A company boss was jailed for four months after he faked evidence for an Employment Tribunal in Edinburgh. Story at Deadline News and Northgate Arinso Employer Services.
He would have been jailed for six months, but his sentence was reduced because he admitted his crime of perverting the course of justice.
What he did is similar to what Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark have done for the Employment Tribunal case that I have brought against University of Stirling.
Schofield and Stark faked evidence in order to fool the tribunal that, for a grievance I raised against Kathy McCabe, Schofield had formed her decision to reject my allegations based on evidence. However, evidence that they claim influenced her decision simply didn't exist when she made it. Details here.
Saturday
Student newspaper prints my story
Brig, Stirling University's student newspaper has printed my story on page 4 of its May edition.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
Writer, Andrew Jenkin says that a spokesman for the university told him that they had been aware of my blog for several months, and that the matter was in the hands of the university's lawyers. The spokesman said that they had no further comment.
"No comment" will not reassure university staff and students that any grievances they raise will be handled fairly, or that staff won't find themselves sacked for blowing the whistle on illegal activities. I feel sure that if I had made any false allegations in my blog, they would have been anxious for Brig to print their evidence, and they would have taken legal action long before now to have my blog removed from the internet.
In my blog, I talk openly and give evidence of bullying, mobbing, sex discrimination, sham grievance and disciplinary procedures, fraud and widespread corruption at the highest level. Since it was made public in September 2010, I can confirm that no individual from the university or their lawyers has indicated to me that it contains any inaccuracies. I have met their lawyer twice, and he has written to me several times, but he has never hinted that my blog is in any way inaccurate. His company has represented, and is representing the university in other cases at the Employment Tribunal where the university has shown a disregard for employment law, so I would guess that he expects my blog is accurate. I would also guess that he has asked his clients if there was anything inaccurate in my blog.
The Employment Tribunal recently offered Stirling University an opportunity to comment on a large number of allegations I made; many of which are indisputable. They declined to comment, claiming that it would take substantial time and expense. They will have to answer the allegations at a tribunal hearing though, when it will take considerably more time and expense. I believe it is in the public interest that they should be made aware of their answers.
The university recently spent five weeks writing a fraudulent ten page document with details of an investigation and decision process they claim took place in March 2010 for a grievance I raised against my manager, Kathy McCabe. However, the process describes how Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield came to her conclusion by referring to a document that simply did not exist when she made her decision. The university accepts that it did not exist until more than three weeks later, but they have not explained how Mrs Schofield and HR Partner, Karen Stark could possibly have read it before Mrs Schofield had made and published her decision, and how it could possibly have influenced her decision.
In contrast, they describe a process in which Mrs Schofield simply did not refer to any of a large number of documents that would have been much easier to refer to; not only because they actually existed, but because I had submitted them with my grievance as evidence. They also describe a process where Mrs McCabe was not asked to respond to any of my allegations. They also describe a process in which any evidence that supported my allegations was simply ignored, or even made to sound as though it supported Mrs McCabe. They also describe a process where allegations I made against Mrs McCabe were treated as allegations against someone else. They also describe a process where many of the allegations were simply ignored. They also describe a process that wasn't planned in advance, but was invented with hindsight. They also describe a process where evidence has been fraudulently manufactured by the investigators. Using the same method, they could easily conclude that aeroplanes did not fly into the Twin Towers, or that the Twin Towers actually flew into the aeroplanes. What they describe is a process that never happened.
The reason the university committed fraud was because, in response to my initial claim, they foolishly told the tribunal that my grievance allegations had been investigated and rejected, when in reality, Mrs Schofield's decision was not based on any evidence; she made it DESPITE all of the evidence, and because I had written to the Principal to inform her that management and HR had failed to deal with Kathy McCabe's bullying and discriminatory behaviour that was damaging my mental health. I had already taken five weeks sick leave due to stress, and the university's Occupational Health doctor had written to management advising that I should be taken seriously.
At the tribunal hearing, the university will have to defend the most ridiculous grievance process that has probably ever been presented to a tribunal, and claim that it was fair and thorough. And that's after they somehow persuade the tribunal that Mrs Schofield and Ms Stark had special powers that allowed them to see into the future.
If Eileen Schofield uses her special powers to look into the future again, and sends me next week's winning lottery numbers today, I'll think about dropping my claim.
Monday
Secret Digital Recordings
A reader posted this message on my blog recently.
I'm a new reader of your blog.
Why didn't you make secret digital recordings (either audio only, or audio/video)?
Surely, recordings would prove how you were treated, who said and did what, etc.
The reader makes an excellent point.
If you are being bullied, sexually harassed, victimised, discriminated against or lied to, then it would certainly be useful to gather information in the way described. Of course, it raises the question of what you would record. People tend not to give you advance warning that they will do these things to you, or that they will be about to have a conversation with you that they will later claim to be completely different from what it actually was. The person you are about to have a conversation with may not be the person that is mistreating you. Would you record that?
For example, I had a very innocent conversation with Selina Gibb. I had no idea that Selina was a liar, or that she would ever do or say anything to harm me. We had always got on very well. I had absolutely no reason to think that she would later give a false account of that conversation in an attempt to have me dismissed. Apart from being my friend, and having known her for about ten years, I could never have imagined that she would take such steps in collusion with others, and turn up to a disciplinary interview and lie in an attempt to have anyone sacked. She took a great risk in doing what she did, and she may yet live to regret it. A recording of that conversation would be helpful, but luckily it was not essential.
I am an email hoarder. I keep emails that most people would delete as soon as they've read them. That was very lucky because I had lots of emails that refuted the very strange and false allegations that were made against me. Those people who decided on the spur of the moment that they would make those allegations hadn't thought it through. They were thinking about the future, and how their allegations would achieve their aim of getting rid of me. They share the same problem as Kathy; they are very bad liars. They gave no thought whatsoever to how their allegations were inconsistent with the facts. If you decide to create a fictitious world, you cannot escape the fact that it has to cohabit and be consistent with the real world; and that's not easy. To lie in collusion with others is to take a massive gamble. The overall lie is only as strong as the weakest and most obvious liar, or the liar who is first to admit that it's all a lie. None of these women I'm referring to are particularly clever. In fact, if they were, they would never have attempted such a stupid stunt. Each of them made allegations that were easily refutable with emails alone.
So I agree with my new reader, but it may actually require that you record everything; all of your working hours. Thankfully with digital recordings, it no longer requires a stack of cassette tapes, or rewinding the tape to find the conversation you are interested in.
One problem, however, is choosing the time to announce that you have a recording. For example, if I had let everyone hear a recording I had made of that conversation with Selina, they would all then know that I was recording everything, and that would cause them to change their behaviour around me. Would that be good or bad? No, you would have to wait until there was no other option but to make people aware of your recordings. When might that be? You might consider an Employment Tribunal would be an appropriate time.
My new reader justifiably asks why I didn't make secret digital recordings. Once he or she ploughs their way through all of my blog, they will see that I have neither confirmed nor denied that I made secret recordings. Furthermore, I will never deny that I have a secret digital recording of a conversation with Selina Gibb.
I'm a new reader of your blog.
Why didn't you make secret digital recordings (either audio only, or audio/video)?
Surely, recordings would prove how you were treated, who said and did what, etc.
The reader makes an excellent point.
If you are being bullied, sexually harassed, victimised, discriminated against or lied to, then it would certainly be useful to gather information in the way described. Of course, it raises the question of what you would record. People tend not to give you advance warning that they will do these things to you, or that they will be about to have a conversation with you that they will later claim to be completely different from what it actually was. The person you are about to have a conversation with may not be the person that is mistreating you. Would you record that?
For example, I had a very innocent conversation with Selina Gibb. I had no idea that Selina was a liar, or that she would ever do or say anything to harm me. We had always got on very well. I had absolutely no reason to think that she would later give a false account of that conversation in an attempt to have me dismissed. Apart from being my friend, and having known her for about ten years, I could never have imagined that she would take such steps in collusion with others, and turn up to a disciplinary interview and lie in an attempt to have anyone sacked. She took a great risk in doing what she did, and she may yet live to regret it. A recording of that conversation would be helpful, but luckily it was not essential.
I am an email hoarder. I keep emails that most people would delete as soon as they've read them. That was very lucky because I had lots of emails that refuted the very strange and false allegations that were made against me. Those people who decided on the spur of the moment that they would make those allegations hadn't thought it through. They were thinking about the future, and how their allegations would achieve their aim of getting rid of me. They share the same problem as Kathy; they are very bad liars. They gave no thought whatsoever to how their allegations were inconsistent with the facts. If you decide to create a fictitious world, you cannot escape the fact that it has to cohabit and be consistent with the real world; and that's not easy. To lie in collusion with others is to take a massive gamble. The overall lie is only as strong as the weakest and most obvious liar, or the liar who is first to admit that it's all a lie. None of these women I'm referring to are particularly clever. In fact, if they were, they would never have attempted such a stupid stunt. Each of them made allegations that were easily refutable with emails alone.
So I agree with my new reader, but it may actually require that you record everything; all of your working hours. Thankfully with digital recordings, it no longer requires a stack of cassette tapes, or rewinding the tape to find the conversation you are interested in.
One problem, however, is choosing the time to announce that you have a recording. For example, if I had let everyone hear a recording I had made of that conversation with Selina, they would all then know that I was recording everything, and that would cause them to change their behaviour around me. Would that be good or bad? No, you would have to wait until there was no other option but to make people aware of your recordings. When might that be? You might consider an Employment Tribunal would be an appropriate time.
My new reader justifiably asks why I didn't make secret digital recordings. Once he or she ploughs their way through all of my blog, they will see that I have neither confirmed nor denied that I made secret recordings. Furthermore, I will never deny that I have a secret digital recording of a conversation with Selina Gibb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)