Some of you may have read my entry in my Alcohol Diary on 21 October when I imagined what David Black would do when he receives my questions. He decides he needs a little more help from Eric. There is some strong language from the start of this post; but thankfully, no nudity...
David: About those questions that Allan asked me, Eric. I know that I need to steer clear of saying anything that might upset Kathy, but I'm just not sure how I'm going to be able to do that. I could be snookered here. I could certainly benefit from your advice.
Eric doesn't respond. He doesn't even look at David. He is staring intently at his computer screen. He hasn't blinked for over five minutes. His coffee mug is at his lips, but he isn't even drinking it. Obviously something is seriously wrong.
David: Did you hear me, Eric? I need your advice. Allan has an audio recording of me.
Eric: I'm fucked! I'm well and truly fucked! You probably look at me and think there's nobody less fuckable; but I'm fucked. I just fucking know it. I'm absolutely fucked!
David: What's wrong, Eric? This isn't like you.
Eric: It's Allan. He's sent questions for me too. And I can guess why. He's been fucking recording all sorts of conversations. And I'm fucking sure he's recorded me too. I should have known that's what he was fucking up to.
David: What do you think he recorded?
Eric: That's the fucking problem. I don't fucking know! He came in here one day just before he was suspended, and we were talking for fucking ages. I had a feeling that he was up to some-fucking-thing.
David: What did you talk about for ages?
Eric: Mostly Kathy and stuff. That's the fucking problem. It was more than a year and a half ago. I can't remember what the fuck I said.
David: Did you say anything that would upset Kathy if she heard it?
Eric: Probably. I can't remember. But I know we talked about some of the stuff he's asking me about in these fucking questions.
David: That's what I came to see you about. He's recorded me too.
Eric: Selina told me he recorded her too. She asked me for some advice, but I didn't know what to fucking tell her. Poor lass is as anxious and nervous as fuck over it all. She says he's fucking recorded Una too. Fuck knows how much he's been recording. How much can you record on these new fucking devices?
David: I think the one Allan got could probably record for a whole day, no bother.
Eric: Fuck me gently! Fuck knows what he's got on us.
David: Probably everything that was said in the tea room as well.
Eric: Oh fuck!
David: He might even have left it recording when he wasn't there.
Eric: Oh fuck me gently! Fuck knows how I can answer these fucking questions. He's probably going to call me as a fucking witness at the tribunal hearing. And then there's fucking Kathy! Oh fuck me!
David: So do you think you'll be able to help me with this, Eric?
Eric: Oh fuck, I've just remembered something else. When I was interviewed for the fucking grievances, I laid it on thick. I think I came out with some crap like 'Kathy has a wonderful way of managing the team that makes everybody, apart from Allan, love her'. I'm pretty sure that when I was fucking talking to Allan that day, I told him how fucking shit she was as a manager. I could swear I told him how she came out as the worst manager that had ever attended the course she went on. Oh fuck me, she won't like that; not one fucking bit. Oh fuck! Oh fuck! Oh fuck!
David: So do you think you'll be able to help me with this, Eric?
Eric: But at the time he was fucking speaking to me, I was fucking sure he hadn't seen my statement for the grievance investigation. So what the fuck could have made him suspect that I didn't just tell the truth? Did I mention to any other fucker at the time?
David: Tell you what Eric, I can see you're busy. I'll maybe just have a word with my mum about what I should do with this.
Eric: David, can you remember who the fuck was interviewed about the same time as me? I might have fucking said something to them, and maybe they fucking blabbed.
David: It was a long time ago, Eric. Nobody will ever remember that far back. Best forgotten, eh?
To be fucking continued...
Saturday
When Mark Meets Selina
Those of you who read my Alcohol Diary will know that I'm currently writing to Stirling University's lawyer, Alun Thomas, in order to obtain additional information from them with regard to their defense against the claim I brought to the Employment Tribunal.
The information I'm seeking will be the answers to questions from certain witnesses, and I've been trying to imagine how the witnesses may react to receiving my questions. Naturally, one would expect that good, law abiding citizens would be only too happy to assist with the smooth course of justice, but how will the lying bastards at Stirling University react? Could it go something like this...?
Mark: Thanks for popping in Selina, this shouldn't take long. I know how very busy you are with your work. Can I introduce you to Alun Thomas; he's the university's lawyer. Alun, this is Selina Gibb. Selina is a vital cog in the university's wheel. Selina, do you remember a chap who used to work in your team who behaved inappropriately with you women?
Selina: You mean Allan?
Mark: Yes, terrible chap, if I remember rightly. Am I correct in saying that he raped half the women in your team?
Alun: There were no complaints of rape, Mark.
Mark: Still, a terrible chap all the same. I'm sure he would have raped them, given half a chance. Just as well I got shot of the bastard before he did then. Make a note of that, Alun, I should certainly bring that to the attention of the tribunal members.
Alun: Noted.
Mark: Now Selina, this terrible chap, Allan, is up to some mischief. He's gone and produced this fake audio file that he falsely claims demonstrates that you were joking with him shortly after the first time he raped you.
Alun: No, Mark. He didn't rape her. he scared her by behaving wildly, his face going red, spitting and that type of thing. Naturally, it made her nervous and anxious to be around him.
Mark: Now Selina, I've listened to this recording, and, to be perfectly honest, it sounds nothing like you. He has obviously employed some actress; one that wasn't nervous and anxious, to play your part in a fake conversation he has made up. And he has forced the actress to joke with him. He is obviously desperately trying to taint your character and to present you as a liar. Have a listen, and tell me if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure you will agree with me...
Now that I've heard it again, Selina, I'm not even sure that the actress is of British origin. He's obviously hired a very cheap foreign actress who sounds nothing like you. It wouldn't surprise me if he raped her afterwards. Alun, make a note of that. When you cross examine him, ask him if he raped the actress. He'll probably deny it. His sort usually do. But at least it will be out in the open.
