I can't help how I come across to you, but in my opinion you confuse irony with sarcasm.

Her base salary - as it was and as she requested it should be (£400k) - is plastered all over every newspaper. £280k plus significant bonus.

Looks like the Ar*e are cheapskates.

One of the definitions is:

''demand money from (a person) in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person''

As I have said above more than once, the Tribunal (not Court) would not conceivably have awarded anything like the original £1.2m already offered.

Therefore the tactic was to draw the discussion into a public forum with the express intention of blackmail. Had the Tribunal hearing gone all the way to its natural conclusion she would - in my opinion - have been given an award but nowhere near the £1.2m. The tactic always had to be brinksmanship and a 'Courtroom steps' agreement.

Blackmail! I so wonder what she had in her locker (possibly literally as well as figuratively).

Depends on what the settlement was, as to whether she quit. Constructive dismissal seems to be what happened.

Of course it could be that they apologised unreservedly, and settled out of court just before she gave her statement to the court, because she had no case for sexual discrimination and harassment, but they liked her.

But they'd have had her statement at least seven days in advance. Chances are they knew exactly what the probable outcome of that would be, and had previously decided that would be the point of settling - that basically she'd either have won the case or her evidence would lead to 'potentially fair greater losses'

I mean what's the chance that an attractive woman working with professional premier league footballers is going to have experienced sexual discrimination and harassment.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (08 Jun 2016 5.15pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

She quit.

[Link]

Optimistic as ever

What are the simple direct facts of the case - Just the incident? She launched a case for constructive dismissal, sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. These cases wouldn't just cover the incident on the day either.

Leverage is only leverage really if it can be backed up. Also one persons leverage, is another persons evidence.

I think when someone alleges something criminal, its either criminal or its not. Blackmail is a crime, and its unfair I think, to accuse people of a crime or criminal action, without them having been convicted - or in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Maybe she did 'blackmail Chelsea' but they clearly believed that what she was going to testify under oath to, was far more damaging than categorically accepting fault, and apologising unreservedly, and paying the settlement.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

That's moving the goal posts though, the idea that there is blackmail that's not a crime, and blackmail that is a crime. Its like saying there is murder that isn't illegal, or rape that isn't illegal rape.

To me, this sounds like the use of biased language to insinuate guilt, where no evidence of guilt can be determined.

Which is extortion, a form of blackmail. Granted the historical analogy is interesting, but it worth noting that its also the origin of the crime of blackmail and extortion. Whilst its interesting, it would of course be illegal black mail in our times.

See my other post. She brought three cases, not just one, and they aren't specifically limited to an exact moment in time or single incident. Just because the other side make an offer, you don't have to accept it. Nor are you limited to making only one claim.

Are you saying that she didn't have a case for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and for constructive dismissal? On what basis. She certainly won her case, getting a settlement, apology etc.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]