Alcohol diary

When Kathy McCabe began mistreating and bullying me in 2005, I began to suffer from sleeplessness. I told her this, and asked her to stop, but she didn't. To help me sleep, I increased my alcohol intake. For a while it worked, but in the long term it was a mistake, and in order to receive treatment for depression, I first have to reduce my alcohol intake to a reasonable level. Also I am in great danger of permanent liver damage and other physical and mental illnesses if I don't reduce my intake substantially.

On the basis that it helps to tell people that you are trying to reduce your alcohol intake, I've decided to record my results here. I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that alcohol drunk sensibly is a bad thing.

The graph below shows how much whisky I've consumed in a rolling seven day period measured in centilitres (cl). In 2009, this had reached around 800cl. By 24 June 2011, it had dropped to 500cl, and by 20 July 2011, it was down to 280cl.

As at 3 August 2011, I expect it to become more difficult to reduce, and that my drinking may occasionally go up as well as down. How embarrassing it would be if it just went up!

My GP says it's better not to set targets, so I won't. But eventually I need to reduce my weekly intake to 70cl (1 bottle), and that should include two alcohol free days per week.

A word of caution to anyone who intends to stop drinking alcohol excessively. It may be best to discuss it with your doctor first, as it can prove fatal to stop too quickly.
Monday, 21 March 2012
The hearing and the submissions have finally been completed. We now await the tribunal's decision.

Wednesday, 26 March 2012
UKOUG conference agenda 2009
UKOUG conference agenda 2010
UKOUG conference agenda 2011

Above are links to the UK Oracle User Group conference agenda for the past three years. It will probably mean nothing to most readers. I will explain why I'm drawing attention to them later, but suffice to say that they contain more than enough for any Stirling University Database Administrator to be interested in. Attendees have a choice of 15 presentations that take place at any one time, and are by no stretch of the imagination limited to presentations on business applications such as Oracle Payroll. The conference is attended by, and aimed at, highly technical individuals, particularly Database Administrators.

I'm not permitted to say any more just now, but here's a clue... "Honesty goes to the core of my very being."

Tuesday, 20 March 2012
All of the witnesses have now finally been heard. All that's left now is for the submissions to be heard. This involves the uni's lawyer giving a summary of the evidence that supports their case, followed me me doing the same for my own case. That will take place early next week.

Saturday, 17 March 2012
We are getting very close to the end of hearing all the evidence. Mark Toole finished giving his evidence yesterday, and on Monday afternoon we will begin to hear Martin McCrindle give his evidence. He will be the last witness to appear.

Following that, it will be for the uni and I to present submissions.

The hearing has taken more than two months, and has been extremely draining. It has been very painful to relive my experiences at the university, particularly the last few months of my employment.

I hope to be able to report events on my blog again soon.

Thursday, 8 March 2012
Some of you may have noticed that I have removed a couple of recent posts from my diary. I removed them because I learned that some innocent people were upset or worried by them. I have no wish to upset innocent people. I have tried to be open and honest on my blog, but I shouldn't express any personal thoughts that may cause unnecessary worry. I apologise.

Friday, 24 February 2012
Viewing figures continue to rise...
The uni's lawyer finished questioning Kathy McCabe today at about 2:40, so I had just over an hour of cross examining her. Her evidence took two full days, so my cross examination will probably take longer than that. It's difficult to predict. Hopefully I'll get some preparation done over the weekend, as that would reduce the wasted silent time at the hearing. Apart from me, Kathy will probably be the longest on the witness stand.

My health was still okay today despite me forgetting to take my medication. I really need to remember that because I feel sure that it makes a difference.

As usual, I'm exhausted, so I don't think I'll be doing anything tonight. It's funny to think that just a few years ago, I used to work late, then play squash or go skiing, then go on to a Northern Soul dance in Glasgow where I'd dance energetically for hours. Now I'm lucky to have the energy to even type all of that.

Thursday, 23 February 2012
TV programmes that show piles of bank notes; what's that all about? Why do they have piles of cash on view on Dragons' Den, Million Pound Drop and The Bank Job? Security staff are often hired to look after the money. Wouldn't it be much simpler and cheaper to just show the amount of cash on paper? The money shown on Dragons' Den has to be the most unnecessary. You would think those successful businessmen would know that their cash would be far better off if invested in some high earning account than sitting on an interest free table. It's for that reason, "I'm out!"

