s cumulative reasoning effectively allowed the deliberate elements to contaminate the disability-related ones. The more material he assembled, the easier it became to characterise everything as a sustained campaign rather than investigate its separate causes.

And there is the appearance of an agenda. I cannot read James’s private thoughts, but I can read the structure of his judgment. The most sensational material receives a close-up. My documented disability receives a qualified acknowledgement. My explanation of a significant part of my reactive behaviour is transformed into a claim about all my conduct and dismissed as “fanciful”. Having made those distinctions disappear, James concludes that the accumulated behaviour makes a fair hearing impossible.

I regard that as intellectually dishonest reasoning. It does not require me to establish what James privately intended. The published treatment of the evidence is the problem. A judge conducting a fair assessment of disability-related behaviour must distinguish deliberate editorial expression from reactions potentially arising in consequence of disability, then explain the significance of each. Otherwise, cumulative assessment becomes a mechanism for concealing the distinctions upon which proportionality depends.

The judgment managed to find room for Huntley, Epstein, Alec Baldwin, my Google rankings and the apparently terrifying acquisition of a domain name. Yet the practical implications of my medical evidence, the triggers identified in my submissions and the respondent’s contribution to those triggers received nothing resembling the same sustained examination.

The sensational words were magnified. The disability context was diminished. Everything else went into the enormous fucking sack marked “conduct”.

And out the other end came a strike-out, £20,000 in costs and a discrimination claim whose merits were never heard.

A Domain Name Has A Purpose, Not A Diagnosis

My explanation for buying the Wendy Miller-related domain was search visibility. James records that explanation at paragraph 101, then describes the purchase as “especially egregious” at paragraph 159. Apparently, registering an available domain containing the name of somebody I have publicly criticised is now an extraordinary act of misconduct. What a fascinating development in the law of the fucking internet.

The reasoning deserves considerably more examination than it received. What was the domain used for? What did visitors encounter? Was there impersonation, deception, a threat or interference with proceedings? How did the registration itself contribute to making a fair trial impossible? These are meaningful distinctions. Simply declaring the purchase especially egregious tells readers what James thought of it, not why that conclusion necessarily followed from the evidence.

My editorial rationale was straightforward. People search for names. Websites appear in search results. A domain associated with the subject of an investigation can improve discoverability. That is how search engines have worked for decades, although apparently somebody neglected to send the fucking explanatory leaflet to Newcastle Employment Tribunal.

And because I object to the suggestion that registering a domain containing somebody’s name is inherently intimidating, I decided to make the point rather more directly.

I am now the proud owner of judgeandrewjames.com.

It was available for sale. I bought it. The registration occurred after his judgment, so it played no part in the proceedings he determined. Its purpose is to demonstrate precisely the distinction his reasoning failed, in my view, to examine adequately: the difference between registering an address associated with a person and using that address to engage in unlawful conduct.

Domain registration does not grant immunity for whatever somebody publishes, just as criticism does not become intimidation merely because it achieves an inconvenient Google ranking. The content and its use must be examined. A judge’s name appearing in a domain is not, by itself, proof of harassment, any more than the same name appearing in a newspaper headline would be.

James is entitled to dislike public criticism of his judgment. I am equally entitled to publish that criticism, challenge its reasoning and make it discoverable. Judicial office does not confer exclusive commercial rights over public discussion of its holder.

So there we are. Judge Andrew James criticised my registration of a domain containing a barrister’s name. I have now registered one containing his.

The point is not that purchasing a domain proves me right. It is that the domain proves remarkably little without examining what is actually done with it.

And if that distinction still requires explaining, perhaps someone could start with the address bar before embarking upon another fucking thirty-seven-page examination of my personality.

Alec Baldwin Was A Scandal. Contacting My GP Was Apparently Fine.

The Alec Baldwin remark mocked what I regarded as a theatrical performance. Cepac claimed that a witness felt intimidated by my publications. I disputed the allegation and suggested that anybody pretending to be intimidated deserved an acting role in an Alec Baldwin film. Dark humour, certainly. Baldwin’s association with a fatal on-set shooting gave the joke an additional edge, but its purpose was ridicule, not an admission that I had intimidated anybody.

