— for immediate release Oct. 25, 2024
Whistleblower Mathew Carr ‘subjected to multi-year human rights abuse,’ by one of the world’s most influential firms, he alleges
——-
Press release: Mathew Carr, a fired journalist who has been fighting an unfair dismissal/climate whistleblowing case in Britain for years, will argue next week in an appeal court that he’s been subject to human rights abuse by both the respondent Bloomberg LP, its lawyers and the UK system of employment tribunals.
Mr Carr was fired in May 2020 and immediately sought reinstatement under employment law because it’s not lawful to sack a whistleblower under the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act, which is part of employment law.
He had previously and since been arguing that Bloomberg was effectively delaying climate action by downplaying certain news in a predatory way — it was predatory because it was designed to underpin the revenue it was getting from fossil-fuel customers.
The underplayed news included:
–Stories about the importance of carbon pricing and emissions-trading markets when making technologies compete against each other to cut emissions for the lowest cost
–Stories about the importance of the carbon-budget element in the Paris climate deal. The goal in that agreement to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C effectively limits at the United Nations level the total volume of GHG emissions allowed into the world’s thin layer of atmosphere, over time.
Bloomberg is just one of many media companies not reporting the climate crisis properly, as America almost ignores the issue ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election.
Bloomberg, still in 2024, is demonising carbon markets, the most cost-efficient climate solution. See this story on “junk carbon offsets” from Oct. 24 (yesterday), which ignores the fact that the offsets were not “junk” when they were created:
Mr Carr is not the only one who thinks this:
Many others do, including Rich Gilmore, CEO at Carbon Growth Partners: see these from LinkedIn:
Mr Carr has been ordered to pay £10,000 of Bloomberg’s costs because of his decision to sue back in 2020. He’s fighting the court decision and Bloomberg’s argument that he is out of time by two minutes.
Mr Carr, mostly a self litigant, was deemed out of time even though he had not yet seen the written reasons why his ordinary unfair dismissal claims were denied and why his climate whistleblowing was thrown out.
By way of comparison, Justice Heather Williams of the Employment Appeal Tribunal delayed written reasons for her decision to throw out the whistleblowing by more than eight months.
Here are some of Mr Carr’s arguments under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights:
Article 6
In relation to Article 6 of the convention Mr Carr the applicant contends that the barring of his claims on the basis of the limitation period held to be applicable constitutes a denial of access to court for the purposes of determining his civil rights. This limitation does not pursue a legitimate aim and is disproportionate.
Article 8
The applicant relies on the time factor and alleges that their inability to pursue proceedings at the domestic level constitutes a failure on the part of the legislative framework and therefore the United Kingdom to provide practical and effective protection to their right to respect for private life.
Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8
The applicant complains that the differing rules governing limitation periods in the United Kingdom discriminates against them in respect of their right of access to court and in respect of their private life. They refer to the special nature of potential psychological damage suffered by victims of abuse (ie. suppression of memories, failure to link problems at home with events in the workplace etc., avoidance of work that repeatedly requires going over historical abuse and injustice) and he contends that there is no reasonable and objective justification for the differing time limits and deep flaws in the timing of the litigation process. Leslie STUBBINGS, J.L. and J.P. Versus the United Kingdom
There is no freedom of expression at Bloomberg News
See also Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which turned 75 years old last year. Yet many so-called leaders seem to be ignoring it, Mr Carr purports. The UK whistleblowing process breaches most of its 30 articles, he says.
“My reputation has been damaged in the most public way possible, while bad process that I argue was deliberately designed to harass me is allowed to happen repeatedly in a whistleblowing system that is helping wrongdoers cover up their bad behaviour,” Mr Carr said. “My experience as a whistleblower is one of many showcasing why the incentives in society are stacked against speaking up about wrongdoing. This ensures those making huge sums of money from the current flawed market and judicial systems — including Bloomberg, lawyers and judges — can continue doing so.”
—Some Post Office postmaster whistleblowers in the UK have been waiting 25 years for justice, with some falsely imprisoned.
