top of page

Judgment Corrections and filling in the blanks 7, Cetin v A Limited and Mr B C

Updated: Sep 6, 2022

I don't think there has been a day that I didn't think of the children in this 'employment'. These children were the most precious, most beautiful ones on this earth. I have seen these children in my dreams, rescuing them from fires and battles. I see Mr B C dangling them under his arm, taking them away with a smirk on his face.

Here is the judgment for this claim:

I worked for these people in 2016- 2017 for eight months. They were my employers before Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune. I won't give any details of the arrangements or the number of the children at that stage. We met on where they were looking for a nanny. They said they wanted to put me on the company payroll so they could save from paying taxes but it seems they were using my wages as company expenses. So in some ways I was free for them. They did pay my income tax and gave me payslips although Mr BC wanted it delayed on purpose a few times and I had to ask for it.

Mr BC was on maternity leave during my employment. I spent a lot of time in the same house with him and went abroad with them. While abroad Mr DE was not with us most of the time. Anyway, I do not want to give any details but I called NSPCC which is a children's charity. I had concerns about matters relating to some the children. It was an anonymous call. They forced me to give the children's details and my details.

From now on I will address the information in the judgment and only the most pressing ones:

Paragraph 3 mentions Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune also as Mrs Griffihts and claims this is her married name. I did not say this. These people sent a letter to the Tribunal which I believe was written by Mareuge-Lejeune and she used that letter to put this argument forward. This was a bizarre thing to have been written by these people in my opinion. There was also other wording in that email which belongs to her only. They are her repeated mistakes none of these people seem to notice. So this is what I have been dealing with: Two sets of employers plotting and attacking me at the same time. If you read the other posts you will see that they have done other things together such as reporting me to the Police at the same time to stop me bringing claims against them.

Paragraph 4 mentions the minimum wage matter but leaves out that accommodation offset was applied to my wages and that's how they kept the wages they owed me. Of course the contract offered free accommodation just like the Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune did. So these two sets of employers both offered a free room to lure me into employment and both deducted my wages by different methods but I ended up being forced to pay rent to both retrospectively to account for some of these deductions they had already made unlawfully. They also lied to HMRC about my position as I was a nanny under a personal assistant contract for a company I knew nothing about. When this employer refused to respond to my subject access request I complained to the Information Commissioner's Office which said Mr BC worked for company A Limited, yet they told HMRC and to the Tribunal that he didn't. There were a lot of lies . Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune knew that I had been on a company payroll and that I worked as a nanny. Yet later they defended the fraudulent practices of this employer when the child abuse story from them was very useful for Ms Mareuge-Lejeune's purposes.

Paragraph 7 "...They pointed out that the claimant had not appealed against the ruling of the HMRC in relation to her National Minimum Wage claim, arguing that action could not be taken both in the Tribunal and through HMRC, nor had the ICO thought it necessary to take action against them.' HMRC did not tell me I had a right to appeal. I argued very hard with them about the accommodation offset and not having lunch breaks. ICO ordered them to send me the information I requested and I complained for a second time when they didn't. At some point it became clear they were lying to them and this coincided when Mareuge-Lejeune was bombarding me with email attacks on the other claim under the guise of reconsideration applications. I prioritied it at the time. Besides ICO doesn't take actions for matters like that and these people were lying in a way that made it hard for ICO to deal with it. These people told the HMRC that Mr BC didn't work for the company but told the ICO he was on the payroll.

Paragraph 10. "The claimant responded to that request for further and better particulars on 11 May 2020 and she applied by letter dated 18 June 2020 for further information from the respondent. She said in paragraph 3 of that letter that she had recently been contacted by the police and had been told by them that the respondent had filed a complaint of harassment against her for communicating with them because of this claim through the tribunal and also because of an application and witness statement that she had sent to them after being directed to do so by the Family Division of the High Court." Yes these people, just like Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune complained to the Police for being taken to Tribunal. They admitted to have done that twice and this was the second time. It appears that they couldn't lie well enough the first time so they improved it the second time as the Police did contact me and later questioned me about contacting these people for the court purposes. They had told the Police that I should not know their address and had sent a letter -as directed by the court-. They had not told the Police that their address is published online and that I had sent them an email prior to sending this letter. In my email I explained the court directions and quoted the original email. Although I knew Mr DE's email address the family court had provided the same address again. So these people lied to the Police and the Police tried to intimidate me into withdrawing my claims. The same week Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune missed a Tribunal order and later twisted it. I guessed that she had also complained to the Police to make these people more believable. I found out that she did report me around the same time and called these people 'Employment Tribunal Acquaintances'. Together, these so called employers tried to get me arrested as a solution to being taken to an employment Tribunal. So much for democracy and for this Tribunal who omitted and twisted the facts to strike out my claims. And also this judgment is designed to 'expose" me for raising child welfare issues. So much for employee and children's rights. But let's move on...

Paragraph 11. "It appears that the claimant’s intervention into the family proceedings was a voluntarily one made in family proceedings by which the respondents applied for parental orders in relation to their children. To the extent that the claimant complains about actions taken by the respondents in family proceedings, it seems to me that, subject to my decision on whether the claims are out of time, the principal of judicial immunity from suit may be relevant.' Of course it was a voluntary one and it was after Mareuge-Lejeune shared their claim details in their costs reconsideration application and boasted she had helped these people who couldn't otherwise obtain custody of some children. She didn't even know these people before I brought a claim. She contacted them as part of a fishing expedition and she is an extremely manipulative, dishonest person. Therefore I approached the court and they were shocked that that sort of information was shared by her openly and they allowed me to make an application. The first and foremost basis of that application was that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had lied to help these people and that whatever she said should have been scrutinised. And this information had been given to her by Mr BC and Mr DE. They wanted to support her in her efforts to rip me off for costs by giving her the details of proceedings related to their children. So Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune and Mr BC/DE have supported each other by lying in court and recycled results. When I deal with the awful letter that Mr DE wrote for them when I brought the first claim against Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune you will see the extent of their lies on something that they have claimed was a witness statement to be used against me.

Regarding the judicial immunity in relation to family proceedings: I don't understand the relevance of this for these people. The same argument seems to have been circulating behind the scenes as it appeared in relation to Mareuge-Lejeune. I do strongly believe that for something to have judicial immunity, it, first of all has to be correct. Lying in court is perverting the course of justice.

Paragraph 13 "She confirmed that during the course of the preliminary hearing on 27 November 2020 hearing that she had found out that the complaint had been filed with the police on 15 April 2020." And guess what? During this hearing apparently the Police called me again and I missed it. They were trying to give me a message from Mareuge-Lejeune while I was trying to deal with the consequences of the behaviour of these people. Of course she knew about this hearing as she later talked about it in detail for her appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 24th of March. She had also included a page that showed the date, the names and the jurisdiction codes of this claim in their bundle. So even before I could deal with one problem they presented another one in their orchestrated attack on me for over three years now. This behaviour has been allowed by the Tribunal and the EAT and I have protested it all along. Even if these people cannot bring themselves to tolerate my rights, this behaviour should have been stopped for the dignity of the children involved. As to the Police, I really don't know what to say about them, except that acting like administrators to the wealthy bankers who are determined to fight off a minimum wage claim seems to be a priority for them.

Paragraph 15. 'I did remind the parties and in particular the respondent of their duties under Rule 92 to copy each other into any correspondence. The claimant has been vexed by not having received two letters dated 3 and 13 February 2020 that was sent by the respondent to the employment tribunal which I read out to her...' yes this happened in November 2020. But a lot has changed since and it is now ludicrous to believe this claim even has anything to do with me. I will explain more probably on another post but the Respondents have been communicating with the Tribunal behind the scenes all the time. Also Griffths/Mareuge-Lejeune's barrister Mr Wilson works in the same chambers this judge worked until she started a full time post at Watford Employment Tribunal at the beginning of June 2021. She was a part time Judge and a part time barrister. When this claim was heard they had been colleagues for a few years. A lot of points presented in Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejuene skeleton arguments by Mr Wilson and judgments overlap because the details of both claims I believe have been discussed between them heavily.

Paragraph 17 '..He and his husband, who represented both respondents at the hearing, were the alleged perpetrators..: I did not say Mr DE was 'an alleged' perpetrator. I sent emails to correct this assertion and verbally repeated, yet it still comes up in this way. It was Mr DE and Mareuge-Lejeune who claimed I said this. I believe Mr DE started to spread this assertion to protect the actual perpetrator who is Mr BC. Mr DE presents as more sociable and because he is innocent or so I believe, it's possible for him to come across as guilty. Therefore he can easily feign being offended by this assertion. He had taken the blame for him for a lot less important matters before. I believe when someone innocent is blamed for something they have not done people around them supports them and get angry on their behalf. This is what they obtain by repeating this misconception that he is an alleged perpetrator. Another possibility is that someone else reported him along with Mr BC. Regarding the anonymity order, they did not make them or ask them openly on the claim. I supported the judge's offer for reasons that are related to the children's dignity, although I still question these parents' voluntary disclosure to Ms Mareuge-Lejeune as she is obviously using any information for her own purposes and used it to on my claim and hoped it would lead to her being awarded costs against me. It is important to remember that she and her husband did not pay any costs as they were relying on an insurance and had already got compensation from DWF who represented them. The money they wanted to make out of me was extra and they were intending to keep it for themselves. Mr BC and DE knew about this and still allowed her to use this information. These two sets of employers sharing and using information in this manner is disrespectful of the children in question. It also defies the purpose of an order and seems that these orders were put in place only to limit me. I don't understand the practical usefulness of an order if the people who are the subject of them do not intend to stick to it. I wanted a temporary anonymity order as I have also a claim against Griffiths and Mareuge-Lejeune in order to not prejudice the other claim. Anonymising my name would also be necessary in order for an anonymity order to be affective. I had some other reasons as well which I do not want to mention here. Mr BC and DE objected to my claim as they argued I had 'a history of claims against former employers'. They also falsely claimed that I had reported other employers for child abuse. So they had a general argument against nannies raising child welfare issues and that I might do it a prospective employer.

h) I did write to them the money they owed me and I am guessing 25th of May may be the correct date. What happened is that Mr Griffiths finally emailed me,on 23rd of May 2018 the revised payslips they had avoided and it showed he had still not paid the income tax on my salary so I did some reading and calculations. That led me to do a calculation on my pay for this employment and this was the first time I actually noticed they owed me money. jfdjfldjfdjfljfdjfjfdjjfdjfj what to write in their ET3 response form and had written other letters for them. m. . government agencies. It doesn't even make sense why the Police who had told me to not tell the parents anything all of a sudden would go around and say I had reported these people. Going back to the issue of not anonymising my name who was a childcare worker who was forced into this situation: I think as a general rule this is a dangerous situation. No one should have to go thorough all that I have been thorough for having made an anonymous phone call about child abuse. These two sets of employers have worked hard to blight my life for it and this judge is proudly announcing. The good thing about this is that I do not want to work with or for anyone who are abusive to children. So here is a message to people who are into child abuse: Do not come near me for any reason. I will seriously observe, rate and categorise the abuse and will do my best to help the child by offering compassion and support or as a last resort I might even call an agency like NSPCC.

Paragraph 19: Here it seems as if the judge is trying to justify for making an assessment of my claim. I believe these people might have complained that the judge actually did that. I say that because Mareuge-Lejeune complained even when judges on my claim against her tried to mention the nature of the claim. I believe she advised these people to make a complaint after the 27th of November 2020. By that stage she had helped these people about what to write in their ET3 response form and written other letters for them.

I will ignore the paragraphs where the judge summarises the claim and the legislation.