James nevertheless found room for it in his judgment. At paragraph 111, the remark appears alongside the respondent’s allegations about Peter Grey. By paragraph 170, my response has become evidence of insufficient remorse and insight, reinforcing the conclusion that a fair hearing was impossible.

What exactly was I supposed to say?

“I am terribly sorry for intimidating a stranger who I didn’t even know existed. I sincerely regret my failure to anticipate the distress of somebody whose involvement was entirely unknown to me. Please accept this heartfelt apology for an allegation I fundamentally dispute.”

What a magnificent little piece of judicial theatre. Apparently, the route to demonstrating insight was to apologise for something I denied doing. Refuse to accept the accusation, and the refusal itself becomes further evidence against you.

That’s not remorse. That’s a fucking confession James appears to have expected me to manufacture.

A sarcastic denial does not establish the truth of the allegation being denied. Nor does somebody’s failure to respond with the solemnity preferred by an Employment Judge transform the underlying accusation into a proven fact. The reported concern deserved examination. So did the evidence said to support it. My joke was not a substitute for either.

And here is where the comparison becomes absolutely fucking extraordinary.

Horsfield Menzies used my disclosed medical records to identify my GP practice, contacted the provider to investigate alternative appointment availability, and then deployed the information obtained to resist postponement. I raised formal concerns about the purpose and lawfulness of that secondary use of sensitive medical information. These were matters with identifiable records, correspondence and potential regulatory implications.

James’s response to my criticism of the solicitors? Paragraph 162: “no reasonable foundation”.

Compare the treatment.

An opposing solicitor investigating my healthcare arrangements during disability discrimination proceedings raised questions about purpose limitation, necessity and professional boundaries. Yet the published reasoning contains no equivalent forensic examination of that episode before sweeping away my criticism.

Meanwhile, my sarcastic reference to Alec fucking Baldwin was apparently important enough to preserve in a judgment extinguishing my discrimination claim.

The disparity is staggering. One episode involved an opposing law firm’s use of medical information supplied for litigation. The other involved a disabled claimant making an offensive joke about an allegation he rejected. Which received sustained attention as evidence of conduct endangering the proceedings?

The joke.

Of course it was the fucking joke.

James did not expressly declare Butler’s actions lawful. That would have required confronting the very questions my complaint raised. Instead, my objections were dismissed, while my reaction to a separate allegation was treated as revealing something profound about my character.

The solicitor’s conduct needed answers. My sarcasm apparently needed punishment.

And this was the institution supposedly conducting a fair, contextual assessment of a disabled litigant’s behaviour.

A rude denial remains a denial, not a confession with worse fucking manners. James could dislike the joke without converting it into evidence that the witness’s account was correct. He could acknowledge the witness’s reported concern without treating my refusal to express remorse as proof of intimidation.

Most importantly, he could have applied the same appetite for scrutiny to the professional conduct I had complained about.

Contact my GP practice, investigate my healthcare arrangements and use the information against postponement? Apparently not worth a detailed examination. Make an Alec Baldwin joke? Fucking scandal of the century.

The judgment tells us considerably more about which material James chose to emphasise than it establishes about the truth of the intimidation allegation.

AI Assistance Does Not Remove The Author

The suggestion that AI assistance undermines confidence in my understanding of my submissions requires considerably more than speculation. If counsel believed I did not understand a particular argument or undertaking, the obvious course was to identify it and demonstrate the deficiency. Using AI for research, drafting and analysis does not transfer legal responsibility to a machine. The submissions remain mine, as do the decisions about what to file, argue or undertake. A drafting tool is not a substitute litigant, however desperately convenient that fiction might be for the opposing barrister.

Nor does producing detailed written material from home establish an ability to participate safely in an uncertain live hearing. One involves working at my own pace, managing symptoms and reviewing material in a controlled environment. The other involves immediate responses, procedural uncertainty, unfamiliar pressures and the very disability-related difficulties documented by my GP. Treating those activities as interchangeable demonstrates a remarkable failure to understand the distinction between intellectual ability and functional impairment.

And if we’re going to question someone’s competence because AI was involved, perhaps Newcastle should consider employing an AI judge. It might at least distinguish an advocate’s insinuation from an established fact, deliberate satire from disability-related dysregulation, and a medical condition from a fucking character defect.

Although, admittedly, that would require somebody to give it the correct instructions.

Paragraph 110 Still Needs Its Fucking Source

At paragraph 110, James’s judgment states:

“The claimant alleges on 8 December 2025 that the first respondent is linked to 9/11 funding. There are other examples of such posts.”

An extraordinary allegation to attribute to somebody in a published judicial judgment. Particularly when that somebody is facing the destruction of his disability discrimination claim and a £20,000 costs order.

There is, however, a fairly substantial problem.

Where is the fucking publication?

Paragraph 110 supplies no quotation, exhibit number, bundle-page reference or identifiable post. It gives a date, a highly inflammatory characterisation and the assurance that other examples exist. Those supposedly additional examples are not identified either.

Now compare the very next paragraph. At paragraph 111, concerning my Alec Baldwin remark, James identifies the relevant publication as entry 237 on page 1598. Apparently, the machinery for identifying supporting evidence was functioning perfectly well when the material contained an offensive joke.

Yet the reference associating me with allegations about financing the September 11 attacks receives no equivalent precision.

How wonderfully convenient.

My published material concerning HSA Group and allegations reported by The Quiet Mancunian expressly identified that publication as the source of the underlying claims. It also explained that the allegations had not been independently verified. I subsequently published further commentary examining why I considered the source worthy of attention.

Those are meaningful editorial distinctions. Reporting somebody else’s allegations, evaluating their credibility and asserting them independently as established fact are not interchangeable activities. A writer can discuss serious allegations without claiming personal knowledge of their truth.

Attribution is not some magical immunity from responsibility for what one publishes. But neither is it a disposable fucking detail that a judge can omit when summarising the publication’s meaning.

The complete words matter. Their context matters. Whether the writer expressly qualifies the allegations matters. Most importantly, the actual publication must be identified before its meaning can be reliably assessed.

I have searched my blog archive without identifying an article dated 8 December 2025 corresponding to James’s description. An X publication or another document remains possible, which makes identifying the source more important, not less. My earlier article attributing the allegations to The Quiet Mancunian does not, by itself, establish what appeared on X on that particular date.

This was sufficiently serious for me to raise expressly in my Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings. The objection concerns the accuracy of the judgment’s characterisation, the adequacy of its supporting references and the subsequent use of my publications in the cumulative case for strike-out. It is not an invitation for the EAT to adjudicate the extraordinary third-party allegations themselves.

Paragraph 110 appears in the judgment’s account of the respondent’s submissions. But reproducing a serious allegation in judicial reasons, then assessing my publications collectively when determining misconduct, makes accuracy and context especially important.

A judge does not establish that I personally made a particular allegation merely by repeating counsel’s description of an unidentified publication.

There is a broader pattern here that I find increasingly difficult to ignore. The judgment can find space to dissect an Alec Baldwin joke, pronounce upon Ian Huntley humour and treat domain-name registration as especially egregious. Yet when it comes to an allegation associating my reporting with the financing of the world’s most notorious terrorist attack, the evidential trail apparently ends with a date and an assurance that there were other examples.

I regard that as a profoundly disingenuous presentation of my work. Its effect is to associate me personally with an extraordinary allegation while withholding the precise passage needed to establish whether the association is accurate.

The remedy is not complicated. Identify the 8 December publication. Identify the other examples. Reproduce the relevant words in context. Then explain whether those words constitute a direct factual allegation, attributed reporting, qualified commentary or something else entirely.

James was prepared to examine my jokes with a fucking magnifying glass. Applying the same attention to the factual accuracy of his own judgment should hardly be an unreasonable request.

Criticism Is Not The Same As Refusing Authority

Calling a judgment ridiculous does not mean I deny the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Making complaints, pursuing an appeal and publishing criticism are not interchangeable with refusing an operative direction. My case required those distinctions, rather than the assumption that contempt for decisions proves incapacity to participate in proceedings.

That does not make compliance optional. It makes the actual act and its explanation important. Where a reactive message concerned a restriction, the court needed to assess the restriction, the circumstances, the medical explanation and its practical effects. Where an article merely mocked a decision, a different analysis applied. Aggregating both under attitude risks deciding the case through tone rather than consequence.

My publication can be challenged for accuracy, fairness and effect. But acknowledging judicial power does not require praising its exercise. I can recognise that a judge has authority and still consider the reasoning a pile of sanctimonious fucking nonsense. Whether that opinion is justified is a question for the reasons, not a loyalty test disguised as case management.

The Missing Test Was A Workable Future

Paragraph 141 records proposed alternatives: breaks, a companion, clearer orders and controlled bundles and correspondence. The judgment also records warnings and explains James’s loss of confidence in future cooperation. My complaint is not that he printed no discussion of alternatives. It is that the reasons do not adequately demonstrate why a process addressing the identified disability barriers could not work.

The overriding objective requires fair and just handling, including equal footing, proportionality and flexibility. Those are practical commitments, not ceremonial words to recite before describing the claimant as exhausting. A forward-looking assessment should ask what changes might prevent the recurring problem and whether enforceable boundaries could preserve the hearing.

That was the purpose of my applications. I wanted a process I could use, not an exemption from having a process. My rationalisation therefore concerns function: clearer records reduce uncertainty; controlled filing reduces overload; effective adjustments support participation. Warnings about the consequences of distress are not interchangeable with measures that address its cause. The court needed to assess the proposed repair, not merely catalogue the fucking damage.

Compensatory, Not Punitive. Now Pay For Your Impudence.

At paragraph 182, James solemnly reminds readers that costs orders are “compensatory, not punitive”. A sound legal principle. Very reassuring. One paragraph later, having decided not to take my financial circumstances into account, he declares that limited means do not mean I can “act with impunity”.

Well, which fucking principle is doing the work here?

James draws that language from Kovacs, a Court of Appeal authority establishing that poverty does not automatically shield a litigant from an otherwise justified costs order. I understand the distinction. But invoking that authority does not settle whether the underlying conduct was properly assessed, whether disability-related causation received adequate consideration, or whether the discretion was exercised fairly in the circumstances of this particular case.

The language remains revealing. First, the reader is assured that the award is not punishment. Then the claimant’s limited means are discussed in terms of escaping consequences. The judgment announces compensation as its legal purpose while adopting the vocabulary of punishment to justify its exercise of discretion.

James knew I had disclosed receiving disability benefits and Universal Credit. He noted that I had not supplied the additional documentary evidence of means as ordered. Yet he expressly assumed, for the purpose of his reasoning, that my means were limited before deciding to disregard them anyway.

The problem is not that a disabled or impoverished litigant must be immune from costs. It is that James attributed responsibility for the proceedings’ collapse solely to me, despite the documented medical evidence, the disputed respondent conduct and the complaints about procedural protections that had failed.

The institution cannot resolve an argument about disability-related causation by presenting the disabled claimant with an invoice for being fucking inconvenient.

And if James wants to regard my continued criticism of that reasoning as another demonstration of insufficient remorse, perhaps we should establish the going rate.

Make it £30,000. Actually, Judge James, make it £40,000 if you’ll let me tell you what a fucking stupid cunt you are. Deal?

Rational Explanation Is Not A Confession

My case is not that I deserved condemnation but should receive a discount because I was unwell. I dispute the condemnation on the terms in which it was made. Complaints had subjects. Applications sought practical protections. Critical reporting had an editorial purpose. The reactive episodes had a disability explanation supported by medical evidence and connected, in my account, to identified triggers.

Those categories required separate findings before the Tribunal could rationally combine their effects. They did not become one thing because the respondent’s bundle placed them in one sequence. James could reject my explanation, but that required answering it: which causal links failed, which complaints lacked substance, which expression interfered with proceedings and why workable protections could not preserve a hearing.

That is the argument I want examined. Not whether everybody found me agreeable. Not whether I used language suitable for a brochure. And certainly not whether a judge could look at an accumulated history of conflict and decide he had seen quite enough of this particular disabled man.

“Fanciful” is a conclusion to justify, not a substitute for justification. My disability was in the file. My doctor’s account of the triggers was in the submissions. The question is why the judgment gave the reactions a more convincing explanation as bad character than as the problem I had repeatedly asked it to address. That question does not become less serious because I am asking it fucking angrily.

Lee Thompson – Fucking Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project

Sources

Scroll to Top