So, I'm sorry to put you to this trouble, Selina, but although it is obviously not you on the recording, I just need you to please confirm that to Alun. And then we can all go back to being a very happy team again, and we can forget all about that dreadful, dreadful man. Please, Selina. Please?
Selina: If I said it's not me, would I have to go to court and say under oath that it's not me?
Mark: I can absolutely assure you Selina that we do not want you to appear in court. You are far more valuable to us here, doing the work that you busily do for the university. What on earth would we do if there was an emergency, only to find that you couldn't deal with it because you were in court? No, Selina, I promise you we do not want you anywhere near the court. Isn't that true, Alun?
Alun: I assure you Selina, that we will not be calling you as a witness.
Selina: So there's no way I would have to repeat this in court?
Mark: Like I said, Selina. We do not want you in court. We need you right here.
Selina: But couldn't the tribunal force me to appear, even if you don't want me to be there?
Mark: I feel sure that, once we have explained to the tribunal how important you are to the running of the university, they will understand that it's not necessary for you to attend. We'll just tell them that you said it wasn't you in the recording.
Alun: It's possible the tribunal may require you to appear as a witness, Selina.
Selina: Then I'm sorry, but it is me on the recording.
Mark: How can you be so sure, Selina? Here, listen to it again. Turn the volume down a bit. Listen from over there. I'm sure you don't really think I'm wrong. Take your time. Don't make any harsh decisions that you may later regret.
Selina: I'm sorry, but it is me.
Mark: That's okay, Selina. Not to worry. That's not a problem. I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this. I expect you just temporarily forgot that you were nervous and anxious around him. That happens to me all the time. Yes, that's what happened, isn't it, Selina. You just forgot. Please say that's what happened Selina. You just forgot, didn't you.
Selina: I'm sorry, Mark. I wasn't nervous and anxious. I just made that up.
Mark: No, Selina. You don't know what you're saying. You don't look very well. Why don't you go home; come back tomorrow if you're feeling better and you remember that you just forgot. I'll understand. We'll have a good laugh about it, I bet.
Selina: There's no point. I lied. I wasn't nervous and anxious, because he hadn't made me nervous and anxious.
Mark: Well this isn't my fault. I genuinely believed you. My investigators were absolutely convinced.
Mark phones the investigators, and asks them to join the meeting.
Mark: Selina has just told me she lied in her statement about being nervous and anxious.
Graham: You don't look well, Selina. Maybe you should go home until you feel better and remember that you were anxious and nervous.
Mark: I've already tried that.
Gail: I told you she was lying, Graham. I told you they were all lying. It was obvious!
Mark: Is that true, Graham?
Graham: Wait a minute. Don't try and pin this on me, Mark. I was only following your instructions.
Mark: What instructions? I told you I wanted a fair and thorough investigation. If you have any written instructions that are different, I would like to see them please. This is terrible. An innocent man has lost his job because of your incompetence and dishonesty. I will have to reinstate him right away; it's the least I can do after all you've done to him. I'm shocked. I'm very shocked! Obviously, I'm blameless, but I'm really shocked.
Mark: Can you all see just how shocked I am by this? There's no way I could possibly look more shocked. You are watching maximum shock!
Alun: Erm... Allan has also given me questions for you, Mark; and you Gail; and you too Graham.
The information I'm seeking will be the answers to questions from certain witnesses, and I've been trying to imagine how the witnesses may react to receiving my questions. Naturally, one would expect that good, law abiding citizens would be only too happy to assist with the smooth course of justice, but how will the lying bastards at Stirling University react? Could it go something like this...?
Mark: Thanks for popping in Selina, this shouldn't take long. I know how very busy you are with your work. Can I introduce you to Alun Thomas; he's the university's lawyer. Alun, this is Selina Gibb. Selina is a vital cog in the university's wheel. Selina, do you remember a chap who used to work in your team who behaved inappropriately with you women?
Selina: You mean Allan?
Mark: Yes, terrible chap, if I remember rightly. Am I correct in saying that he raped half the women in your team?
Alun: There were no complaints of rape, Mark.
Mark: Still, a terrible chap all the same. I'm sure he would have raped them, given half a chance. Just as well I got shot of the bastard before he did then. Make a note of that, Alun, I should certainly bring that to the attention of the tribunal members.
Alun: Noted.
Mark: Now Selina, this terrible chap, Allan, is up to some mischief. He's gone and produced this fake audio file that he falsely claims demonstrates that you were joking with him shortly after the first time he raped you.
Alun: No, Mark. He didn't rape her. he scared her by behaving wildly, his face going red, spitting and that type of thing. Naturally, it made her nervous and anxious to be around him.
Mark: Now Selina, I've listened to this recording, and, to be perfectly honest, it sounds nothing like you. He has obviously employed some actress; one that wasn't nervous and anxious, to play your part in a fake conversation he has made up. And he has forced the actress to joke with him. He is obviously desperately trying to taint your character and to present you as a liar. Have a listen, and tell me if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure you will agree with me...
Now that I've heard it again, Selina, I'm not even sure that the actress is of British origin. He's obviously hired a very cheap foreign actress who sounds nothing like you. It wouldn't surprise me if he raped her afterwards. Alun, make a note of that. When you cross examine him, ask him if he raped the actress. He'll probably deny it. His sort usually do. But at least it will be out in the open.
So, I'm sorry to put you to this trouble, Selina, but although it is obviously not you on the recording, I just need you to please confirm that to Alun. And then we can all go back to being a very happy team again, and we can forget all about that dreadful, dreadful man. Please, Selina. Please?
Selina: If I said it's not me, would I have to go to court and say under oath that it's not me?
