Brig, Stirling University's student newspaper has printed my story on page 4 of its May edition.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment