thank you all again, Their letter distracted me but your replies have refocused my mind back to what is important and that is to do everything in my power to make sure my case is successful at the hearing! thank you & i shall let you all know the results of this when its all over kind regards

Thank you all so much for your advice, i really appreciate it and will take it all on board. The respondents were the ones who initiated the settlement negotiations and there response has thrown me and the way in which they have responded has confused me. I thought the way they would have approached it would have been how you have listed Steampowered. i.e compromise agreement 'no admission of liability' They are expecting me to withdraw the whistle-blowing element from the ET1 prior to reentering settlement negotiations, but if i were to do that it would leave me in a vulnerable position if settlement negotiations were not successful. They have said in the letter they will not explore settlement negotiations until the whistle-blowing element is dropped because HM treasury will not approve any settlement payment with a whistle-blowing element attached to it. They went onto say if i drop the whistle-blowing element it is likely they would receive HM treasury approval. Again thank you for your advice, i'll use the advice you have given me in moving things forward.

Thank you, i'll look into that. I'm feeling very low at the moment and all this has left me feeling incredibly fragile, i'll try and get a grip and soldier on, thanks again.

Hi all, I have a full 10 day hearing coming up for discrimination, whistle-blowing, victimization, harassment & constructive dismissal. The respondents asked me to forward a figure that i would settle for. I did this and now i have received a nasty letter from them. The respondents response is that they will only explore settlement if i drop the whistle-blowing element of the claim. This is odd as they asked me to give them a figure and now they are saying they will not explore settlement until i drop the whistle-blowing element. The respondents are the big public sector employer that has been in the press about using gagging orders in settlement agreements. I wonder if this is their new way of shutting up whistle-blowers a bit of black mail i.e drop the whisle-blowing and we might settle. Any views on the above, is this just normal game playing now that hearing isn't too far away?