Mark: I can absolutely assure you Selina that we do not want you to appear in court. You are far more valuable to us here, doing the work that you busily do for the university. What on earth would we do if there was an emergency, only to find that you couldn't deal with it because you were in court? No, Selina, I promise you we do not want you anywhere near the court. Isn't that true, Alun?
Alun: I assure you Selina, that we will not be calling you as a witness.
Selina: So there's no way I would have to repeat this in court?
Mark: Like I said, Selina. We do not want you in court. We need you right here.
Selina: But couldn't the tribunal force me to appear, even if you don't want me to be there?
Mark: I feel sure that, once we have explained to the tribunal how important you are to the running of the university, they will understand that it's not necessary for you to attend. We'll just tell them that you said it wasn't you in the recording.
Alun: It's possible the tribunal may require you to appear as a witness, Selina.
Selina: Then I'm sorry, but it is me on the recording.
Mark: How can you be so sure, Selina? Here, listen to it again. Turn the volume down a bit. Listen from over there. I'm sure you don't really think I'm wrong. Take your time. Don't make any harsh decisions that you may later regret.
Selina: I'm sorry, but it is me.
Mark: That's okay, Selina. Not to worry. That's not a problem. I'm sure there's a simple explanation for this. I expect you just temporarily forgot that you were nervous and anxious around him. That happens to me all the time. Yes, that's what happened, isn't it, Selina. You just forgot. Please say that's what happened Selina. You just forgot, didn't you.
Selina: I'm sorry, Mark. I wasn't nervous and anxious. I just made that up.
Mark: No, Selina. You don't know what you're saying. You don't look very well. Why don't you go home; come back tomorrow if you're feeling better and you remember that you just forgot. I'll understand. We'll have a good laugh about it, I bet.
Selina: There's no point. I lied. I wasn't nervous and anxious, because he hadn't made me nervous and anxious.
Mark: Well this isn't my fault. I genuinely believed you. My investigators were absolutely convinced.
Mark phones the investigators, and asks them to join the meeting.
Mark: Selina has just told me she lied in her statement about being nervous and anxious.
Graham: You don't look well, Selina. Maybe you should go home until you feel better and remember that you were anxious and nervous.
Mark: I've already tried that.
Gail: I told you she was lying, Graham. I told you they were all lying. It was obvious!
Mark: Is that true, Graham?
Graham: Wait a minute. Don't try and pin this on me, Mark. I was only following your instructions.
Mark: What instructions? I told you I wanted a fair and thorough investigation. If you have any written instructions that are different, I would like to see them please. This is terrible. An innocent man has lost his job because of your incompetence and dishonesty. I will have to reinstate him right away; it's the least I can do after all you've done to him. I'm shocked. I'm very shocked! Obviously, I'm blameless, but I'm really shocked.
Mark: Can you all see just how shocked I am by this? There's no way I could possibly look more shocked. You are watching maximum shock!
Alun: Erm... Allan has also given me questions for you, Mark; and you Gail; and you too Graham.
Friday
Suggestions for Kevin Clarke's Temporary Replacement
Kevin Clarke, Kepphill, Arnprior, By Kippen, FK8 3EW
Kevin Clarke is set to retire on 31 March 2012 from his position of University Secretary for University of Stirling. May I respectfully suggest that he leave right now.
Of course, that will mean finding a temporary replacement of at least equal competence to fill the position until a permanent replacement can be found.
May I please ask for your suggestions. You can be as anonymous as you like. But please remember your suggestion must have competence equal to or greater than that of Mr Clarke. I will take a very dim view of any suggestions that do not meet the basic requirement, and they will not be added to the suggestion list below.
The temporary replacement must not cost any more than Mr Clarke's estimated £150,000 per year salary.
You can either post your suggestions in a comment, or email me at: bullyingatstirlinguniversity@gmail.com
Suggestions:
1 The space that he normally takes up.
2 The cat that the woman put in the bin.
3 The woman that put the cat in the bin.
4 The bin.
5 Eileen Schofield.
6 Eileen MacDonald.
7 A little turd.
8 "Professor" David Donaldson
Thursday
Has Anyone Ever Been Literally Laughed Out Of Court?
If not, then the University of Stirling could well be first!
Well done, Kevin Clarke!
I might just turn up at his leaving do.
To be continued...
Well done, Kevin Clarke!
I might just turn up at his leaving do.
To be continued...
Wednesday
Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week 2011: October 16-22
by David Yamada
“Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week,” an annual observance sponsored by the Workplace Bullying Institute, runs from October 16 through 22. It is an important opportunity for supporters of the workplace anti-bullying movement to educate the public and rally others to the cause.
In the U.S., this movement is reaching the point where workplace bullying is a recognized phenomenon. Although there always are new audiences who haven’t named or labeled this hurtful and destructive behavior, these days we’re having to explain ourselves a little less than before. Within wider circles, the term “workplace bullying” is used and understood. Our educational work is far from over — the need will endure — but we’re seeing progress in terms of public comprehension.
For today, I want to center our attention on action. Toward that end, I’m re-posting my article “Ten ways to stop workplace bullying,” from December 2010:
Ten ways to stop workplace bullying
When people talk to me about workplace bullying, they often ask, what can I do to help? The following list is hardly exhaustive, but it’s a starting place:
1. Don’t — Don’t be a workplace bully. It starts with each of us.
2. Stand up — Stand up for someone who is being bullied. Silence equals permission.
3. Support — Similarly, support friends, colleagues, and family members who are experiencing bullying at work. Validate their concerns and, where appropriate, guide them to coaching, counseling, and legal assistance. (For some resources, go here.)
4. Ask — Ask your employer to educate employees about workplace bullying and to include an anti-bullying policy in the employee handbook.
5. Post — If you read an article on workplace bullying, post a comment to it online, voicing your support for taking this problem seriously. Help to generate momentum for the anti-bullying movement.
6. Talk — Yes, just talk about it with others. Without making a pest of yourself to your friends, family, and associates, discuss bullying as part of the workplace experience for many employees.
7. Law reform — Support anti-bullying legislation. For readers in the U.S., get active in the grassroots campaign to enact the Healthy Workplace Bill in states around the nation (link here). (Full disclosure: I’m the author of the Healthy Workplace Bill, so I do have an interest in seeing it enacted!)
8. Unions — If you are a member of a union, lobby your union leaders to educate members about workplace bullying and to negotiate an abusive supervision clause in the collective bargaining agreement, as discussed here.
9. Faith — If you are a member of a church, synagogue, or mosque, encourage your congregational leaders and fellow members to include workplace bullying among their social action concerns.
10. Connect — We must connect workplace bullying to other forms of interpersonal abuse, such as school bullying, cyber bullying, and domestic abuse. There are many unfortunate similarities between them, and helping others to understand this will serve as a powerful consciousness raising mechanism.
Words of caution
Some of these actions carry personal risks. There is something very threatening about this topic to certain individuals and organizations. Furthermore, when someone is suffering due to workplace bullying, they may be in a difficult place psychologically. Thus, please consider:
1. Those who stand up for bullying targets may find themselves next on the firing line. This is a very real possibility.
2. A bad employer may consider you a troublemaker simply for asking that the organization oppose these behaviors.
3. Posting a comment online about workplace bullying may lead to some people to ridicule your concerns.
4. Providing homebrewed psychological counseling or legal advice is not only unwise, but also illegal if you are not licensed to provide such assistance.
Monday
Eileen MacDonald - The Power of Gossip
Eileen MacDonald, 53 Castle Rd, Stirling, FK9 5JE
The person I fear most at the forthcoming Employment Tribunal hearing is Eileen MacDonald. Eileen seems to have some magical or hypnotic ability to persuade people that she is somehow the victim, when in fact she is the perpetrator. That alone would be an extraordinary ability, but she somehow manages to do it, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. It's almost as though she is able to manipulate the part of the brain that normally processes facts, so that it can only process and consider emotion. And she has managed to do this with so many people, that I fear that she could do it with the members of the tribunal. I'm the only person I know of that her special powers don't work on. It's as though my fact processor refuses to be sidetracked my emotion. No amount of emotion will make my brain think that two plus two is anything other than four. I'm hard wired to think logically, and I can only hope that the tribunal members are too.
Here are the facts; Eileen is a compulsive liar who was jealous of me. She used her powers of gossip to persuade others to think badly of me. It appears that people believed whatever she said, including our manager, Kathy McCabe. Eileen told Kathy another whopper, and although Kathy believed it, she asked Eileen to put it in writing, so that she could hit me right between the eyes with it. I replied to Kathy with the facts. Kathy didn't like the facts, so she cancelled the meeting she had arranged with Eileen and me. I thought it was well overdue for Eileen to face the facts, so I lodged a grievance against her. At the same time, I lodged a grievance against Kathy, because she should not have cancelled that meeting. Instead she should have done what she was paid to do, and manage a very difficult team member that she had recruited. That is a fact too.
Kathy refused to handle my grievance against Eileen, so she passed it on to Peter Kemp. Peter didn't handle my grievance either. Apparently, Eileen emailed Peter because she was finding her situation very stressful.
What seems to have happened is that the university's responsibility to handle my grievance within a reasonable time, was put to one side while all and sundry provided emotional support for Eileen. As a result, the facts of the matter were all ignored, and everybody's energy was used to paint me as the baddie who had upset a pregnant colleague. The fact that Eileen had got herself in this mess by gossiping about me, seems to have got lost somewhere among the emotional camouflage.
Below is an email Eileen sent to Kathy about her situation. This was about seven months after I lodged my grievance. While all the King's horses and all the King's men were running around providing more and more support for Eileen, nobody was giving a damn about the fact that I was Eileen's victim. I lodged those grievances just a few weeks after a five week period of sick leave due to stress.
In an extraordinary set of circumstances, my manager whom I had a grievance against, went to visit Eileen, whom I also had a grievance against, at her home to discuss those grievances I had against them. You couldn't make this stuff up!
In the end, Eileen tells another pack lies, Mark Toole who also ignored my grievance against Eileen says he believes Eileen's malicious complaint because he cannot think of any reason why she should lie. He doesn't bother looking at the evidence, or try to explain how it could possibly be true. He will have to explain to the tribunal how it could be more likely to be true than false. That will be impossible!
I find it quite extraordinary that so many people should wish to provide support for someone who would make up malicious lies in an attempt to deprive someone of their career. One of the strangest things is that I had shown Lynn McDonald evidence that Eileen had lied. So why on earth would she then provide support to her to get her through the summer? Lynn was one of the people I thought I could trust.
At the tribunal, I intend to show Eileen her statement, and then I will show her the evidence that proves that she lied. Following the hearing, I will publish the proof here.
If Eileen was feeling vulnerable and exposed two and a half year ago, it is possible that she will feel even more vulnerable and exposed at the tribunal. It's almost three and a half years since I lodged my grievance. The grievance procedure says it should have been handled within three weeks. I think that soon it will finally be heard. That's unless Eileen 'Houdini' MacDonald can somehow wriggle out of it again.
Theoretically, of course, she has nothing to fear at the tribunal. According to Mr Toole, there was no reason for her to lie, and no evidence that she did lie. And also according to Mr Toole, there is just no way she could have made up such a convincing story by colluding with others, because he said it just wasn't possible in the time they had available.
For years Eileen had been making up lies about me because she was jealous of me being good at my job, and because colleagues recognised me as being good at my job. Eileen would frequently ask me to do her work for her, because she couldn't do it. And like the mug I am, I did it. And while I did it, she was off gossiping about me behind my back. Of course, when she was cowardly lying about me behind my back, I couldn't defend myself. Then when I saw her email to Kathy, I was prevented from defending myself. Then when she made her false statements, I was prevented from defending myself again. Finally, I'm going to have my chance to defend myself and to confront her with the indisputable facts. Justice has been a long time coming, but it will sure taste sweet.
Eileen MacDonald declared war on me. She is going to wish she hadn't bothered.
Stirling University Court - What's the Point of it?
Any idea?
Harry Adam is a member. He looks fairly happy about it. This may be his day off though, as he is not wearing a hat. It could be a disguise! Harry is an HR Director for Ian Williams Ltd in Bristol. Is he happy with the corrupt methods used by HR at Stirling University? What is the point of him being a member? Does he enjoy the free shortbread and alcohol? Does it look good on his CV? I'm pretty sure Harry reads my blog, so maybe he will tell us. His association with a corrupt management can't be good for Ian Williams Ltd can it? Is he too frightened to tell Gerry McCormac to get his house in order? Did he recruit Gerry? Is Gerry a mate of his? I'm sure we'd all love to know, Harry. Do they pay you to turn a blind eye? Don't you think Stirling University would benefit if you were replaced by someone who actually gave a damn?
What is Stirling University Court? Is it a gentlemen's only drinking club? Do they have special hand shakes?
How much does it cost? What does it do? Who pays for it? Who decides how much it is paid? Does it determine how much salary the members of management receive?
Are they pleased that management is corrupt? Are the members of Court required to be corrupt? Are there members of the corrupt management who are also members of Court? If so, how do the honest members of Court feel about that? Are there any honest members of Court? If so, do they wear a different uniform? How would a member of the public be able to identify an honest one? Are they allowed to say that they are honest when really they're not?
Why do the members want to be members? Is it like networking? Is it for the kudos or to boost their ego, or because they genuinely want to do good on behalf of the university? Is it for the free drinks, free shortbread and special handshakes? Is it good for business?
Do they have to swear never to repeat what is said at meetings - the real meetings? Any connection with witches' covens and animal sacrifice? Do they speak in tongues?
Have any former members of Court ever lived to tell their tale? Are you ever allowed to become a former member of Court? What about their knowledge of the special handshakes? Do they change the handshakes every time someone leaves?
Has any member of the Court ever dared to suggest that management should be investigated? What punishment would such a member have to undergo? Would their families also be punished? Is there a secure shelter for former members of Court and their families who have suggested that management should be investigated?
Do they get to wear robes and masks? Anything sexual that we should be aware of? Devil worship? Do they have special songs that they sing before meetings - the real meetings?
How do I apply for membership? Is integrity an advantage or a disadvantage to joining? Could I join part time or temporarily? What if I don't have time to attend the meetings - the unreal meetings? Would it help if I know some good handshakes and can drink a lot, especially when it's free? Would I get to wear a hat?
Can they arrange contract killings? Any connection with the Mafia or the Krays? Any political allegiances, or allegiances to the monarchy? Is the Queen a member; not an ordinary member obviously, but like a special member?
Does membership earn you a discount at Tescos? Would I get a membership card with my photo on it? Are there local laws that I would be allowed to break because I was a member? Would I receive shares in the university's solicitors? Would I receive a bonus every time Stirling University loses an Employment Tribunal case?
What are the hours like? What's the first thing I'd have to do every Monday morning? Would I have to wear my hat while I did it? Who would I have to tell once I've done it? Are there any disciplinary procedures? Is bullying allowed, especially bullying based on gender? Would it be compulsory for vegetarians to sacrifice animals? Couldn't they maybe sacrifice a lentil instead?
Am I allowed to start up an alternative Court in competition with the existing one? Would my Court be allowed to undercut them on costs, say by replacing the hats with tasteful, yet cost effective badges?
Would I be allowed to advertise my Court as A Court With A Point To It?
Harry Adam is a member. He looks fairly happy about it. This may be his day off though, as he is not wearing a hat. It could be a disguise! Harry is an HR Director for Ian Williams Ltd in Bristol. Is he happy with the corrupt methods used by HR at Stirling University? What is the point of him being a member? Does he enjoy the free shortbread and alcohol? Does it look good on his CV? I'm pretty sure Harry reads my blog, so maybe he will tell us. His association with a corrupt management can't be good for Ian Williams Ltd can it? Is he too frightened to tell Gerry McCormac to get his house in order? Did he recruit Gerry? Is Gerry a mate of his? I'm sure we'd all love to know, Harry. Do they pay you to turn a blind eye? Don't you think Stirling University would benefit if you were replaced by someone who actually gave a damn?
What is Stirling University Court? Is it a gentlemen's only drinking club? Do they have special hand shakes?
How much does it cost? What does it do? Who pays for it? Who decides how much it is paid? Does it determine how much salary the members of management receive?
Are they pleased that management is corrupt? Are the members of Court required to be corrupt? Are there members of the corrupt management who are also members of Court? If so, how do the honest members of Court feel about that? Are there any honest members of Court? If so, do they wear a different uniform? How would a member of the public be able to identify an honest one? Are they allowed to say that they are honest when really they're not?
Why do the members want to be members? Is it like networking? Is it for the kudos or to boost their ego, or because they genuinely want to do good on behalf of the university? Is it for the free drinks, free shortbread and special handshakes? Is it good for business?
Do they have to swear never to repeat what is said at meetings - the real meetings? Any connection with witches' covens and animal sacrifice? Do they speak in tongues?
Have any former members of Court ever lived to tell their tale? Are you ever allowed to become a former member of Court? What about their knowledge of the special handshakes? Do they change the handshakes every time someone leaves?
Has any member of the Court ever dared to suggest that management should be investigated? What punishment would such a member have to undergo? Would their families also be punished? Is there a secure shelter for former members of Court and their families who have suggested that management should be investigated?
Do they get to wear robes and masks? Anything sexual that we should be aware of? Devil worship? Do they have special songs that they sing before meetings - the real meetings?
How do I apply for membership? Is integrity an advantage or a disadvantage to joining? Could I join part time or temporarily? What if I don't have time to attend the meetings - the unreal meetings? Would it help if I know some good handshakes and can drink a lot, especially when it's free? Would I get to wear a hat?
Can they arrange contract killings? Any connection with the Mafia or the Krays? Any political allegiances, or allegiances to the monarchy? Is the Queen a member; not an ordinary member obviously, but like a special member?
Does membership earn you a discount at Tescos? Would I get a membership card with my photo on it? Are there local laws that I would be allowed to break because I was a member? Would I receive shares in the university's solicitors? Would I receive a bonus every time Stirling University loses an Employment Tribunal case?
What are the hours like? What's the first thing I'd have to do every Monday morning? Would I have to wear my hat while I did it? Who would I have to tell once I've done it? Are there any disciplinary procedures? Is bullying allowed, especially bullying based on gender? Would it be compulsory for vegetarians to sacrifice animals? Couldn't they maybe sacrifice a lentil instead?
Am I allowed to start up an alternative Court in competition with the existing one? Would my Court be allowed to undercut them on costs, say by replacing the hats with tasteful, yet cost effective badges?
Would I be allowed to advertise my Court as A Court With A Point To It?
Karen Stark - An Addiction to Fraud
I an earlier post, I spoke of the fraudulent document that Stirling Univesity gave to the Employment Tribunal to try to mislead them into thinking that all of my grievances against Kathy McCabe were thoroughly investigated. It would have been useful if Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield had produced this document at the time the alleged investigations took place. Not only would it have been useful; it would surely have been natural. Eileen is the university's Deputy Secretary on grade 10. She probably earns around £80,000 per year. Karen is on Grade 8, earning £44,000. This is not a pair of inexperienced juniors fresh from school. Any investigation would surely have been carefully planned and executed, and the findings would have been meticulously recorded BEFORE the outcome was decided. That's how I think most people would expect a proper investigation of their concerns to be carried out. Many of my complaints were of being bullied over several years, and the university promises that such complaints will be taken 'extremely seriously', so you would imagine there would be considerable evidence of this. Some of my complaints were of sex discrimination, and just days before I lodged my grievance, the Principal had written to every member of staff, including Eileen and Karen, emphasising how Stirling University was committed to diversity, and ensuring staff could work free from discrimination and victimisation. Karen even saw and acknowledged the protected disclosure I made to the Principal, in which I describe how senior management and HR had failed in its duty of care by allowing Kathy to continue bullying me to the serious detriment of my health.
In theory, my protected disclosure to the Principal should have raised alarm bells. The Principal should have been concerned that the university's committment, that she had just told us all about, didn't really exist, and that possibly HR and senior management had fooled her into thinking that there ever was such a committment. The question I feel the Principal should answer under oath is "Was she just innocently incompetent, or was she lying when she wrote to every single member of her staff?" I don't know if there is a third option, but she should have the opportunity to explain. I have asked for Christine Hallett to appear at the tribunal for cross examination, but the uni has objected to this. I feel that Christine should have the opportunity to clear her name, if she wants to. Christine is well known for claiming expenses, and I'm pretty sure the tribunal would fully refund any reasonable expenses she may incur in attending.
Obviously, if she was to tell the tribunal that she didn't lie to every single member of staff while being paid £250,000 a year to do so, then I would need her to explain her response to my protected disclosure. Her 'committment' seemed to have somewhat fallen short of what she had described to us all just days earlier. Could she have forgotten so quickly?
Much of what I said in my protected disclosure referred to meetings that took place with Karen Stark attending as the note taker. Most notable during these meetings was the behaviour of one Kathy McCabe. This was the Kathy that my team rarely got to see. It was the same Kathy who behaved in the same way during mediation. She acted like a spoilt little girl accused of stealing and eating all of the chocolate biscuits; screaming that it wasn't her, and blaming her innocent little brother, while the chocolate on her face and on her pretty dress told a different story. During mediation, she defiantly refused to answer any questions; she even left the room in a tantrum! At the time I felt embarrassed for Colin Sinclair; this was his friend who was behaving like a child. Ruth and I had genuinely believed him when he said he had always known her to be honest. We could never have anticipated that he would later make a statement saying that Kathy had answered my questions. Colin and Kathy are both IT managers at the uni. Graham Millar is another. All three are corrupt. David Gardiner is another IT manager at the uni. He is also close friends with Kathy and Colin. To my knowledge, he has played no part in this sham. However, he did stop speaking to me after I lodged my grievance against Kathy. The reason I mention David is because he came over to me and a friend I was with in a pub in Stirling one night, and threatened me; not physically, but with his powers of corruption. He had jumped to the wrong conclusion about me and my friend. He later apologised, blaming alcohol, but the damage was done. And he was so proud of his ability and willingness to abuse his powers that he wanted my friend to hear all about how he could ruin my career. The little shit was trying to scare me and embarrass me. He is an embarrassment to himself. I spent much of another evening with him once. Once again he was the worse for drink, and he described his hatred for his ex-wife's boyfriend, and what he planned to do if the opportunity arose. Many people will recognise David as a friendly, jovial bloke. I think it's a mask, and alcohol removes the mask to reveal the true David. With David, we probably wouldn't need lie detector tests; just alcohol!
So that's four IT managers as well as their boss, Mark Toole and former boss, Peter Kemp. Will the honest IT manager please stand up.
Back to Karen Stark, the note taker! Being involved with grievance and disciplinary procedures, I am always amazed at the accuracy of the notes taken by the note takers. The note taker is generally someone who is drawn from HR who has no prior involvement or emotional investment in the proceedings. The notes are not perfect by any means; that would be impossible without an audio recording device, but I'm genuinely surprised how accurate they are, given how much is said, the speed with which it is said, and that the topic being discussed may include terms the note taker may never have heard before. No meeting was ever stopped in order for the note taker to ask for something to be repeated, or to ask for time to catch up. It is a skill I truly wish I had. There might be little bits that are slightly wrong, but you can always tell that it was a genuine attempt to record what was said. The note taker then takes their handwritten notes, types them up, and files away both copies in electronic format. It's almost bulletproof.
There is but one exception to this, and that is when the note taker is Karen Stark. Karen was the note taker at a meeting attended by Mark Toole, Kathy, Lynn McDonald and my union representative, Dave Edgar. For most of the meeting, Kathy attacked me with malicious criticism. It was an act of desperation because at a previous meeting, Mark had told her that criticism should be delivered privately and it should be evidence based. She had agreed to that, but I could see that she was embarrassed at having basically been told by Mark that she was behaving like a bully. She was out for revenge, and that meant increasing the bullying. It was as if she had totally lost all sense of reason. The things she was criticising me about were things that any normal manager would have thanked me for. Much of this absurd criticism, and my response to it did not appear in Karen's notes.
I pointed out to Kathy that her arms were folded, and that she had told me she had complained to the uni that I had my arms folded during a meeting, and she thinks it's aggressive. She quickly unfolded her arms and said that she hadn't noticed. This didn't appear in Karen's notes.
I highlighted how she treats me differently from other team members, because when I had written to her saying that a colleague had physically assaulted me, she din't even reply. She then amazingly claimed that I had never told her of the assault. I reminded her that I had told her in an email. She denied it, just as she had denied receiving other emails from me. I offered to go and fetch the email, and asked her in advance what she would say once I showed it to her. This was because when I had shown her another email that she insisted she never received, she made up some stupid excuse about it. Dave asked her if she had known about the assault. She admitted that she had known. Dave asked her what she did about it. She said she didn't do anything about it. Dave asked her why she took no action, and she said it was because she wasn't present at the time of the assault.
Karen's notes do not refer to the fact that my manager thought that arm folding, which every single member of the team did, is so aggressive that it warranted a written complaint to the uni, while physical assault warranted no action whatsoever.
This is just a small sample of what Karen's notes do not include. This is particularly important because my grievance against Kathy included her behaviour at these meetings. But when Karen and Eileen came to investigate this complaint, the thorough investigation that I was promised turned out to be a complete sham. None of the witnesses were interviewed. There was a strange rule applied about witnesses. In order for a witness to be interviewed, their name had to appear in the documents that Kathy and I had lodged. But all of the attendees at those meetings were named in the documents, and so could have been interviewed anyway. So they were deliberately not interviewed. The entire investigation for my complaint consisted of Karen looking at her notes. Her notes didn't include anything worthy of complaint, so my complaint was rejected.
Karen's notes may originally have been accurate, but I didn't get to see them until after the grievance process. It is possible that she tampered with the notes to remove anything that was too incriminating for Kathy. I asked Karen for her handwritten version of the notes, but she said she destroyed them after she typed them up. all of the other note takers keep both versions.
Karen will have some explaining to do at the tribunal, about how these notes are so inaccurate, and why she destroyed her handwritten notes, and why the witnesses were not interviewed. This is in addition to her fraudulent investigation details document. She has produced a fraudulent document which, in turn, refers to another fraudulent document that she produced.
This amount and degree of fraud could mean a spell in the slammer for Karen, and I think she fully deserves it. Karen was already aware that her behaviour was damaging my health.
It will be interesting to see if Karen insists her notes are accurate, and that my account of these meetings that were attended by several witnesses, is false. Or will she once again claim that it was just a mistake? God knows where she is going with this, but she certainly has acquired a taste for fraud.
After the grievance decision was announced, Kevin Clarke described Karen as "highly professional". This raises very serious concerns about the University Secretary's judgement. Will he still be saying that when she's on her way to jail? Was Karen working to his instructions? Why is she still in her job where she could be doing this to more and more innocent employees? Is nobody at the uni calling for an investigation into her behaviour?
Regarding Karen's fraud, there could even be more. Watch this space...
In theory, my protected disclosure to the Principal should have raised alarm bells. The Principal should have been concerned that the university's committment, that she had just told us all about, didn't really exist, and that possibly HR and senior management had fooled her into thinking that there ever was such a committment. The question I feel the Principal should answer under oath is "Was she just innocently incompetent, or was she lying when she wrote to every single member of her staff?" I don't know if there is a third option, but she should have the opportunity to explain. I have asked for Christine Hallett to appear at the tribunal for cross examination, but the uni has objected to this. I feel that Christine should have the opportunity to clear her name, if she wants to. Christine is well known for claiming expenses, and I'm pretty sure the tribunal would fully refund any reasonable expenses she may incur in attending.
Obviously, if she was to tell the tribunal that she didn't lie to every single member of staff while being paid £250,000 a year to do so, then I would need her to explain her response to my protected disclosure. Her 'committment' seemed to have somewhat fallen short of what she had described to us all just days earlier. Could she have forgotten so quickly?
Much of what I said in my protected disclosure referred to meetings that took place with Karen Stark attending as the note taker. Most notable during these meetings was the behaviour of one Kathy McCabe. This was the Kathy that my team rarely got to see. It was the same Kathy who behaved in the same way during mediation. She acted like a spoilt little girl accused of stealing and eating all of the chocolate biscuits; screaming that it wasn't her, and blaming her innocent little brother, while the chocolate on her face and on her pretty dress told a different story. During mediation, she defiantly refused to answer any questions; she even left the room in a tantrum! At the time I felt embarrassed for Colin Sinclair; this was his friend who was behaving like a child. Ruth and I had genuinely believed him when he said he had always known her to be honest. We could never have anticipated that he would later make a statement saying that Kathy had answered my questions. Colin and Kathy are both IT managers at the uni. Graham Millar is another. All three are corrupt. David Gardiner is another IT manager at the uni. He is also close friends with Kathy and Colin. To my knowledge, he has played no part in this sham. However, he did stop speaking to me after I lodged my grievance against Kathy. The reason I mention David is because he came over to me and a friend I was with in a pub in Stirling one night, and threatened me; not physically, but with his powers of corruption. He had jumped to the wrong conclusion about me and my friend. He later apologised, blaming alcohol, but the damage was done. And he was so proud of his ability and willingness to abuse his powers that he wanted my friend to hear all about how he could ruin my career. The little shit was trying to scare me and embarrass me. He is an embarrassment to himself. I spent much of another evening with him once. Once again he was the worse for drink, and he described his hatred for his ex-wife's boyfriend, and what he planned to do if the opportunity arose. Many people will recognise David as a friendly, jovial bloke. I think it's a mask, and alcohol removes the mask to reveal the true David. With David, we probably wouldn't need lie detector tests; just alcohol!
So that's four IT managers as well as their boss, Mark Toole and former boss, Peter Kemp. Will the honest IT manager please stand up.
Back to Karen Stark, the note taker! Being involved with grievance and disciplinary procedures, I am always amazed at the accuracy of the notes taken by the note takers. The note taker is generally someone who is drawn from HR who has no prior involvement or emotional investment in the proceedings. The notes are not perfect by any means; that would be impossible without an audio recording device, but I'm genuinely surprised how accurate they are, given how much is said, the speed with which it is said, and that the topic being discussed may include terms the note taker may never have heard before. No meeting was ever stopped in order for the note taker to ask for something to be repeated, or to ask for time to catch up. It is a skill I truly wish I had. There might be little bits that are slightly wrong, but you can always tell that it was a genuine attempt to record what was said. The note taker then takes their handwritten notes, types them up, and files away both copies in electronic format. It's almost bulletproof.
There is but one exception to this, and that is when the note taker is Karen Stark. Karen was the note taker at a meeting attended by Mark Toole, Kathy, Lynn McDonald and my union representative, Dave Edgar. For most of the meeting, Kathy attacked me with malicious criticism. It was an act of desperation because at a previous meeting, Mark had told her that criticism should be delivered privately and it should be evidence based. She had agreed to that, but I could see that she was embarrassed at having basically been told by Mark that she was behaving like a bully. She was out for revenge, and that meant increasing the bullying. It was as if she had totally lost all sense of reason. The things she was criticising me about were things that any normal manager would have thanked me for. Much of this absurd criticism, and my response to it did not appear in Karen's notes.
I pointed out to Kathy that her arms were folded, and that she had told me she had complained to the uni that I had my arms folded during a meeting, and she thinks it's aggressive. She quickly unfolded her arms and said that she hadn't noticed. This didn't appear in Karen's notes.
I highlighted how she treats me differently from other team members, because when I had written to her saying that a colleague had physically assaulted me, she din't even reply. She then amazingly claimed that I had never told her of the assault. I reminded her that I had told her in an email. She denied it, just as she had denied receiving other emails from me. I offered to go and fetch the email, and asked her in advance what she would say once I showed it to her. This was because when I had shown her another email that she insisted she never received, she made up some stupid excuse about it. Dave asked her if she had known about the assault. She admitted that she had known. Dave asked her what she did about it. She said she didn't do anything about it. Dave asked her why she took no action, and she said it was because she wasn't present at the time of the assault.
Karen's notes do not refer to the fact that my manager thought that arm folding, which every single member of the team did, is so aggressive that it warranted a written complaint to the uni, while physical assault warranted no action whatsoever.
This is just a small sample of what Karen's notes do not include. This is particularly important because my grievance against Kathy included her behaviour at these meetings. But when Karen and Eileen came to investigate this complaint, the thorough investigation that I was promised turned out to be a complete sham. None of the witnesses were interviewed. There was a strange rule applied about witnesses. In order for a witness to be interviewed, their name had to appear in the documents that Kathy and I had lodged. But all of the attendees at those meetings were named in the documents, and so could have been interviewed anyway. So they were deliberately not interviewed. The entire investigation for my complaint consisted of Karen looking at her notes. Her notes didn't include anything worthy of complaint, so my complaint was rejected.
Karen's notes may originally have been accurate, but I didn't get to see them until after the grievance process. It is possible that she tampered with the notes to remove anything that was too incriminating for Kathy. I asked Karen for her handwritten version of the notes, but she said she destroyed them after she typed them up. all of the other note takers keep both versions.
Karen will have some explaining to do at the tribunal, about how these notes are so inaccurate, and why she destroyed her handwritten notes, and why the witnesses were not interviewed. This is in addition to her fraudulent investigation details document. She has produced a fraudulent document which, in turn, refers to another fraudulent document that she produced.
This amount and degree of fraud could mean a spell in the slammer for Karen, and I think she fully deserves it. Karen was already aware that her behaviour was damaging my health.
It will be interesting to see if Karen insists her notes are accurate, and that my account of these meetings that were attended by several witnesses, is false. Or will she once again claim that it was just a mistake? God knows where she is going with this, but she certainly has acquired a taste for fraud.
After the grievance decision was announced, Kevin Clarke described Karen as "highly professional". This raises very serious concerns about the University Secretary's judgement. Will he still be saying that when she's on her way to jail? Was Karen working to his instructions? Why is she still in her job where she could be doing this to more and more innocent employees? Is nobody at the uni calling for an investigation into her behaviour?
Regarding Karen's fraud, there could even be more. Watch this space...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)