The most incredible typing error ever. Fact!

We've all done it. You're in a hurry, and you press the wrong key. My most frequent error is to type an extra 'o' in the word 'would'. I don't know why. But I usually look over what I've typed and correct it. If I intend to print it on paper, I check very carefully.

However, I have never made the incredible kind of typo that Karen Stark from HR claims to have made.

In earlier posts I spoke of how Stirling University faked evidence and sent it to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to fool them into believing they investigated all of my allegations against Kathy McCabe. It showed that information that didn't exist was used to influence Eileen Schofield's decision on one of my allegations.

The document they sent includes several columns of information relating to each allegation. One column displays the decision that Mrs Schofield came to, and another column displays the facts on which the decision was based. The fact for this particular allegation was said to come from a former colleague's witness statement. However the fact did not appear in the statement. The fact displayed did not exist until more than three weeks after the decision was made, and it was a fact that supported my allegation.

Under oath at the tribunal, Miss Stark explained that this was because the new information had been clipped on to the original statement, and while she was creating the document for the tribunal, she just mistakenly took that new information to be the fact that Mrs Schofield had relied on for her decision. Already the story sounds fishy, but it's the next part of the story that is the stuff that fairy tales are made of.

Karen said that Eileen Schofield's decision was Allegation not upheld, but that she typed Allegation upheld - but considered not to be material by mistake.

Not only is it an incredible typo, but it's also an incredible coincidence that she should make that typo for the same allegation where she has typed the wrong fact. It's also an incredible coincidence that the wrong fact supported my allegation. It is also an incredible coincidence that earlier in the document it warns that this type of allegation was not considered material. It's also an incredible coincidence that no other allegation in the ten page document has a decision of Allegation upheld - but considered not to be material.

Woould you believe it?

No comments: