Stirling Uni Tries to Silence Wikipedia

Professor David Donaldson

Stirling University doesn't like bad publicity. However that hasn't stopped them from using their corrupt practices to destroy people's lives. Instead, they try to hide their devious ways from the public gaze. Their lawyer obsessively raises the matter of my blog with judges because it is causing the university and several of its employees considerable embarrassment.

Since 2009, Wikipedia has displayed the story of David Donaldson, who in 2007 was a senior researcher at Stirling University. He removed a colleague's name from her research grant application, and replaced it with his own, attempting to make it look like it was his work. His act of piracy, which required swapping names eleven times, was discovered and he eventually wrote a letter of apology to his colleague, Dr. Rhodes. However, he later unfairly forced her out of her job at the university. She won her unfair dismissal claim at Glasgow Employment Tribunal in February 2009. Stirling University awarded Donaldson a Professorship shortly after he admitted to stealing Dr. Rhodes' work.

A number of attempts have been made to remove the article from Wikipedia. It is bound to be a source of embarrassment to the University. In the talk section for Wikipedia's Stirling University page, a discussion refers to a legal representative for the university asking for the Donaldson article to be removed. The request was rejected.

Times Higher Education carries a more detailed account of what happened.

Of course you must be wondering how an academic gets pushed out of a University by another academic. Dr. Rhodes was subjected to the same sham grievance procedure as I was. HR Director, Martin McCrindle conducted an investigation into her grievance and concluded there was no case to answer. He was backed by Principal, Christine Hallett. When Dr Rhodes told Martin McCrindle that she would prove what happened in court, McCrindle replied saying that she had 'no basis' to make a claim to the tribunal. As soon as she submitted her complaints to the tribunal, which she did as she had no other way of addressing what happened, they declared they wouldn't contest her claims! She won the case before it even got to court!

Their lawyer agreed with the judge when he said that not resisting her claims amounted to agreeing with them. Her claims included the fact that Donaldson's theft of her research had led to her dismissal (the theft for which she had a letter of apology) and a sham grievance procedure to investigate what happened when she found herself forced out. The university changed their reason for dismissing Dr. Rhodes three times. Each time she informed them that the reason was not valid in her case, so they just invented another false reason each time.

Similarly, in my own case, at my appeal hearing against dismissal I advised Martin McCrindle that my dismissal would prove embarrassing to the university and to several of its employees. He replied saying that that was only my opinion. Well, of course it was only my opinion, but I think it was a correct opinion. If my blog isn't causing anyone any embarrassment, then why is the university paying their lawyer to keep going on about it like a broken record? And if they weren't embarrassed by their sham grievance procedure, why would they risk a jail sentence by committing fraud in an attempt to cover it up, Martin?

Will Stirling University ever learn that they can't treat people like this?

The Problem With Women

One of the problems that Stirling University faces in defending the tribunal case is that after I made my protected disclosure, a large number of colleagues were encouraged to report that I had "a problem with women". This included Kathy McCabe, Eric Hall, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb And Jackie O'Neil.

I had informed Christine Hallett that my manager, Kathy McCabe discriminated on the basis of gender, but rather than deal with that genuine issue, management performed a switch to make it appear that I was the one who discriminated based on gender. First, Karen Stark caused bad feelings between me and my colleagues by interviewing them about old incidents when they had abused me. Then word was passed down that they should suggest that I had "a problem with women".

The problem they have is that, despite all of these people saying this, there will be no documentary evidence that exists of this prior to my protected disclosure. There will be no record of me having been reprimanded or spoken to or informed in any way about my alleged "problem with women" during my thirteen years of service. How could there be? It hadn't been invented yet. So this is another dilemma the university has. Should they create a few helpful documents that refer to this alleged "problem with women", or do they admit that there is none? All of the allegations of my "problem with women" comes from those colleagues within days of each other. And it is obviously false. It's worse than none!

I have asked the university to produce all documents that refer to me having this "problem with women".

At the hearing in June, we discussed my request for the university to produce the questionnaires that the women, who allege that I had bullied them over several years, had completed about two months before I made my protected disclosure. The questionnaire included questions about bullying, and asked if you were being bullied. I knew that none of them would have said that they were being bullied. I would have been the only member of the team who said I was being bullied. The university's lawyer objected to my request. Clearly he knows it's all a pack of lies. The employment judge said that the questionnaires would not be necessary as the university would be expected to show documentary evidence of me bullying women over time.

What will the university do? It won't be able to produce anything that is timestamped, so will they try and create something that's not timestamped? Unfortunately for them, they won't be able to mention my alleged "problem with women" in my appraisal reports, because I have already seen them. That's a big disadvantage for them. I had an appraisal about nine months before I made my protected disclosure, but of course it doesn't refer to something that wasn't to be invented until nine months later.

So each of these people who referred to my alleged "problem with women" will have to explain why there is no evidence of them having reported it. Going by the number of times it is mentioned in their statements, you would expect there to be a big bundle of documents that refer to it. More importantly, the tribunal will expect there to be evidence of it. There would be lots of emails inviting me to attend meetings to discuss my alleged "problem with women". There would be an audit trail which shows that my alleged "problem with women" was being monitored and reassessed. There would be massive reports written up about all the occasions I had trapped women in the office and went wild with them. There would be plans that show that I was to be separated from women for fear that my alleged "problem with women" escalated.

So when the university responds to my requests for documents, it will be interesting to see all of the evidence of my alleged "problem with women". Will the uni feel that it is still worthwhile to create some more fraudulent documents?

Will Gerry McCormac go for broke, and order some more fraudulent documents to be created? If he does, he should ask them to be more careful this time, and not make it obvious that it's a fraud. By failing to take any action over the fraudulent document, Gerry is making it look like he was involved in it.

It's time you spoke out, Gerry. Did you order the fraudulent document to be created? If not, then please explain why you have taken no action to root out the criminal element in Stirling University.

One problem the university will face if they do decide to produce fraudulent documentary evidence of my alleged "problem with women" is that they are bound to be asked why they didn't produce that very important evidence before the hearing began in June 2011. Mark Toole claims that he dismissed me because I bullied women over time. Why would they not have included all of the documents (that the judge said they would expect to see) at that time?

What did the university tell their lawyer when he asked to see all the documentary evidence of me bullying women? Maybe I should call him as a witness and ask him. He can't produce any genuine evidence of my alleged "problem with women", but he desperately wants to show the tribunal my blog; my blog which didn't exist until after my unfair dismissal and would never have existed had it not been for that unfair dismissal. That can't possibly justify dismissal. He is focusing on my blog because he doesn't have a scrap of evidence that I was guilty of gross misconduct. There's plenty of evidence of gross misconduct by others though.

Where was the evidence that allegedly persuaded Mark Toole that I had a "problem with women"? Why did he not expect that there would be lots of documentary evidence of this? Mark will need answers to questions like those if he is to have any chance of fooling the tribunal that the dismissal was genuine. Mark said he could see no evidence that the complainants had conspired.

What action has Gerry taken over Mark's deliberate unfair dismissal, and Martin McCrindle's sham appeal process? What action has he taken over Eileen Schofield's sham grievance process? What action has he taken over Kevin Clarke's sham grievance appeal process?

If he takes no action over corrupt colleagues, then he is just as corrupt as they are.

That's Gerry McCormac for you; the man who claims to know how to get the best out of people. My arse, Gerry!

The Plan

I've sent the university a list of documents I require ahead of the tribunal hearing.

Item 12 on my list reads: Please provide a copy of the investigation plan produced by Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark before they began investigating the allegations contained in the conjoined grievances. Please also demonstrate that this document existed before the investigation began, by providing emails to which it was attached, etc.

In April, after some considerable length of time, Stirling University sent a document which describes how Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield arrived at the decision for each allegation made by me and Kathy McCabe in our grievances. The document, which I have alleged to be a fraud, doesn't actually deal with every single allegation we made, so I have also asked how a decision could have been reached without considering those allegations.

Under normal conditions, any investigation requires a plan. You can't just start investigating. You need to know what that investigation is going to consist of. For example, who are you going to interview? What documents and other data holding tools are you going to refer to? What questions do you need to ask whom? That plan must already exist because the investigation was carried out by means of following it. There will be no need for Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield to hastily create one. It's just a matter of popping it in the post.

At least, that's the theory. I am particularly interested in one item on this plan. What will it say about the allegation that somehow led to Eileen Schofield seeing weeks into the future?

How will Eileen Schofield describe how she planned to look at a witness's statement in order to come to a decision for a specific allegation when she hadn't even planned to ask that witness anything about the allegation?

I suppose they could try saying that they had planned to ask him about it, but forgot. Then when they were about to make their decision, they referred to his statement having forgotten that they had previously forgotten to ask him about it. Then Karen Stark made an enormous typing error. That's about their most sensible option. Or at least, it would have been, but for at least half a dozen other problems they have.

Personally, I don't see them defending this case in court at all. They would have to be mad. The fake investigation is obvious. The tribunal would definitely want to know why they subjected me to a fake grievance process. And their house of cards falls on its face. They have no case at all.

They should have thrown in the towel long ago, but they are playing with the public's money. It would be different if it was their own.

It will be fascinating to see whether, after having already produced at least two fake documents, they go and create another one. Will they come clean, or will they go for broke? I wonder what Gerry McCormac will advise they do.

Stirling University's management is now turning into a farce. It would be excellent to see them on the TV news programmes running from the cameras. Excellent! Maybe that bloke Naughty could give them a spot on his radio show! He could call them all a bunch of Jeremy Hunts! cough, cough!

Kathy McCabe - "Honesty Goes to the Core of my Very Being"

"Honesty goes to the core of my very being."
Kathy McCabe 6 June 2008

During mediation with Kathy, she came out with this line about three times. Kathy must think that the more times you repeat something, the truer it becomes.

The mediator informed Kathy and me in advance of the meeting, that we were to prepare and read out a statement to each other, and then we were to begin asking questions of each other.

Kathy read out her statement. It was full of nonsense about me. I read out my statement. Kathy didn't like it because I had mentioned that she had been dishonest with me. Kathy flipped her lid. She made one almighty fuss. She demanded that I withdraw my accusation of dishonesty. I couldn't. The best I could say was to change it to "Sometimes you have been dishonest with me." She still didn't like it.

Then when it came time for me to ask questions, Kathy said she wasn't going to answer any of my questions, and that if I even asked her a question, she would walk out of the mediation. I offered to wait until we were alone to ask questions, because I thought she was maybe embarrassed to answer my questions in the presence of her friend, Colin Sinclair, who she had brought along for support. But she wasn't going to answer my questions any time or anywhere.

At his interview for the grievance process, Colin said Kathy did answer my questions. Well, in that case, she won't mind answering them again at the tribunal.

I intend to show you at least one example of Kathy's dishonesty on here. It is a very special example, because it also shows Kathy's disrespect for me, even though I was one of the oldest and most senior members of the team. She wanted to show off to the team just how disrespectful she was of me. I was too stupid to deserve respect. That was the image she wanted the team to have of me. She was encouraging them to be disrespectful too. Is it any wonder that Eileen MacDonald would then ignore any advice I gave her? Eileen was at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. Kathy respected her when she didn't even have the basic knowledge for her job. Yet Eileen would arrogantly complain about my performance and integrity. Not only had I explained to Eileen that she was wrong, but I had explained to Kathy that Eileen was wrong. But two years later, Eileen was still making the same mistakes. Mistakes that even a student programmer would think were absurd.

In her grievance document, Kathy talks about the mediation process: "Fundamental problem is that Allan said I was dishonest. I stated that questioning my honesty and integrity was a serious personal attack and that if this was the basis from which he was working then I could not see how we could establish a proper working relationship and that we would have to recognise that mediation had failed. Allan's interpretation of this was that I was breaking the mediation process. He had to be told several times by Liz, and I had to repeat my words, but he did not accept the premise. I stated that he needed to moderate the statement. He moderated it to a statement that I was sometimes dishonest. After a 5 min timeout I stated that I acknowledged that he had made a slight moderation but that this still wasn't enough. This was ignored.

It's interesting that this particular document was a document she wrote for herself originally two days after the mediation. Yet she couldn't even bring herself to tell the truth to herself. Fascinating!

She then says "On reflection this was the most difficult and deeply unpleasant experience of my working life. I am not convinced that Allan is prepared to move forward, but rather he will still want to go through every detail of the grievance point by point. I could do this but am not convinced that Allan would accept my explanations. I believe that his views are so deeply entrenched that this is the only view he will accept. I believe that the mediator found his doggedness rather frustrating and she had to pull him up on more than one occasion because his interjections were pejorative and unhelpful, or both."

Basically, she is admitting that she refused to answer my questions. But she puts her own spin on the actual events.

In May 2009, I had my appraisal with Kathy. I told her that I wanted to attend the Oracle conference which is held annually at the end of the year. It's a conference that is attended predominately by Database Administrators (DBAs) like myself. When I first became DBA, Kathy said I would attend the conference every year. But she changed her mind. Instead she used the staff development fund mainly for her friends who were mostly all women. So, for about six years on the trot, she wouldn't let me go. That is bullying as well as sex discrimination. At my appraisal she was very dismissive of my request. She abruptly said "Noted." I reminded her that I hadn't attended for several years. Again, she abruptly said "Noted." In fact she put exactly that on the appraisal form. "Noted."

I talked to several colleagues about his later on. Everybody knew that Kathy had been bullying me by preventing me from attending that conference. They all said that she was bound to let me attend that year. I said I got the feeling she wasn't going to let me go just from her attitude at my appraisal.

Sure enough, I wasn't selected to attend the conference. Kathy had again chosen others to attend conferences, though. Eric and Jackie wrote to the team to inform us that they would be out of the office to attend a conference. I emailed Jackie and copied to the team. I said I wouldn't be out of the office because I hadn't been chosen again. I jokingly asked her what the secret was to making a successful request because each year my request was rejected.

Kathy replied to me and the team pointing out that she is not a mind reader, and that if I wanted to attend a conference, I should have asked. Then she added that I hadn't asked to attend that year or any previous year.

That's what I mean when I say that Kathy is likely to come out with any stupid lie on the spur of the moment. Honesty wasn't at the core of her very being when she sent that email. Kathy had shown her true colours. And this was less than a year after Mark Toole told her that criticism was to be delivered privately and should be evidence based.

I calmly replied to Kathy's email saying that it was not appropriate language and that it was an attempt to publicly humiliate me. I told her that I still had copies of some of my written requests.

She had nowhere to go. She had basically called me a liar publicly. She had tried to publicly humiliate me by suggesting that I was stupid to think that she could read minds. And to top it off, she was lying to the whole team, and I could prove it.

It didn't end there though. It was still simmering away in her head. She came up with a plan to clear her from her own stupidity. Days later, I received an email from her inviting me to meet with her to talk about the appropriate way to request attendance at a conference. At first I didn't understand what she was meaning. It didn't make sense. Then it suddenly hit me. The reason she was inviting me to meet with her was because it made her email visible to team members who regularly looked at her calendar. It was devious bullying. She wanted to give the impression to colleagues, that although I had requested attendance, I had used an inappropriate method. She was trying to get herself off the hook.

I wrote to her and asked her to remove the email from public display. I quoted part of the university's bullying policy to her. She briefly made it private, and then she made it public again.

Eventually, Mark Toole had to tell her to remove the email from public display. He also told her to rephrase her email to make the meeting sound as though it had a more positive purpose. She wrote again and said that the meeting was to find a better procedure for requesting attendance at conferences.

There was no changing Kathy. And now she has got herself in knots.

And, of course, Eileen Schofield didn't consider any of this to be bullying behaviour. Apparently every allegation I made was rejected, yet most of Kathy's vexatious allegations were upheld. Funny that! Is it any wonder that Eileen Schofield receives death threats?

Then that muppet, Kevin Clarke said he saw no flaw in the process.

Gerry McCormac - Get Your Own House In Order

Gerry McCormac
I'm reliably informed that if you Google Gerry McCormac, my blog is currently displayed on page one and position one. It's above Stirling University's website, and it's above the sites that relate to the teachers' review. It's also above the site where he is interviewed about his favourite teacher. Thanks to Gerry, my site is getting busier and busier, and more people are becoming familiar with Gerry's corrupt practices.

Gerry has the gall to tell teachers how to work better. He should get his own house in order before he starts telling other people where they are going wrong.

Why does he keep giving these interviews that make him out to be everybody's favourite uncle? Why does he not address the subject that google knows him best for? Why not have an open meeting, Gerry; invite me along and you can tell your audience what you've done to rid Stirling University of corruption? I'm sure you'd be able to make mincemeat of me, Gerry. I've been reduced to a wreck by Stirling University for being dedicated, hard working and conscientious. It happened under your watch, Gerry. Have a real interview where you don't agree in advance the safe, cutesy questions that you are allowed to be asked.

Questions like: What are you doing to reduce corruption at Stirling University? Where's the evidence? Why didn't you just sack Kevin Clarke and his cohorts? You say you know how to get the best out of people, how? Corruption? Where's the evidence of this? Why didn't you handle my grievances, Gerry? Are you a coward, Gerry? Did you give instructions for Stirling University to pervert the course of justice by producing a fraudulent document, Gerry? If not, what have you done about it in the seven months since it happened under your watch?

A whole load of google users will be wondering, Gerry.

Stirling University's grievance procedure states that, within three months of leaving the university, employees can still raise grievances against employees. I sent Gerry formal grievances on 23 September 2010 against 13 (thirteen) employees within three months of leaving the uni on 25 June 2010. He replied with a very curt letter saying that all mechanisms were exhausted.

He didn't explain why. Had I misunderstood the grievance procedure or something? I'm left wondering. I asked him the following question on 2 November 2011:
I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.

That's been 17 days, but I've still not heard. Maybe if I'd asked him what his favourite teddy was, I would have got an answer instantly.

Here's my letter that Gerry couldn't be bothered dealing with.

Formal Grievances
I worked at the University from 7 May 1997 until I was dismissed by Mark Toole on 25 June 2010. My dismissal immediately followed a formal grievance I lodged against my manager, Kathy McCabe.

I now wish to raise formal grievances against a number of employees. The grievance procedure says that I should send the grievances to Human Resources Services, but two of my grievances are against employees from that department. My grievances are against the following employees:

Kathy McCabe
I would now like my grievance to be processed properly with integrity. A decision should be based on the facts.

Eileen MacDonald
Eileen gave false evidence during an investigation held as part of my grievance against Kathy McCabe. She also gave false evidence during the disciplinary investigation that led to my dismissal. She also colluded with colleagues who gave similar false evidence. I submitted a grievance against Eileen in June 2008 which was never processed. That grievance was a result of Eileen sending an email to our manager in which she made offensive comments about me and provided misleading information about my performance.

One example of her dishonesty is her claim that I treated Programmers inconsistently with regard to database security procedures. This was a topic which was fully discussed with the team (BSDS) at a meeting in which I was heckled by Eileen who had made this claim. Database security procedures were agreed with all team members and were applied consistently by myself and the part time Database Administrator, David Black. There is ample evidence of me having corresponded with Eileen in attempts to discover why she couldn’t work within the agreed procedures, and that my attempts were ignored.

Una Forsyth
Una also gave false evidence during those two investigations and colluded with others. One example is that she falsely stated that she had not physically assaulted me. Another example is that she gave the strong impression that we didn’t get along and that she avoided any contact with me, and that I generally didn’t get along with the women in the team. She did this because this was the story that the employees with whom she had colluded had invented. Ample evidence shows that we got along very well, and that she had even recently cooked me a meal.

Jackie O’Neil
Jackie also gave false evidence during those two investigations and colluded with others. One example is in relation to an incident when she shouted at me while slamming her hand on her desk. There is clear evidence that her account of this incident is false.

Selina Gibb
Selina also gave false evidence during the disciplinary investigations and colluded with others. One example is that Selina claimed to be anxious and nervous around me, when ample evidence showed that this clearly was not the case.

Eileen Schofield
Eileen chaired my grievance hearing and deliberately produced a dishonest report. The very least that I would expect when raising a grievance is that Eileen should have asked Kathy McCabe to respond to my allegations, but she did not. She has not acted in good faith, and has deliberately attempted to cover up my manager’s bullying behaviour for which I submitted irrefutable evidence.

Kevin Clarke
Kevin chaired my appeal against Eileen’s decision. He failed to dismiss Eileen’s dishonest report and arrange for my grievance to be processed properly.

Graham Millar and Gail Miller
Graham and Gail carried out the Disciplinary Investigation dishonestly. Their role was to establish facts and not to make judgements or come to conclusions. They did precisely the opposite by deliberately ignoring the facts and by making judgements and coming to conclusions. They did this because the facts did not match the conclusions they were determined to come to. Examples of this is that they did not check out conflicting evidence and did not interview someone I’d said witnessed the incident with Jackie O’Neil. The conclusions are highly offensive towards me, even though it would have been clear to them that they had been given false statements. Mark Toole said he chose Graham to carry out a “fair and thorough” investigation because he is an experienced investigator. This confirms my view that the investigation was carried out dishonestly.

Mark Toole
Mark failed to process my grievance against Eileen MacDonald since he joined the university in Occtober 2008. He continues to falsely claim that I had withdrawn that grievance despite me having confirmed in the presence of my union representative in 2009 that I had not. He also failed to process my complaint against Jackie O’Neil. He also failed to take my grievance against Kathy McCabe seriously, and failed in his duty to care for my health. His own actions have caused my health to deteriorate further. His decision to dismiss me was made dishonestly. I presented ample proof that the complainants had lied and that they had colluded. He failed to ensure that the Investigators produced a report that established the facts. He has failed to discipline employees who have made malicious complaints. He has dishonestly stated that he sees no evidence that the complainants had lied and colluded and that he sees no motive for such a conspiracy. The motive was clear that two of the complainants were facing complaints made by me, another had just been interviewed about having physically assaulted me, and the other admitted to being a close friend of her line manager. He speaks of gross misconduct over a number of years, yet there is no record of any of this prior to me lodging my formal grievance against my manager. He makes no attempt to explain the staggeringly conflicting evidence. Mark also witnessed Kathy McCabe bullying me during two meetings.

Karen Stark
Karen failed to ensure that these procedures were carried out honestly and in good faith. Karen’s actions were consistently to support a bullying manager. She worked very closely with Eileen Schofield and could see that her report did not reflect the facts available to her. She did not ensure that my grievance was processed properly. She deliberately avoided interviewing an employee I told her was a witness to a specific incident. She was also aware that the Disciplinary Investigators had avoided interviewing David Black. She even announced during the Disciplinary Hearing that I was “drunk”. I also saw an email from Kathy McCabe to Karen in which Kathy thanks her for her support in this matter. Karen also witnessed Kathy McCabe bullying me during two meetings.

Martin McCrindle and Karen Plouvier
Despite the obvious flaws in the Disciplinary Procedure, Martin and Karen failed to overturn the decision to dismiss me, and arrange for the matter to be properly investigated without bias. They also failed to explain how the evidence given by the complainants conflicts so staggeringly with the facts presented.

It is clear that the university suffers from wide spread corruption which in this instance has been used to protect bullies and dismiss a dedicated member of staff. I hope that you will be as shocked as I am that this type of behaviour exists in a university in the 21st century, and that you will take appropriate action to resolve these very serious issues.

Yours sincerely

The Transcripts

As part of my claim at the Employment Tribunal, I have submitted two audio recordings. Here are the transcripts of the recordings.

The first one is a brief conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth shortly after my grievance hearing on 26 February 2010.

In April 2010, Selina made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claims that a few weeks before this conversation, I had a private conversation with her in which I went wild with anger, my face went red with rage, and I was spitting on her desk in anger. Selina said that I had frightened her, and it meant that from then on she was nervous and anxious around me. Apart from this conversation there is other documentary evidence that Selina had lied.

Also in April 2010, Una made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claimed that, out of the twelve women in the team, I only got on well with two of them, neither of them being herself or Selina. Apart from this conversation, there is other documentary evidence that Una had lied.

Note that, even though we are discussing my grievance with Kathy, there is no display of anger. Note also that Una and Selina begin the conversation, just as Selina had begun the previous conversation as I was leaving the room.

Una: Are you away home?
Allan: Yes
Selina: How come?
Una: Because of the snow?
Allan: The snow? No.
Selina: What are you going home for?
Allan: I had my hearing with Kathy just now, and it just lasted two minutes. We were told we could go home if we wanted, because I'm a bit stressed out.
Selina: It's not long term?
Allan: What's not long term?
Selina: You going home.
Allan: No, I'll be back on Monday. It's just because it's a stressful thing.
Selina: Yeah. Did it go okay?
Allan: From my point of view it went okay, and the guy that was with me, the union guy, he said it went okay. It's up to management now to make a decision on dealing with this properly, or what to do.
Una: Is she going home as well?
Allan: Well she's got permission to go home, so she might.
Una: It's a carry on.
Allan: It IS a carry on.

Una then talks to Allan about a work problem. Allan begins to respond, and Selina interrupts.

Selina: You never had your dancing shoes on.
Allan: This IS my dancing shoes.

Selina jokes some more about Allan's shoes. Una laughs.

Allan returns to the work issue, and says he'll resolve it on Monday.

Una: That's fine; I'll sit on it till Monday.
Allan: Okey cokey!
Una and Selina together: Have a nice weekend!
Allan: You too. Bye!
-----------------------------------------------------------

The second one is during a meeting with Kathy McCabe and David Black on 18 March 2010. I inform Kathy of an incident on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand and pen on her desk in anger. David was standing right beside us, and there were about 12 colleagues in the room. Jackie had wrongly thought that I'd made a mistake, when in fact, the mistake was her own. Note how Kathy is not surprised, but tries to justify Jackie's behaviour. Jackie had misinformed Kathy about this incident, just as I expect she had misinformed her about many things concerning me. And Kathy was eager to believe her.

Kathy: Unicode upgrade.
Allan: Yes, that's next week.
Kathy: Yes. Right, and are we all geared up for that?
Allan: Yes, I think so. We did QA last week, and I've got to tell you there was an incident last week where Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.
Kathy: Right, have you come to inform me about that?
Allan: I'm just letting you be aware of it, that's all.
Kathy: Ok. Cos I know that she ended up working till 10 o'clock on Wednesday night.
Allan: I don't know what she's working at 10 o'clock at night for.
Kathy: Because she had to kick the QA upgrade off again at lunchtime. Is that not.....?
David: I'm not sure, but I think the upgrade only took two hours. I don't know what she’d be doing at night.
Allan: I don't think that would cause her to work till 10 o'clock at night.
Kathy: Ok.... Right. We're all geared up for production on Thursday?
Allan: I hope so, yes.

The Questions

After 48 days, the Stirling University finally provided answers to my questions; or at least some of them.

UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?

On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.

If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.

I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.

Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?

2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?

Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?

2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?

4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?

5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.

6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.

7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.

8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?

9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.


Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?

2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?

4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?

5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.

6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.

Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?

2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?

4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?

5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.


Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?

2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.

3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?


David Black - Database Administrator
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?

2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?

3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?

4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?

5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?

6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?

7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?

8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?

9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?

10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?

11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?

12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?

13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?

14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?


Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.

2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?

3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?

4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me? Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?

5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.

6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?

7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?

8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?

9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.

10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.

11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?


Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?

2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.

3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.

4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?

5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that it was just a coincidence?

6 Document C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement. But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?

7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?

8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?

9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?

10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?

11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?

12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?

13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.

14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?


Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.

2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?

3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?

4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?

5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?

6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?

7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?

8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?

9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?

10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke, Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.

11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?

12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?

13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?

Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller

1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?

2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.

3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.

4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.

5 If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?

6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?

7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?

8 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.

9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.

10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?

11 On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?

12 In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?


Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?

2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.

3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.

Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?

2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.

Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.

2 I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?

The Witnesses

The people who are being called by either side as witnesses for my employment tribunal case versus University of Stirling are, in no particular order:

1 Graham Millar
If Mr Millar can withdraw his tongue from Mark Toole's arse for long enough, then I intend to probe him in relation to his bizarre investigation, in which he seemed to begin with the lynching, then moved backwards towards gathering the evidence with the handicap of a mouthful of Mark's shite.

2 Mark Toole
I guess that all I'm going to get from him is "on the balance of probability...." Mark doesn't expect to win at the tribunal. All he wanted was me out of the uni, cos he was too much of a coward to deal with Kathy. She's far more of a man than he'll ever be.

3 Karen Stark
She is nowhere near as clever as she thinks she is. She will fail disastrously. I'm on to her.

4 Martin McCrindle
Surprisingly, the university raised the issue of the Framework process in their case against me. This means that I will be able to cross examine Mr McCrindle and Karen Stark on the subject. A spectacular own goal, surely! Bizarrely, at my appeal against unfair dismissal, Martin asked me to keep quiet about the liars who had conspired to have me dismissed. Why would I want to do that? He must really have thought I was stupid. I'm deeply offended.

5 Gail Miller
I expect that Mark and Graham and Gail will try to defend the investigation with some false story that they have agreed upon. Nevertheless, it is completely indefensible. I wouldn't want to defend it. They've invented their own disciplinary procedures. They completely ignored the university's. They had to batter the square peg into the round hole. I'd imagine that the tribunal would wonder why neither of them saw the flaws in their corrupt process.

6 Professor Gerry McCormac
What have you done about all the corruption, Gerry? Nothing? Yet you think I shouldn't be reinstated? Surely you should be begging me to return?

7 Kevin Clarke
He's going to have to explain how each flaw in the grievance procedure isn't a flaw. Rather him than me.

8 Professor Christine Hallett
What the fuck can she possibly say for herself? She has to be the queen of corruption. To pretend to everybody that she was our protector, when in reality she was the executioner; that takes a very special type of bastard. I wasn't her first victim either. She's a habitual corrupt bastard. Corruption is her hobby. Doesn't give a fuck about people's health. Money! Money! Money! I wish her a very slow painful death.

9 Jackie O'Neil
Jackie and Kathy are very similar. She's a loose cannon. Who knows what she could say? But I expect I will have evidence to prove it's a lie.

10 Dr Peter Kemp
This guy has been talking shite with impunity for so long, he won't know what else to do. He's in for an extremely hard time unless I'm seriously missing something.

11 Kathy McCabe
Nobody, and I mean nobody knows what on earth she might say on the witness stand. I fear there could be fake tears. When she is faced with the fact that she is a liar, the hearing may have to be suspended while she considers her response. During mediation, she refused to answer any questions, and she made an almighty fuss because I mentioned her dishonesty. Now she has more questions to answer. She won't be able to refuse to answer them. She has lied even more since mediation, and there is irrefutable evidence to prove it. "Isn't it true, Mrs McCabe that you told me, more than once, that honesty goes to the core of your very being? Then how do you explain this, and this, and this, and this, and..." Kathy described the mediation process as "the most difficult and deeply unpleasant experience of my working life." She will think it was a party compared with her time in the witness box. This won't be pretty, but it should be very entertaining.

12 Selina Gibb
I can only assume that someone is going to advise her what to say. I hope it's Eileen MacDonald.

13 Una Forsyth
Where do I begin? The university has definitely let Una down. They deliberately made her think I had made a complaint about her. It's almost unfair, but I have to treat her as what she is; a liar, and an extremely bad one at that.

14 Eileen MacDonald
Another one who has been led to believe that she is clever. This will be disastrous for Eileen. I suspect tears will flow if they allow this to proceed. She will be faced with her own stupidity and dishonesty. There's no escape. She has run out of lives. She depended on me for help, but I won't be helping her. She has dug herself into a very deep hole when she should have been keeping her mouth well and truly shut. No hope. And she'll probably blame Kathy for getting her into such a mess.

15 Eileen Schofield
My only fear with Eileen is that she'll come dressed as Mystic Meg and tell us the next day's horse results. No wait! That would be a good thing. A £1 roll-up on these 20 horses please, Mr Bookie!

16 David Black
He will have to check with Eric what he's allowed to say. He's shit scared of Kathy, so he will back her up to the hilt. But there's a rule at the tribunal. You have to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That means he will have to make a choice, and I suspect the spineless twat will lie with everything he's got. A complete integrity vacuum; he'll say anything to keep Kathy happy. He'd sell his granny for a ha'penny. I don't intend to make it easy though.

17 Eric Hall
Eric will turn up full of confidence that he will eat me for breakfast. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. He will definitely not be saying that Kathy is a fucking bitch. I expect she will be a fucking Goddess when I cross examine him.

18 Karen Plouviez

The Public Interest

One of the reasons this blog exists is because it contains information I believe is in the public interest.

When I wrote to the then Principal of Stirling University, Professor Christine Hallett in February 2010, it wasn't because of a trivial matter. The IS department was being run in a manner that was hazardous to the health of employees. Sex discrimination and bullying was taking place so often that employees had just come to expect it. Not only that, but they expected that nothing would ever be done about it.

I stuck my neck out and made the Principal aware of it. It had to stop, and she seemed to be the person who had a mind to stop it. Just a few days earlier she wrote to every member of staff telling us how committed the university was to allowing us all to work free from bullying, sex discrimination and victimisation.

The email I sent her informed her that Stirling University was failing to comply with its legal obligations by not caring for employees' health properly and for turning a blind eye to sex discrimination. I was also suggesting that senior management were covering up these illegal acts by pretending they didn't happen. The information I gave her should have had her taking immediate steps to ensure that the university acted within the law.

Because of the contents of my email, I was protected under whistleblowing laws, namely the Public Interest Disclosures Act. What that means is that I was protected from the university taking any action that would be to my detriment because of that email to the Principal. Acts such as: victimisation, further bullying, ostracising, subjecting me to a sham grievance procedure, placing me under suspension for no good reason and for far too long, refusing to deal with my legitimate complaints, subjecting me to malicious complaints, subjecting me to a sham disciplinary procedure, unfair dismissal, all acts that were designed to cause further damage to my health.

The point I wish to make here was that I was doing the Principal and the university a favour. What I did was good for everybody concerned. It was in the public interest. However, when I say that it was good for everybody concerned, I mean that it was good for the honest and non corrupt members of staff; the vast majority. It was not seen as good for those members of staff who could not work under conditions where they are not allowed to bully or discriminate for illegal reasons. Unfortunately, there were more of these people than I had imagined possible at Stirling Uni.

And what thanks did I receive from Prof. Hallett in return? I got fired! I could have had no way of knowing it at the time, but the victimisation and bullying and sex discrimination was happening with her blessing. It genuinely never occurred to me that, in 21st century Britain, people get fired for blowing the whistle on illegal practices. Least of all; I did not expect it to happen in a university.

University of Stirling sees whistleblowers in a negative light. They view them as troublemakers. Of course, you won't find that written in any university policy document.

The policy documents that Stirling University publishes on its website are merely cosmetic. They are also traps. Any innocent employee hoping to make use of its published grievance procedures should be very wary of using them. To my cost, I found that the real procedures; the ones that they don't publish, are very different indeed.

They tell you that you will be given an opportunity to state your case. I never got that opportunity. And that's a fact that it took the university over a year to admit, after Eileen Schofield had said not once, but two times in her report that I was asked to present my case. They say that your grievance will be decided using the facts. The facts in my case were completely ignored. However, 'facts' that didn't exist were used instead.

Colleagues that you've worked alongside for many years will suddenly lose their memory when they are interviewed. It's as if a disease strikes your department. Why do they suddenly lose their memory? Fear! In some cases, it's fear of victimisation. In some cases it's fear of losing special privileges. It doesn't tell you about that in the grievance procedure. If you do have a colleague who is willing to back you up, their evidence will be ignored, and they will be victimised. It doesn't say that in the published procedures either.

The procedure is correct in saying that you have the right to appeal. However, you shouldn't put too much faith in the appeal. The same tactics that were used at the original grievance are used again. The Appeal Officer won't see the flaws in the process, even after you have pointed them out. There is one statement in the grievance procedure that I can find no fault with; the outcome of the appeal hearing will be final.

The grievance procedure also states that you can raise grievances within three months of you leaving. Well, that's what it says, but it's not what happens. I lodged thirteen formal grievances with Gerry McCormac within three months of leaving, and he replied saying:


I refer to your letter dated 23 September 2010.

I write to confirm that all internal mechanisms within the University that were available to you as an employee have now been exhausted. Accordingly, there is no grievance procedure available to you. I confirm, therefore, that all correspondence between you and the University on this matter is now regarded as closed.

Yours sincerely


PROFESSOR GERRY McCORMAC
Principal and Vice Chancellor


Gerry is the current Principal. My letter to Gerry also informs him of substantial corrupt practices at the university, including its failure in its duty to care for my health. Can you see anything in Gerry's response that suggests that he intends to rid Stirling University of its corrupt practices? I don't see it.

Something else that it doesn't say in the grievance procedure, is that you can end up sacked. That's what happened to me. The only way I have of resolving this now is via the Employment Tribunal Services. I made my claim to the tribunal in September 2010. The hearing hasn't begun yet. These things clearly take time.

I opened this post by saying that this blog exists partly because it contains information that I believe is in the public interest. I am aware that the contents of this blog are causing embarrassment to some employees at Stirling University, and they would like the blog to be removed. They even paid their lawyer to send pages of my blog to the Employment Tribunal judge to support their assertion that I should be denied my legal rights to cross examine witnesses; witnesses they know to be liars; particularly Mrs Kathy McCabe who said several times during mediation that 'Honesty goes to the core of my very being'. We will see at the hearing just how honest Mrs McCabe is.

I acted in the public interest by blowing the whistle to two Stirling University Principals. It amazes me that the university should now expect that, after having unfairly sacked me, I should suddenly stop blowing the whistle and keep my mouth shut. That just doesn't make sense to me. It's as if they are asking me to reward them for unfairly dismissing me, by allowing them to continue to mistreat staff without the general public getting to know about it. They want to be able to continue with their bullying and unfair dismissals and sham procedures, but they would prefer it was not widely known. They don't want to have a reputation for corruption, they just want to be corrupt on the quiet. Sorry, but no can do!

To those people who are embarrassed by their own actions, I'd say that if they had behaved appropriately, they would have nothing to be embarrassed about. Furthermore, I have said this many times before; if there is anything I've said in my blog that is not true, then I would be the first person to want it removed. It would not be in the public interest for me to publish any untruths. So please tell me if you spot anything that is not true. I should also point out that in the 14 months that it has been on public view, I have not received one single notice of anything in my blog being inaccurate. May I suggest that that is because it is all true.

Once the hearing begins, I hope whenever possible, to report on what's happening on my blog. Tribunal hearings are open to the public as well as the press. There are no restrictions that I am aware of that prevent anyone from reporting events on their blog. And unless I'm officially told otherwise; that's what I will do. If a witness was to lie under oath, I will report that here, and if possible I will also publish the evidence that shows that they lied. The fact that it will prove embarrassing to the liars is merely a bonus. My recommendation would be; don't lie!

Each time I'm told by the uni that their corrupt employees don't like my blog, it fills my heart with joy. I do so hope they keep telling me!

I can't make my mind up about who I'm most looking forward to cross examining. I'm like a kid in a sweetshop. High on the list has to be Kathy McCabe. I genuinely thought that it would never happen, but that will be a very special day. Karen Stark is well up there too. Then the investigators, Gail Miller and Graham Millar; what on earth could they possibly say in defense of their investigation? I never thought I'd be allowed to cross examine Eileen MacDonald either. I thought she was on the protected list, but I guess not. That will be a special day too. She doesn't know what she's got coming yet. Mark Toole is obviously another I can't wait to question. Eileen Schofield too. I can't wait to go through the fraudulent document with her. What will Jackie O'Neil be like? Will she start shouting at me and the tribunal members? Will she slam her fist down and insist she never shouts at people? What will Christine Hallett have to say for herself? And Peter Kemp too! What can he possibly say? Then I get to go through Una Forsyth's and Selina Gibb's statements with a fine tooth comb too. I hope to receive their answers to my questions soon.

I look forward to the day that my blog is seen by an even greater audience. That might be triggered by some action that the university may be about to take. Go ahead; make my day! You declared war on the wrong bloke.

Data - every organisation's second most valuable resource.

It's said that only an organisation's staff is more valuable than its data. Well, the University of Stirling doesn't value either of them, or at least those at the top don't.

One of the complaints that Eileen MacDonald made to Kathy McCabe about me was that I had made data security so tight that it was making it impossible for Eileen to do her work. As Database Administrator it was my job to ensure that every employee had the data permissions necessary to allow them to do their job, and it would be a stupid Database Administrator that prevented staff from doing so.

However, although Eileen had all the permissions necessary for doing her job, she saw herself as special, and she wanted special treatment that would allow her to log on to databases as the account that actually owned the data. This was a definite no no, and the external auditors had already agreed with me that only the Database Administrators should have that level of access. The account that owns the data has no restrictions. It can do whatever it likes with the data. Data permissions were not preventing Eileen from doing her work; but her bad attitude and incompetence were.

Common sense should have led Kathy to explain to Eileen that she wasn't special, and that she should do her job in the proper manner just like everybody else, and just as I had been explaining to her for years. Kathy's relationship with Eileen was such that common sense played no part. Kathy organised special meetings for the whole team to discuss whether Eileen should be allowed to log on as the data owner. It should never have reached that stage, and it was only Kathy trying to undermine me in public and to lend support to her friend. Even Peter Kemp got involved in what should really have been a trivial matter left for the Database Administrators and auditors to decide.

Fortunately the team agreed with me that there was no need for Eileen to work any differently from everybody else.

Data security was never a strong point with Kathy. But I would bet that if there was ever a problem with data security and something went wrong, she would be anxious to put the blame on someone else.

There was a real eye opener a few years ago when I discovered that Kathy, along with about twelve other users of the Student Records system, had a very insecure password. Her user name is KM7, and of all things for the Information Systems Development Manager to choose as a password, Kathy chose KM7. Kathy had maximum data privileges on the database, and anybody who, just like I did, tried her username as her password, would have been able to run riot by updating and deleting data in the systems. Students are always trying to hack into systems. We have no way of knowing whether they did or not.

As well as 13 people choosing their username as their password, an astonishing 118 database users all shared the same password, and it wasn't just a coincidence. Internal procedures were designed in a way that would make that likely to happen. Anyone could have logged on as one of those users using software that's freely downloadable from the internet, and made a complete mess of the data. We would have had no idea who did it either. And for all we know, it might have happened.

There was another example of Kathy's blasé approach to database security in 2008. Somebody in the team had given the business users permission to use a software tool that bypassed normal data integrity rules. This allowed a whole load of junk to be imported straight into the Student Records database from spreadsheets. Whoever allowed this would have known that they should have checked with the Database Administrators first, but they didn't, because they knew that we wouldn't have allowed it. As well as being the team manager, Kathy was also the Project Manager for Student Records, so she was doubly responsible. However, Kathy was anxious to play down the significance of this mess, because of her own lack of ability in controlling her staff.

Ironically, just before I left, I was being asked by an employee from another team to work on increasing security, yet my own manager couldn't care less about security when it impacted on her friendships with team members. If being friends was more important to Kathy than being a manager, she should never have taken up the job.