I've talked from time to time about my health at the tribunal hearing. The hearing began on January 16 2012, but if feels much longer ago than that. It is really tiring, and that would be the same for even the most able bodied claimant. I'm representing myself, and that is a daunting task for anybody, regardless of their state of health. I'm up against a fully qualified lawyer who has the assistance of Karen Stark who is an experienced note taker. He also has a trainee lawyer with him every day. I'm very much on my own. Stirling University is paying for their legal representation with public funds which includes the taxes I paid. But in 21st century Britain, that's considered fair.

Although my daily health is better this week in terms of me not having the speech problems that I suffered in previous weeks, the underlying stress and depression has not gone away. Indeed the depression is probably as bad now as it has ever been. A day never goes by without strong suicidal thoughts filling my mind. In June 2010 when the disciplinary process was going on, I wouldn't have thought there was any chance at all of me still being around 18 months later. I have always been a very determined individual. I think that's helped keep me going, but I feel I'm now running on fumes. I'm proud of what I've achieved, but my tank is all but empty.

Hopefully if I do decide to give up, there will be a full investigation into all of the events. The guilty must be punished.

That's how I feel today. I am determined to cross examine Kathy McCabe, then I'll see how I feel after that.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012
My blog's viewing record has finally been smashed out of all recognition.
Kathy McCabe took over the witness stand from Eileen MacDonald on Tuesday at 3pm. She is still being questioned by the uni's lawyer, and with Thursday off, I think it will probably be after lunch on Friday that I begin to cross examine her. That may take a couple of days.

I was given a yellow card from the tribunal today for a blog entry I made yesterday. I'm not 100% sure why, because I thought that since the hearings are in public, then there were no reporting restrictions. In fact, I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the judge had told me that. Anyhow, I'm going to get a letter which hopefully will explain what exactly I've done wrong.

My health has been pretty good all week so far, although I didn't have to do any talking today. I have a very slight hearing difficulty (a teenage disco wound) which means that it can be hard for me to separate background noise from foreground noise. It was very windy outside today, so that made it difficult and slightly tiring.

Hi to all non Registry employees at Stirling Uni who read my blog. I didn't mean to leave you out. If you want your department to receive a "Hi", just drop me an email. I suggest you don't use your uni email account though as big brother is watching you.

Monday, 20 February 2012
Healthwise I felt quite good today, but I now realise that lunchtimes are very stressful. I can't relax at lunchtime. I've got to pace up and down. That's how it was when I worked at the uni towards the end. The work helped relieve the stress, but sometimes it rose to a level where I had to stand up to try to distract myself from the uncontrollable thoughts that took over my mind. I think it's because of lunchtimes that my health tends to worsen in the afternoons, but I felt quite good all day today.

Hi to employees from Registry at Stirling Uni. I learned today that they read my blog regularly. A large proportion of my readers work at the university, and employees also log on from other universities. That's partly due to people finding my blog having read the website. Bullying appears to be rife at universities generally, and corrupt management is not uncommon.

Thanks to those of you who have sent messages of support. They really help.

Sunday, 19 February 2012
Like Sister And Brother
A warm welcome to my blog's newest member; member number 006. Has anyone noticed that there is a strong physical resemblance to most of my members?

Unfortunately we just missed out on beating my blog's seven day visitors record. Who knows? It may happen yet.

Saturday, 18 February 2012
Viewing figures for my blog are now just a smidgen away from the all time record. Please send links to all your friends and family. Running costs for my blog are not getting any lower, so enjoy it now while it's free to view. I will probably have to double the price some time later.
On Monday, the next witness to appear will be Eileen MacDonald. That should be interesting. It is my belief that Eileen has been the root cause of all my problems over the years. I know that she had been jealous of me, and I think this led her to make up and spread gossip about me, and that she included Kathy McCabe in the gossip chain, and that's what initially caused the problems between me and Kathy. Experts on bullying recognise Eileen's behaviour as a certain type which is different from that of the more direct bully. Eileen is the type of bully who enjoys creating havoc around her by planting pieces of gossip, and is rewarded by seeing everyone get caught up by it all, while she looks on from the sidelines. She's like a real life version of an internet troll.

Things took a turn for the worse for Eileen when her dirty tricks were found out. This was shortly after Kathy and I had attended mediation, and Kathy agreed that if she received a complaint about me, she would get it in writing and pass it on to me to get my response, then meet with me and the complainant to discuss it. Eileen told Kathy a pile of shite about me, and had to put it in writing. When Kathy received my response giving full details of how her gossiping little friend was the one at fault, she quickly cancelled the meeting she had arranged for us. Kathy couldn't bear to criticise her chum. She reserved her criticism for me despite the fact that I worked like a bear for her. Somehow it never sunk into Kathy's brain that Eileen was making a fool of her as well as bullying me.

Friday, 17 February 2012
Today at the hearing was odd. In the morning, I felt very good and I can't recall any problems. I was almost finished cross examining Eric Hall when we had to stop for lunch. I think lunchtime itself causes my stress to increase. By the time we started back after lunch, I felt as though I hit a brick wall, and the power of thought completely left me.

Eric was refreshingly honest with most of his evidence as far as I could tell. He described how Selina had gone to him one day and told him that in a private conversation I had with her, I went wild with rage and was spitting on her desk, etc. I felt that Eric was probably telling the truth. However, I know for a fact that Selina was lying. The first I ever heard about the allegation was after I'd been interviewed for the disciplinary investigation. It hadn't been put to me.

If anyone reading this knows Selina, then please ask her to swear on her kiddies' lives that she told the truth, because she is, as sure as hell, one lying bastard. If she did indeed tell Eric this, I can only think it was due to some perverse need to spread gossip about me and to make herself feel important. That gives an indication of how dysfunctional the team had become. I could never have thought in my wildest dreams that Selina was the type of person to do such a thing, but she is definitely not the person I thought she was for the ten years or so I knew her. The University should force her to take a lie detector test, because no one's job is safe if she can make up stories about people and they are automatically believed. They could test me as well if they actually gave a damn about the truth. Selina behaved in a very weird, disconnected way at the tribunal. It was as if she was trying to persuade herself that what she was saying was true.

Although I believed Eric today, there is still a chance he was lying. He certainly never mentioned it to me, and I had a fairly long chat with him just before I was suspended.

How can anybody feel safe in the office if all that someone has to do for you to be sacked is to make up some false allegation of an incident that happened when you were alone, or even when you weren't there. She could even have falsely claimed that I sexually assaulted her, and I would have had that against my name too. Employers should be required to use a lie detector in such circumstances, and the liar automatically sacked. Selina Gibb should be sacked, and that would send a message to other potential liars, and provide security to those who they make malicious complaints about. Selina should have no objection to being tested because she claims to be telling the truth, and should therefore be anxious to prove her honesty.

Thursday, 16 February 2012
I felt a definite improvement in my health today after taking one of my anti depressant pills. I think I had hardly any episodes of the type I described yesterday. I'm still shattered though.

Today's witness was Graham Millar. Information I have received from a number of sources says that Graham refused to allow a presentation to take place on the retirement of former colleague, Robin. This led to bad feelings within his team which resulted in Graham not being invited to his team's Christmas nights out. That's why he usually attended ours. He denied this in court today.

He denies that the disciplinary investigation he carried out was a sham. He was highly unconvincing, and I would be very surprised if the tribunal was to believe that his investigation was reasonable, let alone the thorough and fair one promised by Mark Toole. If employers are allowed to carry out investigations in this manner, then we have no hope. Despite knowing all of the allegations against me, he refused to tell me what they were when he interviewed me.

IT Manager, Graham claims that he doesn't know that in order for two people to become friends on facebook, it requires both of them to agree to it. He thought it was possible for someone to become a friend without their approval.

He also lied and said that Ruth and I were drunk at the nights out we attended. Ruth, in particular, hardly drinks at all. She would usually take the odd sip from my pint which would probably amount to about half a pint in a night. I've never seen her remotely drunk in the eight years I've known her. He denies that he had his arm around Una Forsyth's shoulder and that she sat on his knee at nights out. The guy is liar, and I would imagine that a large number of people reading this will recognise that.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012
I have felt my health deteriorate this week, but I've just realised that I've forgotten to take my anti depressant pills for a few days. The irony of that is that if I HAD taken them, then I would have had a better chance of remembering to take them. I'm sure there's a word for things like that but, not having taken my pills, I can't think what it is. One of the problems I'm having is a combination of vocabulary and speech. Words that I would usually know are not coming to me at times, but I think there are times when that is less of a problem. Then there are also times when I definitely know the word I'm trying to say, but for some strange reason, I can't say it. I have a feeling it happens most often with people's names. I think, but am not sure, that it gets worse in the afternoon, or maybe it's after I've been talking a while. I am a wreck at the end of each day. It's all very hard going, and there's no day off this week. The hearing only takes place from 10am to 4pm, but that's more than enough for anyone, let alone someone suffering from stress and depression who is having to cross examine liar after liar after liar.

It was David Black's turn to lie today. It's hard to tell how convincing it sounds to the tribunal because obviously I knew him very well having worked across a desk from him for six years. Kathy should be very proud of him, because he definitely tried to big her up, and to claim that he had no knowledge of her bullying me. Without realising it though, he slipped up and told the truth about something which he was unaware Kathy had lied about. His account on this matter exactly matched my own. However, he didn't realise that Kathy had done a "Kathy" and made up a pack of lies on this issue. There was a second similar truth he told which was the opposite of Kathy's lies. This time he tried to claw back, but it was far too difficult. He tried his hardest to defend her on other issues though. He falsely claimed that he thought that I bullied Kathy. This is a bloke who would sell his soul for tuppence.

Viewing figures for my blog are now at their highest since February 2011. Well done all!
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
After today, I feel as though I've worked a week and gone 15 rounds with a fit Muhammed Ali. Jackie O'Neil was VERY hard work. It was just like being back at work with her. She loves to talk. She LOVES to talk! She doesn't like NOT talking!

Monday, 13 February 2012
Selina Gibb was on the witness stand today and lied from start to finish. She denies that she was ever on friendly terms with me during the eleven years or so we worked together. Interestingly, although she was prepared to swear on oath that her evidence was true, she couldn't be persuaded to swear on her children's lives. She might be a bare faced liar, but she does love her children.

She had great difficulty trying to explain a brief discussion between me, herself and Una Forsyth just after my grievance hearing. Unfortunately for Selina, the discussion was being recorded accidentally. Selina can be heard clearly asking me how the hearing went, but she insists that she didn't want to discuss the hearing because she alleges that in a previous private conversation with her, I had gone wild with anger to such an extent that I was spitting on her desk and going round in circles with what I was saying. This she says caused her to feel frightened, anxious and nervous around me. However, Selina can also be heard interrupting a work related conversation I was having with Una, to make jokes about my shoes. The recording and emails between us clearly demonstrate that we were on very good terms, however she insisted that we weren't. She said she only joked about my shoes to change the subject from the grievance hearing. She said this despite it being obvious that she had specifically asked me about the grievance hearing, and that when she joked about my shoes, Una and I were talking about a work problem, and I was in the middle of answering her. So if she is prepared to lie about a discussion that we have all heard and can hear again and again, she will lie about anything.

The weird thing is that Karen Stark, who is attending the whole hearing, should theoretically, as an impartial HR adviser, be appalled at Selina's obvious dishonesty, but Karen is far from impartial, and she has had to perform verbal gymnastics with her own evidence. Karen has told the tribunal that she thinks that it's reasonable for a manager to complain to a Director, HR and others that an employee has failed to respond to an email, within 15 minutes. She has also said that she thinks that the same manager should not intervene when receiving a complaint from an employee that they are being bullied by colleagues. This is despite Karen having read the university's Anti Bullying and Harassment document which states that incidents of bullying will be regarded "extremely seriously".

Selina was replaced, after lunch, by Jackie O'Neil who will likely take up all day Tuesday as well.

Saturday, 11 February 2012
Motivated by her belief that she could be in trouble due to the assault incident, Una Forsyth and a number of female colleagues made false complaints about me. When interviewed together, Una and Karen Eccleson made up a story that was not only false; it was also impossible. I had pointed this out to Mark Toole and Karen Stark at the disciplinary hearing, but they refused to check out the false claim. It would have been very easy to check out from HR records. As well as making the false statement at her interview, Una also later checked and signed her statement as true after making some amendments. In November 2011, Una was asked to confirm whether her statement was true or false. I also asked her questions that she knew related to this particular false statement. She confirmed it was true, but refused to answer the related questions. At the tribunal, Una changed her story, claiming that it was just a mistake that neither she nor Karen Eccleson had realised. I had also referred to this particular false complaint in my blog which Una confirmed she had read.

I have some sympathy for Una. She was deliberately allowed to believe that I had complained about her assaulting me years earlier. That is no excuse, however, for colluding with others to make false complaints about me. It also doesn't excuse her lying under oath which she did several times.

During all of the turmoil caused by Una believing I had caused her to be interviewed by HR, Kathy McCabe would have been sitting back laughing at her. Kathy and I were both told by Karen Stark that it was only people whose names appeared on submitted documents that were to be interviewed. I had gone out of my way NOT to mention Una's name. It was Kathy who had submitted the document with Una's name on it. When I emailed Una, I had told her that I had been protecting her, but she wasn't in listening mode. Kathy conveniently didn't tell Una the truth.

When Karen Stark informed us that she would be interviewing colleagues, I wrote to her saying "I'm not clear what would be gained by meeting with my colleagues, as it may result in bad feelings within the team." Later that same day, she wrote to Una to invite her to be interviewed. Up to that point, Una was not on the list of people that Eileen Schofield planned to interview.

Friday, 10 February 2012
Congratulations! Viewing figures for my blog have again smashed through the record since March 2011. You are truly luvvin my blog, so you are. Either that or you are truly hating my blog! Either way, you are truly loggin on to my blog in record numbers. Welcome aboard! Please feel free to enjoy my blog without limitation while it is completely free.

The picture became clearer today at the hearing. Karen Stark and Mark Toole, the two people that I'd blown the whistle on, are the main bastards to cause my unfair dismissal. Both of them had allowed Una Forsyth to believe that I had made a complaint of assault against her concerning an incident that took place in December 2006. This made her angry towards me and upset when I emailed her to find out what was wrong with her and why she wasn't speaking to me.

Toole and Stark deliberately failed to inform Una that I had not complained about her at all. Karen Stark had also conveniently not informed Una that I had actually written to her to say that I saw no point in interviewing Una as part of my grievance process, and that it would likely cause bad feelings within the team. Despite several opportunities they had to enlighten Una of the true circumstances, they allowed her to continue to believe that I had complained about her. Only today did she learn the truth.

Karen Stark had said they needed to interview Una because she was obliged by university procedures to carry out thorough investigations into the allegations. When they interviewed Una, they didn't even ask who had witnessed the alleged assault. So the only purpose of that interview was to upset Una and to cause bad feelings between her and me. Then for some strange reason, Mark Toole started up a disciplinary investigation against me just days after Jackie O'Neil screamed at me after being angry at a system upgrade error that had been her own fault.

Disgusting behaviour, for which I hope to make them pay. The Bastards!!! They should resign now!!! Alternatively, if the lying bastards think they can pass a genuine lie detector test, then they should contact me with that view NOW!!! I say this on 10 February 2012. Lets count the days that the lying bastards avoid a lie detector test! I will update this daily.

Welcome to my newest member (follower). Welcome to all of my readers even if you are not a member. Welcome to my reader who thinks I'm an arse. At least you are attempting to improve yourself! I still don't know how your life changes if you become a member. If you receive £10 Tesco vouchers, then I will become a member hunners of times this weekend.

Thursday, 9 February 2012
A former colleague, who was also subjected to a sham grievance procedure at the hands of Stirling University before she was unfairly dismissed, had offered to appear as a witness on my behalf in order to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour by the uni, and particularly by Christine Hallett and Martin McCrindle. She had been waiting for more than two weeks to be called as a witness when the uni's lawyer objected, and the judge allowed the objection. Surprisingly, their lawyer was allowed to state that I was calling my witness in support of my claim for an exemplary award. It had nothing to do with an exemplary award because I had informed the judge in writing of this witness back in November 2011 along with her relevance to my case. That was before I'd even heard of exemplary awards which I've since learned only apply in England and Wales.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012
The past two days of cross examining Karen Stark did not produce the fireworks I'd expected. Instead I had to witness a damp squib. The judge was quick to dismiss the fraud in the fraudulent document as a mere error, and I felt I was rushed and knocked off balance when the judge said I shouldn't examine Karen about each of the allegations described in that document. The reason the judge gave is because the document was produced in response to questions I'd asked the university after I had been dismissed. But the reason I had to ask those questions was because Eileen Schofield had produced a report on the grievances that gave very little detail about how she reached her decision. When you carry out a sham grievance process, you tend to give very little by way of detail.

I hope that this is not a taste of what is to come. Stirling University should not be let off the hook for their disgraceful behaviour. If a grievance process such as the sham I was subjected to becomes legal, then it means employees have no rights whatsoever.

My mental health isn't so good just now, and I think the disappointing events in court are contributing to that. Today was slightly better than yesterday, and I'm determined to battle on. I have a day off tomorrow (Thursday), then we are back in court on Friday. The next witnesses scheduled to appear are Una Forsyth and Selina Gibb. Both will have to decide whether they intend to repeat false statements under oath that they made during investigation at the uni. Some of their false statements are known by other witnesses to be false. That is very different from lying about something that nobody else knows is a lie. From the questions I asked them in November, it appears that they do intend to lie. What an extraordinary position they have got themselves into.

One day in the future, I expect witnesses will have to give evidence while attached to a fullproof lie detector. By then, fewer cases will reach court because liars will have lost their advantage. Judges and juries could also be hooked up to lie detectors to help eliminate corruption. But fewer crimes would be committed if detection was certain. Maybe in future all babies will be fitted with chips which will identify them of any crimes they go on to commit. Satellite computers will clock any numpties that still think they can beat the system. What would a world without crime and dishonesty be like? What would TV show instead of all of those crime detective programmes? Will my blog still be receiving hits by then?

Somehow I don't foresee Karen Stark agreeing to take a polygraph test. A lying coward!

Sunday, 5 February 2012
The hearing recommences on Tuesday, and continues on Wednesday and Friday.

I would not wish to be in Karen Stark's position for the world. She has already made several false statements to the tribunal, but once we start on the fraudulent document that the uni sent to the tribunal to try to make it appear that a genuine grievance process had taken place, all will become clear. Kathy McCabe will also be in very hot water, and she would have struggled even if the water had only been room temperature. I still don't believe that the uni will bring Kathy to the witness stand. I think they will have thrown in the towel by then.

I just don't see how Karen Stark will last very long pretending that she carried out a proper grievance process. I also think that her mental stability has to be questioned because of the mere fact that she is prepared to attempt to pretend under oath that everything was legitimate when clearly it isn't. It just seems like pure madness.

At some stage I expect their lawyer may have to intervene and ask for the hearing to be adjourned while he speaks with Karen Stark privately. There are roughly 50 allegations in the two grievances made by Kathy and me, and Karen has to start with one of the most difficult where it is blatantly obvious, not only that the grievance was a sham, but that the document is a fraud and that Karen has already lied about it under oath. As I understand it, a lawyer cannot defend a client whom he knows to be lying, so he may have to dismiss himself, and leave Karen to represent the uni by herself.

A major difficulty the uni has in this case is that there is no upper limit to the amount of compensation payable. That's because it includes elements relating to whistleblowing and sex discrimination. Another major difficulty is that their case appears hopeless, and requires several employees to lie under oath, even when it's obvious they are lying.

So, although it will prove impossible to get through those 50 allegations without it being obvious to the tribunal that the grievance process was a sham, they have to try. I don't know if the tribunal will be allowed to stop the hearing to tell Karen that it is obvious she is lying, so I have no option but to cross examine her on each of those 50 allegations, and how Eileen Schofield reached her decision for each of them. And the first of those allegations we consider from the fraudulent document will give the tribunal a taste of what is to come in the remaining 49.

Stirling University finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place. I expect Tuesday, 7 February 2012 to be a very big day in their calendar.

Isn't Youtube great! Here are some of my favs.
Jackie DeShannon - When You Walk In The Room. A very HOT lady!!!
Anna Bergendahl - This Is My Life. The Swedish Eurovision entry from 2010. Somehow it failed to qualify for the final.
Clifford T Ward - A Day To Myself. I'm a big fan. He never wrote a bad song, but I consider this to be his best. I felt honoured to meet him when he was suffering from the illness that eventually killed him.
Marvin Gaye - Abraham, Martin And John. A good friend and I used to drink bottles of red wine in the evening and listen to Marvin's album. I would usually sing along to this track, and end up in floods of tears. "It seems the good die young."
Elton John - Your Song. This was my karaoke song. Whenever I was on holiday, I'd always try to pluck up the courage to sing this. I once learned to play the piano intro. That was all I could play though.

Saturday, 4 February 2012
I just remembered that I'd promised my readers some more Northern Soul dance lessons. This guy on youtube has it all; swan dives, backdrops, the lot. It's not long before his moves attract a large crowd.

Step - Brush - Step - Brush - Step - Brush...

This guy is proper good! I always wished I could spin like he does.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012
It was another very tiring day today. I began cross examining Karen Stark. She is very frustrating to question, because she sometimes refuses to answer the question I put to her, and instead answers a question that she wishes I'd asked instead. We've reached the point at which I lodged my formal grievance against Kathy McCabe and sent my protected disclosure to the Principal. So I'm almost at the point where I will be asking her questions about the sham grievance process. God only knows how she will explain that away.

We have the rest of this week off, which is just as well because I'm both mentally and physically exhausted. I'm just about fit for the bin. We might be back in court on Monday, but if not, then Tuesday and Wednesday. Originally it was intended that we wouldn't be back until 13th February, but new dates have had to be added because of the amount of evidence to cover. I don't think we are going slowly; it's just that there's a lot to cover.

Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Karen Stark continued giving her evidence today. I would expect her to have about another hour's worth of evidence to give, then it will be for me to cross examine her. I expect the proverbial shit to hit the proverbial fan. Her evidence is crammed with lies and fraud. She must think the tribunal members and I all came up the Clyde in a banana boat. She was already struggling at some points today, even with the easy questions she was asked by the uni's lawyer. I felt the tribunal may have already smelt a rat in her story. It simply doesn't join up, and I intend to expose the many inconsistencies.

Monday, 30 January 2012
At long last I finally left the witness stand today just after lunch. I was replaced by Karen Stark. It was interesting watching her take the oath to tell the truth, because I know that she is about to lie her head off. I don't think it will be easy to lie for the length of time that she proposes to lie. Tribunal members have lots of experience of dodgy witnesses, and if they smell something is not quite right, I expect they will pounce with follow up questions that ease out the truth.

In my own case, giving evidence and being cross examined was relatively easy, and that's because I was telling the truth. When you tell the truth, everything adds up and makes sense because it really happened. When you lie, things don't add up, and it doesn't make sense. There are three large bundles of documents, so any fake story has to fit in with every document. Any lie will have to be consistent with everything else you say as well as everything that everyone else says. I wouldn't want to try it. It will be particularly difficult for those who tend to show signs of lying by, for example, going red in the face during the lie itself.

Friday, 27 January 2012
It was another difficult day at the tribunal hearing today. I think that it's when the subject gets onto the time of the sham disciplinary process, my brain seems to hit a wall and go blank. It's a terrible memory of a terrible time. It was simply deliberate torture. It's possibly as bad, or even worse than a lot of torture that happens around the world in what we may think of as under developed countries.

People who take part in such torture run the serious risk of revenge attacks, because when someone relies on justice and receives a sham, what else can they do? While they might think it's worthwhile to act dishonestly in order to help a friend or receive a bung or escape from a difficult personal position, those perceived benefits are of no use to you if you, or someone close to you, ends up dead as a result of your dishonest actions. As the world progresses through the centuries, such behaviour will be abolished just as slavery and killing suspected witches were abolished in recent centuries.

The uni's lawyer hasn't finished cross examining me yet. That may happen around lunchtime Monday. Then it will be for me to make points of clarification on issues that were raised during cross examination.

We've completed eight days of the hearing so far. We may be about to lose our Thursdays off as the tribunal believes we will need more time allocated to the case. That's both good and bad I think.

