Foxy,

JCU is cutting it a bit fine as they only have a week or two to launch an appeal. As for the Judge's record, this is not considered in an appeal only the legal basis.

Secondly, while the JCU's claim that they had not gagged Ridd was technically correct, that the consequence for speaking out was dismissal essentially mounted to the same thing.

Peter Ridd was "never gagged or silenced about his scientific views."

"Peter Ridd wanted his job back but James Cook University made it quite clear it was considering its options on the case decided by Judge Vasta."

Does becoming unemployed, and wanting his job back, count, Foxy ?

Joe

Peter Ridd -

1) Broke the university's code of conduct.

2) Publicly criticised the work of colleagues.

3) Told Sky News in 2017 that scientific
organisations like the Australian Institue
of Marine Science and the ARC Centre for Coral
Reef Studies could no longer be trusted.

However the judge's decision was confined to Ridd's
industrial rights in the bargaining agreement.

It's now up to JCU if they decide to pursue the
matter further.

Foxy,

I'm going to assume that you didn't read the judgement and posted a falsehood in ignorance.

While the judgement was based solely on the contractual obligations, the judge also pointed out that just about every claim that PR broke the code of conduct used to discipline PR was factually incorrect.

2) Publicly criticised the work of colleagues.

3) Told Sky News in 2017 that scientific
organisations like the Australian Institue
of Marine Science and the ARC Centre for Coral
Reef Studies could no longer be trusted.

Telling the truth is now wrong ?

Individual,

Yes and we're all going to hell - right?