Paragraph 42: In this paragraph the Judge copy/pasted nearly all of the letter Mr DE gave Mareuge-Lejeune. Here it is:

"“In response for your request for clarification regarding a PAYE tax of £280.40 regarding the employment of Mrs Ilkay Cetin please find her latest payslip in attachment where you can see evidence of that payment. I wish to take the opportunity to draw your attention to the circumstances around her employment and why her contract was terminated. During the interview she gave us a good impression and she showed us some reference letters but she was unable to provide us with any contact numbers of her ex employer. The reason she gave is that her last employer was “divorced mum who was abusive towards her son and therefore she thought it would not be appropriate if we contacted her for a job reference”. We decided to give her the job but we started to have concerns about her performance and we raised them with her. Shortly after we discussed those concerns with her the police visited our house. The reason was that she had reported us to Social Services alleging child abuse. The police said that there were many inconsistencies and fabrications in her report but still, the children had to be examined in the hospital. The charges were dismissed but at the time we went through the Parental Order process in order to have the parental rights of our twins who were born through surrogacy. Ms Cetin’s allegations risk to compromise the Parental Order and caused us profound distress and humiliation. In the following months we have received a couple of emails from Ms Cetin expressing unhappiness about her dismissal and how this would have a bad impact on our children. Soon after receiving these emails we have decided to move to another borough as we were concerned she had our address and she knew our children’s habits. On 25 May 2018 we have received a third email, but this time asking for £1,815.56 due to “owed lunch breaks” during her employment with us the previous year. She also stated in this email that “this calculation doesn’t include the help I offered on weekends and holidays. I did extra on those days so the children couldn’t suffer negligence as I consider it my gift to them”. Please do not hesitate to contact me in order to get further clarification about this matter.”

What is missing from this letter is the last paragraph in which Mr DE lists all the government agencies he works for: such as the Police, Ministry of Justice, Home Office etc etc. He also mentions Mr BC's job in a medical setting.

Now I will detail what is wrong with this letter:

a) This letter was presented as a witness statement in their bundle by Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths. It was undated, unsigned. There was no address on it either. They refused to give any information/explanation about it or when/how they had contacted these people. The payslip in question clearly said A Limited on it and you can see that there is nothing about a company in the letter.

b) Mareuge-Lejeune and Mr DE did not have a right to discuss my taxes or my payslip. She had contacted them without my knowledge or consent. I believe they pretended to volunteer information because they thought she may get in trouble for lying at this stage but that they were safe as they thought it was too late to bring a claim against them.

c) They say I showed them a 'reference'. That was not true. What they say about a 'divorced mum and reference' etc is not true but I don't intent to explain any more about this. There is evidence to clarify this matter need be. But they were getting confused here and this whole notion that I gave them a good impression and showed reference is I believe the result of their gossip with Mareuge-Lejeune. I did show Lejeune a reference and it was from a young person whom I have known for her entire life and are still friends with. I do have a file of documents that I take to interviews with myself and Mr DE did look at some of those documents. What they are trying to do here is to create a suspicious pattern in my behaviour. I think they are not used to professional people like me. I worked 8 months for them. They were still begging me to go abroad with them at the end of this eight months. So we can safely assume the first impression was a long lasting one.

d) What was that 'performance concerns' I wonder. They did not raise anything with me. I challenged them to tell me and of course they couldn't. If they were begging me to go abroad with them while claiming to assert that they had 'performance concerns' about me they need to think about their parenting again.

e) "Shortly after we discussed those concerns with her the police visited our house. The reason was that she had reported us to Social Services alleging child abuse.' No, they didn't discuss 'those concerns'. No, I didn't report them to Social Services. I did call NSPCC and it was quite some time between my call and the Police visiting them.

f) 'The police said that there were many inconsistencies and fabrications in her report but still, the children had to be examined in the hospital.' None of this makes sense to me. Why would the Police tell them I reported them to Social Services when I didn't? Why would they even say who made a report? Why wouldn't they clarify if they thought there were inconsistencies and fabrications? Why would they still examine the children?

g) "In the following months we have received a couple of emails from Ms Cetin expressing unhappiness about her dismissal and how this would have a bad impact on our children. Soon after receiving these emails we have decided to move to another borough as we were concerned she had our address and she knew our children’s habits." Wow, really? They invited me to ask for feedback as to why they had 'terminated' my contract, I did that. They said it was because I didn't want to travel with them and because I had not come to 'grips' with the job. I pointed out that their two reasons contradicted each other. And around the time his letter appeared in the bundle on my first claim one of their former nannies said Mr DE and BC had moved to another borough to be close to Mr DE's work. Also that they had had another set of twins and their old house was not big enough even prior to having more children. And later I found out their new address was posted online all these years. For all these reasons, claiming they had moved because I knew their 'children's routine' is a malicious lie. It is using their normal life changes to create suspicion about me.

h) I did write to them the money they owed me and I am guessing 25th of May may be the correct date. What happened is that Mr Griffiths finally emailed me on 23rd of May 2018 the revised payslips they had avoided giving me. I had resigned and left the job and the payslips showed he had still not paid the income tax on my salary so I did some reading and calculations. That led me to do a calculation on my pay for this employment and this was the first time I actually noticed this set of employers owed me money.

i) 'She also stated in this email that “this calculation doesn’t include the help I offered on weekends and holidays. I did extra on those days so the children couldn’t suffer negligence as I consider it my gift to them”. It is true that I helped him a lot on weekends. He just needs to remember how he sat all by himself one twin on each arm and a toddler climbing anything in sight. That he couldn't even go to toilet while Mr BC slept upstairs claiming he was too tired despite also having a night nanny. I even worked on bank holidays and when I was sick. The reason why he included this sentence here is because after this experience I refused to be drawn into helping on weekends with Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune. They clearly had a long gossip to find patterns in my behaviour and there is one: I help when I see children suffer. And I did it for the children. Mr DE is so good at eliciting kindness I used to joke the job was a kind charity work.

And then he is offering further information. Oh they are still in touch and plotting together. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a WhattsApp group chat. But as I said above the judge excluded the only sentence in which he boasts about their jobs.

After the hearing I found out Mr DE has a Ministry of Justice email address and also worked for HMRC. During my employment I didn't know he worked for the Police but this is what he claimed in this letter. I guess all these contacts are very useful if being investigated for child abuse and even when committing tax fraud. It would explain the retaliatory actions of the Police against me when these people were complaining I shouldn't be allowed to take them to court. What kind of Police harasses and intimidates civilians about civil court matters?

The Police also claim to have praised me for reporting them to NSPCC. These people claim that the Police told them to sack me immediately. They didn't 'sack' me immediately. Does the Police go around telling people like that who reported them, but lie about how they reported and ask them to sack the employee and immediately? There are just too many inconsistencies and fabrications in this account.

Also, this witness statement is written half a year after I resigned from Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune job and it is to support them in an employment claim. Why are they pretending to warn these people as if I have anything to do with them? And what is the their concern about? That I might report child abuse when I see it? And Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune had wanted me to stay, had given what was essentially references but started lying more with this support from Mr BC and DE. BC and DE themselves told me that they wanted to end my contract because I didn't want to travel with them. So everyone is lying and want to ruin my job prospects because of what? I believe this letter is written mostly by Mr BC and it of course is in retaliation. He was an aggressive person who enjoyed causing suffering. Looking at events retrospectively, he was always ready for someone to report him. He didn't want nannies to stay long or have a supporting relationship with the children. He called a nanny before me 'mad' because she had noticed the abuse. He got rid of another one very quickly. I lasted the longest.

Paragraph 44: 'It was clear from her oral evidence that the claimant had known about the allegations that she raises in paragraph 18 of her claim form, at the time she left employment because she says that they happened during the course of employment. I asked the claimant to explain why she had not presented her claim about those matters sooner.' Paragraph 45: 'It therefore seems to me that the claimant knew everything that she needed to know in order to bring a complaint based on the matters that occurred during the currency of her employment, both in terms of the acts alleged and the ability to complain about them, at the time that she left and certainly no later than May 2018 when she decided to bring the complaint at the employment tribunal against a subsequent employer. As explained above these people did not tell me that they 'dismissed' me for calling NSPCC or for reporting them at all. Not going abroad with them was their written reason. As to the 'performance' claims; they did not happen. Even in the above letter they don't say they 'dismissed' me for reporting them. And clearly they do not even know how the reporting happened. The letter itself is littered with lies that I knew were lies. It was to the degree I was not even sure they had indeed written it and they refused to confirm having written it until the hearing on 27th of November 2020. So the assertion that I knew everything I needed to in order a claim was simple not true. Besides, employers cannot just lie until a time they feel safe a claim cannot be brought against them and start attacking and making allegations against former employees. Also these people lied so much about serious matters and to many agencies so far, why would anyone take them seriously about child welfare matters? Is attacking me in an effort to discredit me enough to make them look better? Their conduct only shows how manipulative they are.

Paragraph 46 'At the time of her dismissal she knew that the police had visited the home because of her report to the NSPCC. She was present. She says that she was given alternative reasons for her dismissal, namely that she had not accompanied the family on holiday to Spain and that she was not getting on in her job. She had not told the respondents about her report to the NSPCC and the gist of what she said was that at that point she therefore believed they were unaware of it and did not have the information from which to suspect that they had dismissed her because of it.' I am sure if I had brought a claim back then I would have been told that reporting them was not the reason. Mr DE had lied heavily at the time and said someone had reported him and I didn't report him. NSPCC was not mentioned at all. Besides, the judge is rewarding them for lying affectively at the time.

Paragraph 47 'The respondents allege that the police told them at the time that they came and investigated but the claimant has denied this. She denies that she knew enough by the time of the October 2018 letter to challenge the reason she was given for her dismissal. She expanded on that in her letter to the tribunal, 18 June 2020. She says in that (see her paragraph 2) that she is asking for information against the respondents:

  1. At para.2.a. she stated that the former employers claim that the respondents volunteered a vast amount of information because they think it’s a public service to warn them against her and she would like the respondents to confirm or deny it and give details.

  2. At para.2.b. she says, “My other former employer say that the respondents claim they were told by the police to sack me immediately”. She claims that the police divulged who had reported the respondents for child abuse - “I would like them to confirm or deny and explain the circumstances around these conversations”.

Surely it is clear that I was still asking questions because I still didn't know enough or whether Mareuge-Lejeune was telling the truth at all to be asking questions long after I had brought the claim. Yes, I still want to know if the Police had indeed tell these people to 'sack me immediately'. If so, why? Is advising employers to sack nannies who report child abuse their normal practice? Were they trying to cover up for not doing their jobs properly? Were they angry because Mr DE apparently worked for them? The Police told me to not tell them anything and had asked if they were aggressive and fought a lot. They did not ask me any further questions either. If the Police are behaving in this manner in child abuse matters we have a big problem. If they didn't say these things and then again these people have lied in a way not only harmed me but wasted public services as their support made Mareuge-Lejeune to increase her attacks and campaign against me.

Paragraph 47 2.c. “My other former employer claims that the respondents have been unable to obtain a Parental Order until she talked to their social workers and, in essence, smeared my name to help them. I would like the respondents to confirm, deny and explain the circumstances around these events”. Yes, I did want to know if and why Ms Mareuge-Lejeune helped people whom she says shouldn't have obtained parental orders without her help.

d. Para.2.d. “The respondents were contacted for the first time by my other former employer when I brought a claim against them nearly two years ago. The respondent shared my confidential information and documents with these people. They gave a defamatory letter that made allegations against me. It is undated. I would like them to explain the circumstances surrounding the events.” Yes, they had not confirmed that they had even written that letter at that time.

Paragraph 48 'This is not information which the claimant is lacking in order to make her allegation against the respondents. She complains that the respondents have not put in a full defence stating which of her allegations they admit and which they deny. She seeks to find out their case but already has the information available which forms the basis of her allegations. It is hearsay information which she has gleaned from the other Tribunal proceedings against Mrs Griffiths and which has led her to make a claim against these respondents.' It is clear that I did not have this information and that is the reason I am asking those questions. And the judge knew at the hearing on 27th of November that it was the first time Mr DE confirmed he had indeed given that letter to her. As to the 'hearsay' the letter itself could have been a forgery. Mareuge-Lejeune kept making allegations over three and half years now, are they all going to be dismissed as 'hearsay'? So could the former employers go around behaving in this way and they all get written in judgments, but the employees cannot even ask questions to confirm about these things. So in effect two sets of employers are allowed to mock the tribunal and myself but it's all ok? And why wouldn't they answer the claim and the questions? They had also refused to give the information when I asked for a subject access request. So does the judge mean that employers can get together write and say anything about former employers on separate claims but employees have nothing to do about it?

Paragraph 49. 'The claimant alleges in FBPs para.4 that additional information was provided after her complaint to the ICO and dates these matters to spring and early summer of 2019.' I said they sent a few payslips and a copy of the contract and had not answered any questions. Sending me copies of the payslips is a mockery of the Subject Access Request when I was asking if and how Mareuge-Lejeune had contacted them and if they had written that letter.

Paragraph 51' It is argued by the respondent that in reality the claimant knew everything by way of the October 2018 letter that they had communicated to Mrs Griffiths and that there was nothing of substance further that she found out through the reconsideration application.' No, that letter does not say they 'dismissed' me for reporting them. No, they had not even confirmed having written it. They had said they had ended my contract for not travelling with them and refused to answer questions. The first time I was sure Lejeune was indeed in touch with them was 1st of November 2019 and I did bring a claim against them soon after.

Paragraph 59. 'That should be set against the public interest in discrimination and victimisation claims being fairly and openly adjudicated upon and the clear prejudice to the claimant if she is unable to pursue her claims. This prejudice is tempered by the apparent improbability of the respondents having acted on grounds of the nature of the litigation against Mrs Griffiths when such personal and disruptive allegations had been made by the claimant about them.' I explained why her conclusions are wrong so won't repeat it. In this sentence she is simply saying I deserved to be victimised because I called NSPCC. This judge had accepted my claims on 27th of November 2020 but Mr DE didn't want to stay to listen to the judgment. I believe after that he made complaints about the judge. Also this judge worked with Mareuge-Lejeune's barrister. Apart from the judge and their barrister working together, the Judge's contact details were published online. Mareuge-Lejeune complained about the solicitors who are representing them at the moment when she had that hearing at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I believe this judge changed her mind to help her colleague as I had a preliminary hearing on 10th of June with them. If she had accepted this claim they couldn't have struck out my claim against Mareuge-Lejeune and her husband. And of course she has been mobilising everyone against me by saying her high paid job is jeopardised and by using Mr BC and DE's child abuse matter because it has been dismissed. She is trying to use this matter to discredit me and make me unworthy of rights despite both set of employers' long list of dishonesties and fraud.

The Judge thinks allegations of child abuse are personal and disruptive to adults. I am sure they always will be and no child abuser would be happy about being reported. Are we all supposed to ignore child abuse because the poor perpetrator finds the allegations too personal and disruptive? It is obvious that judge's priority is the adult, not the child. I have been demonised and attacked so much by the professionals and by these so called employers all these years for making one phone call to an organisation that made the decision to tell the Police.

The social workers who spoke to Mareuge-Lejeune while ignoring me confirmed that the Local authority had failed to do a good investigation. This local authority and the local Police are notorious for child deaths. They are known for their negligence. They lied and didn't investigate the matters and now are demonising me for not having proved the child abuse. If I had the Police powers I might have. My job at most was to report suspicion. It was a heart wrenching situation and I did my best. I do not regret it. It is the authorities and people who helped a perpetrator who need to be ashamed of themselves. All evidence was ignored, I became the target in this which hunt while the perpetrator hid behind others and were afforded the pleasure of making my life hell. The least that could be done would have been to give him a psychological assessment or a test. Nothing was done. The fact is that I am being blamed for not having proven his guilt which is beyond my personal power to do.

I believe there is a serious problem with reporting child abuse cases in UK. I did work with families and children who had experienced abuse but this was the first time I raised direct sexual abuse concerns with an organisation. They threatened me with prosecution if I didn't give them the details of the children. Yet all these years later I found out there is no mandatory reporting in UK. Nearly a year ago there was an inquiry into child abuse cases in London Borough of Lambeth. I saw one short bit of the hearing in which a Police high up officer gave evidence. He was questioned about hundreds of adults who had reported abuse when they were children and who were treated horrendously by the Police once they grew up. Most of these abused children were drug addicts and had been arrested numerous times and had been victimised further by the Police. If they do this to children who reported abuse themselves I do not expect them to do much when non talking babies are the subject of abuse and an ethnic minority person whom they look down upon is the person who makes the call. They will simply ignore the evidence and fix their notes to cover themselves up.

Here is the Lambeth child abuse that went on for decades:

And there was a recent story of a 12 year old girl who tried to report abuse and was handed to predators by the Police and raped:

I also heard stories of whistleblowers whose lives were made a living hell by the local authorities. Some of those stories are so extreme I found them hard to believe in the beginning. Most of them seem to circulate on social media but I found a well known one: This brave woman was trying to express how awful this local authority was before baby Peter incident and she nearly lost her own child for it. I felt grateful that I don't have a child during this Employment Tribunal because the social workers (not local authority one) who Ms Mareuge-Lejeune proudly mentions were so illogical and bullish they would have done anything to harm me.

Mr BC and DE accused me off having a 'history of claims against former employers'. The first claim was against their friend Ms Mareuge-Lejeune and the Tribunal trimmed and changed it into a minimum wage claim. The Respondents themselves obviously used fraud whilst dealing with my wages. Even London Borough of Islington who also has a connection with all this mess owes me wages. A few weeks after this judgment came out I found out Mr DE and BC had a court case which involved a child production employee, ie a surrogate mother in another country. It was a claim they brought in order to avoid paying her medical expenses and they lost. Imagine that poor woman who carried a baby for these people having to be involved in such a demeaning claim after giving birth. I really should not be surprised about any of this after what I witnessed and heard around them. Mr DE presents himself as a needy person most of the time but at the time I found out about this claim I also found out he has another company that seems to be a big business. And they seem to be using this company expenses for hiring childcare workers but putting them on accounts for other posts.

These people also employed illegal workers and child workers. At least the illegal workers were adults but they couldn't have reported anything because it would compromise their position. As to the cash in hand child worker, it was a seventeen year old girl who went abroad with these people when I refused to travel with them. She said Mr BC was abusive, shouted at her and said horrible things to her. She said they left her with multiple babies at night and she didn't even know where they had gone with one of the children. She was still traumatised long time after leaving this employment.

These employers use the system for fraudulent purposes and don't even hide these things anymore because no one does anything. They have lied to all authorities including the Police but have been rewarded for their illegal behaviour. It is true that they attempt to tailor their lies according to the agency they are talking to but they still aren't that good. It's just that our government agencies are mostly inept and biased. They also like easy tasks that makes them look as if they are doing some work. No one really seems to care for what they were set up for. In all my dealings with many agencies the only useful one proved to be the Housing Ombudsman. It is strange but they were the ones who sorted out a long lasting antisocial behaviour problem we had in the neighbourhood. And years later, thanks to the misconduct of these employers I found out the person who committed all the disgusting and scary crimes were a Police informant who felt untouchable. Of course the Police knew their man and apparently they stopped the already lazy local authority to do anything either. And there was another informant who also committed serious crimes in the neighbourhood but luckily disappeared. I just can't believe that these people who are on public payroll create the crimes their colleagues pretend to be dealing with.

And the Police questions employees like me to intimidate them into withdrawing employment claims. They surely keep themselves busy.

And bankers like Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Ministry of Justice/Police employees like Mr DE are so influential they ward off any investigation by acting offended and want any money and future income you may earn because they act offended. They want your professional prospects ruined because they can ask their friends at the Ministry of Justice to write stuff in employment judgments. Who cares if they used fraud and lied to all these agencies? Who cares if they didn't even pay minimum wage while pretending to pay more? Not the people who are in charge. Some democracy, right? No, this is how good quality slavery is created by the Ministry of Justice for the people the current officials like.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page