Is there still Rule of Law in Gibraltar? Is there corruption in the local police?
Are employees' Human Rights protected? Is there a mafia in Gibraltar?
How corrupt are the Courts in Gibraltar? Is Entain a bad employer?
- Home page
- My witness statement for the courts
- Evidence supporting my witness statement
- Failure of the first Tribunal Chairman
- Sabotage of the Tribunal transcript
- The evidence in the Tribunal transcript
- Press articles about Tribunal failings
- Corruption articles in the international press
- Entain / GVC
- Hassans law firm
- The Disciplinary Committee and LSRA
- Gibraltar Police
Page 1993 D – 1996 E: the Respondent tries to misrepresent my words as if I 99% agreed with Roni Maman to go back to the bullies. This is taken over by the Chairman in his Judgement although I had properly explained that the 99% agreement was about Mr Maman's philosophy of working together in a mature way. Then, after a short break to think, I continue with my conclusion of the meeting: I cannot go back to the bullies. So the 99% and the going back to the bullies have clearly nothing to do with each other, they are completely different points. I never said “I agree 99% with your solution”. Judge Yeats mentions this in his first appeal Judgement, that I did not accept Mr Maman's proposal. The Chairman did not accept a finding of fact from a higher Court.
Page 1997 D – 1999 G: the Chairman throws hypothetical things in the air and makes confusing assumptions about what Roni Maman's thoughts could have been, without taking on board that Mr Maman did not do a proper grievance investigation, which had heavily confused me at the time.
Page 2042 F – 2043 B: the Chairman finds that the proposal for the appeal procedure is questionable.
Page 2009 F – H: I point out that Roni Maman's proposal is unacceptable as it does no solve the problems with Camp 2. I had a very detailed explanation about why Mr Maman's proposal was not going to work in my skeleton argument, which the Chairman confirmed he had seen. He does not use it in his Judgement though.
"Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference."