Female marketing manager wins sexism harassment tribunal after boss said Jeremy Clarkson’s column about Meghan Markle being ‘paraded naked through the streets’ was ‘unoffensive’

A female marketing manager has won a harassment case after her ‘old school’ boss ‘endorsed’ Jeremy Clarkson‘s controversial Game of Thrones tweet about parading Meghan Markle naked through the streets in shame.

Helen Selkin complained when sales director Charles Bedforth stated that he ‘did not see anything wrong with’ the degrading comments the former Top Gear presenter made about the Duchess of Sussex.

In 2022 TV presenter Clarkson wrote a column stating his desire to see Markle ‘made to parade naked through the streets’ in reference to the iconic ‘Shame!’ scene in Game of Thrones.

An employment tribunal heard that shortly after the Clarkson controversy Mr Bedforth ‘endorsed’ it and said he did not see anything offensive about the tweet.

Mrs Selkin – who worked with him for an agricultural machinery firm and has since taken a selfie with Clarkson – said she thought the TV star’s comment was ‘sexist and dreadful’.

Separately, the tribunal found she was also harassed when the company’s managing director James Woolway called her a ‘witch’ that should be left to ‘stirring the cauldron’ and told her on one occasion ‘don’t spend too much, you’re not shopping for a dress’.

Mrs Selkin was fired from her job after being branded a ‘man-hater’ by a disgruntled male developer. The colleagues had been discussing the Roe v Wade ruling in America when she suggested all men should undergo a vasectomy.

She is now in line for compensation after successfully suing Lincolnshire-based Opico.

Marketing manager Helen Selkin has won a harassment case after her ‘old school’ boss ‘endorsed’ Jeremy Clarkson’s controversial Game of Thrones tweet about parading Meghan Markle naked through the streets in shame. Pictured: A selfie Mrs Selkin took with Clarkson

Sales director Charles Bedforth stated that he ‘did not see anything wrong with’ the degrading comments made by Clarkson

The tribunal in Nottingham was told Mrs Selkin began working for the company in April 2017 and that it was a ‘male-dominated industry’.

Employment Judge Elizabeth Heap found that Opico ‘is not a progressive organisation’ as senior male directors were ‘traditional’ – but ‘not in the right sense of the word’.

Judge Heap said it started at the top, with Mr Woolway, as his ‘traditional’ values are reminiscent of a fortunately bygone era and are suggestive of a demeaning attitude towards women’.

Mrs Selkin has a ‘strong and forceful personality’ and there had been ‘niggles’ during her employment, it was heard.

In December 2020 Mr Woolway told another male colleague ‘just leave the Witches to stirring the cauldron and give them the ingredients they need’ in reference to Mrs Selkin and another woman.

Judge Heap said Mr Woolway did not mean to cause offence with the comment because he had ‘a lack of awareness that what does not offend him could not offend anyone else’.

The comment was found to amount to harassment because ‘the nature of the analogy was of a woman causing trouble or mischief’ and it was ‘degrading and humiliating’.

In Spring 2021 and in front of two male colleagues, Mr Woolway told Mrs Selkin: ‘As long as you don’t spend too much, you’re not shopping for a dress.’

Managing director James Woolway was also found to have harassed Helen Selkin by calling her a ‘witch’ that should be left to ‘stirring the cauldron’ and told her on one occasion ‘don’t spend too much, you’re not shopping for a dress’

Judge Heap said of the remark: ‘While Mr Woolway may well have thought that he was being amusing to his wider audience, the comment was again highly inappropriate and we can see why [Mrs Selkin] was offended by it.

‘It was another example of Mr Woolway’s ‘traditional’ views.

‘Again, it is demonstrative of a lack of a progressive views on Mr Woolway’s part which is particularly concerning given his position as managing director.

‘That type of comment to a female subordinate in a management position in front of male colleagues was demeaning.’

In January 2023, before an event show, Mr Bedforth made a ‘crass’ comment to Mrs Selkin that he did not think Clarkson’s tweet about Markle was offensive.

Judge Heap found he did not mean to cause offence ‘but this was again a lack of understanding and being of a clumsy and ‘old school’ mindset’.

The judge said it amounted to harassment. 

‘Although it was crass and there was no reason to bring it up – on the basis of the evidence before us there did not appear to be any context to it – we accept for the same reasons as already given that he did not say it with the purpose or intention of causing offence. 

‘However, we accept that it did create an offensive environment for the Claimant and that was obvious from her reaction to what had been said and her evidence before us. 

‘The Tweet referred to a woman being paraded naked through the streets in a clearly offensive way related to the Duchess of Sussex and Mr Bedforth was endorsing that there was nothing wrong with that. 

‘We are therefore satisfied that this was an act that amounted to harassment relating to the protected characteristic of sex.’

Judge Heap also found that Mr Bedforth harassed Mrs Selkin by making a ‘boyfriend’ joke and when he made an ‘upsetting’ comment about her parents.

Employment Judge Elizabeth Heap found that Opico ‘is not a progressive organisation’ as senior male directors were ‘traditional’ – but ‘not in the right sense of the word’. Pictured: Opico’s offices in Lincolnshire

In finding harassment to be proven, Judge Heap said: ‘Most of those acts were perpetrated by the same two senior people within the [company].

‘All of them also arose in the context of an environment which is ‘traditional’ but as we have already referenced not in the right sense of the word.

‘Whilst we do not go so far as to label the [company] as an ‘Old Boys Club’ as [Mrs Selkin] contends, it is not a progressive organisation.

‘The mindset of both Mr Woolway and Mr Bedforth is that ‘jokes’ which demean women are not something to be considered offensive and that mindset has clearly dissipated over others within the workforce.’

Judge Heap added: ‘Both Mr Woolway and Mr Bedforth – who have respectively described each other as ‘traditional’ and ‘old school’ – demonstrated little insight in respect of both their actions… and during their evidence as to how ‘traditional views’ may not be acceptable in the world which we now live in.

‘Tradition is on occasion to be applauded but not at the expense of progression and inclusion and unfortunately some conduct which was not only tolerated at the [company] fell into the latter category.’

Judge Heap also said Mrs Selkin was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed after she was fired for allegedly ‘imposing’ anti-men views.

Her sacking came after an office discussion in March 2023 about male vasectomies, following the Roe v Wade ruling in America, in which she suggested all men should undergo one.

After a male colleague reported her, the tribunal heard a flawed investigation was carried out and Mr Woolway sacked her for ‘imposing’ her views.

In his complaint, the male colleague stated how Mrs Selkin had said openly in the office that ‘all Men should be forced to have a sterilisation (Vasectomy) and only a woman is allowed to have a man’s vasectomy reversed with her permission and only selected men can add sperm to a sperm bank where all women can pick from…

‘She said making men have a vasectomy would stop abortion from the source. When a counter view was given, Helen started getting very defensive and aggressive saying “that’s different” and “men need women, women don’t need men2. 

‘Helen also has a poster on her wall with these views. When Helen was asked to remove the poster from her office, she physically ripped the poster off the board and was mumbling. I did not hear all the words except for “Pathetic”. 

‘I feel Helen’s Misandrist behaviour is grossly unacceptable I don’t feel comfortable working in the same environment with a person with such extreme views.’ 

Judge Heap said that no consideration had been given to the fact that those who were speaking to Mrs Selkin at the time said it was ‘simply a conversation or debate’. One had called it ‘banter’.

Mrs Selkin’s compensation will be revealed at a later date.