—Dr Chris Day is fighting this week (Oct. 23-25) in the UK tribunal system after NHS National Health Service lawyers allegedly covered up the existence of important contracts that would have undermined the NHS’s anti-whistleblower-protecting arguments.
—Famous whistleblower Julian Assange said Oct. 1 that the UK judiciary unconsciously or consciously favours the United States side of any dispute. British judges “don’t need to be told explicitly what to do. They understand what is good for that cohort (the British establishment), and what is good for that cohort is keeping a good relationship with the United States government.”
Mr Carr contends that New York-based Bloomberg, arguably close to being state media in America, vexatiously decided to go after him for costs, even though it knew full well that he had a reasonable case after almost two years of litigation at the time of its final-cost pursuit.
The hearing will take place at the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London on October 29, 2024 at 2pm London time.
At: The Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
It is a public hearing, so any member of the public (or the press) may attend in-person to observe the hearing. Any person (a party or a member of the public) who would wish to observe the hearing remotely – rather than observing in-person – would be required to make an application (in accordance with section 8.15 of the EAT Practice Direction 2023) and such application would be considered by the Registrar or a Judge. See Annex 2 in the form which you can download below.
The hearing time estimate for Appeal from Registrar’s Order Hearings is 1.5 hours. It is a matter for the hearing Judge as to whether the hearing will go beyond this time estimate.
The judge has been swapped around at the last minute, giving them little time to get their head around his complicated case, he said. See below … and also for examples of the alleged human-rights abuse.
This from Oct. 28, one day before the hearing:
Crowther, slated judge, picture from Outer Temple website:
Previously on Friday (October 25), judge was listed as (snip from LexisNexis website) Judge Simon Auerbach:
So Judge Crowther apparently will have very limited time to to come to terms with the hundreds of pages of papers in Mr Carr’s case.
To get in touch with Mathew Carr
+44 7712 739 143 (what’s app)
mathew@carrzee.net
More information is available at CarrZee.org. Search for “Bloomberg” in the search bar at the end of each story at that site.
Context of the firing:
https://carrzee.org/2022/03/24/i-was-fired-by-bloomberg-a-week-after-saying-my-mum-had-a-moderate-collapsed-lung/
NOTES
Here are just some of the hundreds of examples of mischaracterisations and failures, according to Mr Carr:
a. Mr Carr’s surge in stories on the “top worldwide” screen — Bloomberg’s front page — became mere “news snaps” that allegedly disappeared from that screen very quickly. This is not true and if Mr Carr was such a bad reporter as needing to be fired, why was he trusted to break and write so much front-page news?
b. The data that shows Mr Carr was performing better than most of the anonymous employees picked by the Respondent was almost completely ignored (judging from the judgements).
c. The timings of many of the detriments coming immediately after Mr Carr’s climate disclosures demonstrate the reasonableness of his case, he contends, yet these 18 plus detriments were repeatedly ignored by the tribunals.
d. The failure of the Respondent to disclose key documents that would have worked to erode its “false case” against Mr Carr. That false case centered about his competence to do the job.
e. Bloomberg claimed the people firing Mr Carr didn’t know about Mr Carr’s whistleblowing yet he had almost a year before used Bloomberg’s whistleblower service run by outside supplier Navex. Bloomberg renamed Mr Carr’s whistleblowing a “grievance” to dodge the whistleblowing laws and begin about six years of lawfare.
FORM TO REMOTE INTO THE HEARING IS ON PAGE 78 HERE
**It’s a completely complicated palava … just to listen to a hearing (Mr Carr says). Makes you wonder what they are covering up, right? he asks. Free speech, perhaps?
(By Mathew Carr; updated Oct. 26, 27, 28 … Adds changing judge, earlier free speech, clearer explanation of what Mr Carr blew the whistle about, UN convention.)
[…] Climate whistleblower’s human rights ‘abused by Bloomberg LP and UK judiciary’ (4) […]
[…] Climate whistleblower’s human rights ‘abused by Bloomberg LP and UK judiciary’ (4) […]