You'll recall a few years back Sting and Trudie Styler's chef brought a successful action against them for sexual discrimination:
The employment tribunal had been told that staff at the couple's country estate lived in a climate of fear because Miss Styler subjected them to abuse to make her "feel royal".How did Styler take the result?
In a unanimous verdict, the tribunal members have found that Miss Martin was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her pregnancy and had been the victim of unlawful sexual discrimination.
Miss Styler described the decision as "a travesty" and announced an immediate appeal.Yes, she did. They lost that, too:
Judge Peter Clarke, chairman of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London, said he agreed with the original employment tribunal judgment - which accused Miss Styler of using "shameful conduct" and subterfuge to get rid of Miss Martin.Has Trudie accepted the now two judgements? Let's take a quick look at her interview with the Mail:
‘I was very wounded,’ she says. ‘I’m a champion of human rights. I embrace children into my life. Sexual discrimination? That’s something I don’t do. It was a travesty of justice.’Yes, the victim of the story was not the pregnant woman who was unfairly sacked, and who was then forced to go through not one but two tribunals. The real victim here is Trudie Styler, who - despite the judgement of two tribunals - can't believe that she was guilty of sexual discrimination because she "embraces children". (That's the least successful use of the "I embrace children" defence since the Gary Glitter trial, by the way.)
Trudie doesn't explain how the judgement was a "travesty" - beyond telling us that she's so good it can't possibly be true. Perhaps while she's busily championing human rights she might want to think about investigating humility, too.