Seems to me there is a lot of confused nonsense being spouted by the usual suspects about suppressing student protest at Sussex. I'm sure a lawyer will correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that in this jurisdiction an employer has a clear obligation to protect an employee>
from harassment at their place of work. The student "protest" is clearly harassment of a named individual. If one is charitable & accords the "protestors" any kind of coherent grounds for their harassment it would appear to be their understanding of Stock's beliefs. It has
already been established at an EAT that similar beliefs qualify for protection under EA 2010. If Sussex failed to act to protect Stock it would be failing in its duties. I assume students or anyone else can "protest" all they like off campus, in the middle of Brighton, wherever
they think there is an audience. They can write to the newspapers, write to their MP, write to the VC & anyone else that will listen until the cows come home. They can meet in conclave, sing protest songs, pen ballads, let off smoke flares to their heart's content. But not at the
place of work of a Sussex employee if it is intended to harass that individual. And if you want to quibble about whether it is harassment what do you think would be a suitable descriptor for a demand that someone be summarily deprived of their livelihood?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