At this moment, I am totally wrecked. I could really use a bottle of whisky or two.

Thursday, 26 January 2012
45 days without alcohol. If I had been drinking a bottle of whisky a day, it would have cost me about £500 in those 45 days. If I had the need for whisky now that I had when I began this diary back in August 2011, I would have been in an even worse condition than I am just now. I very much doubt if I would have been able to hang on for the tribunal. It would have been too unbearable. And I don't think I would have been able to reduce my alcohol intake had it not been for this diary. So the likelihood is that this page has so far saved my life. I certainly didn't envisage that back then.

I realise that I hardly ever talk about alcohol now, because it has become less significant. Two years ago, I was drinking more than a litre of whisky a day, and incredibly, I've reduced it to zero without being hospitalised, and without attending a single AA meeting.

If you have an alcohol dependency, or you know someone who has; making a public diary of your attempts to reduce your alcohol intake is definitely worth a try. You have to be honest though. There would be no point otherwise. Don't set yourself any targets. As long as you are trying to reduce, you are not failing. Don't be put off by setbacks. I had my share of setbacks.

Please don't think I'm being cocky and that I'm saying I've cured myself. If I had money, I would almost certainly be buying and drinking alcohol, but I hope I would be able to control my drinking rather than allow my drinking to control me. Good luck!

Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Some more cross examination took place today, and once again the uni's lawyer puts his view strongly that he knows better than me about technical matters I've worked with for about twelve years. It's almost as though I'm back at work listening to Jackie O'Neil telling me she knows better than me. He's having to do this because his client's case is so weak. I personally think that there is a chance that the uni may throw in the towel at some stage. Once I start cross examining Karen Stark, and their lawyer hears the quality of her answers, he may throw himself at the mercy of the court. It's possible he may advise the uni to withdraw their defense of my claims, or he may bow out and tell them to represent themselves. One of the biggest hurdles the uni has to get over is the fact that to prove fair dismissal, they have to show that they carried out a reasonable investigation under the circumstances. They will have to satisfactorily explain why they were so determined not to interview David Black as part of that investigation. They must have known that they would lose at an Employment Tribunal when they did that, and that my dismissal would be seen to have been deliberately unfair.

The tribunal has decided that the case will have to be heard over more than the 23 days currently arranged.

We have tomorrow (Thursday) off. So far, it has definitely been easier being cross examined compared with giving my own evidence last week. Their lawyer is working chronologically through my evidence, and we are at the beginning of the disciplinary process. He could be finished by the end of the week.

Tuesday, 24 January 2012
The uni's lawyer continued cross examining me today, and do you remember that dead horse he was flogging yesterday? Well, he thought it needed some more flogging today. This is because Karen Stark is desperate to persuade the tribunal that she and Eileen Schofield had checked out one of Kathy's lies from the grievance hearing, and found it to be true, when in fact they hadn't checked it out at all. In my grievance, I stated that I never received a merit award from Kathy. Kathy insisted that I did. A merit award was a one off payment in recognition for good work. Schofield and Stark say they checked this out and found that I had received a merit award. This has resulted in them trying to convince the tribunal that a promotion is the same thing as a merit award and that everyone in Stirling University except me knows that a promotion is the same thing as a merit award. To make matters worse for the uni, they have submitted a document which shows that Kathy is aware that a promotion is not a merit award, and I've submitted a document from the Payroll Manager that clearly demonstrates that any confusion between promotions and merit awards has been manufactured for the purpose of the tribunal hearing. Karen Stark is going to find the tribunal process very different from the sham processes she is used to carrying out.

That was followed by a rather bizarre mathematical suggestion that if the role evaluation (Framework) process resulted in me being red circled and dropped by a grade, I would not have lost out financially because my grade would have been protected for four years, by which time the grade I would have dropped to would have caught up with the grade I was dropped from. I'm sure that when he raised this issue it must have been clear in his mind what he was suggesting, but I think at the end he realised that it didn't make sense.

Of course, the lawyer isn't to blame. He can only work with the information he is provided by the university. Karen Stark will be the uni's first witness to appear. She is going to be cross examined by me, and it is bound to prove very difficult for her. She has a helluva lot of explaining to do, and tons of it will be impossible to explain. The grievance process is likely to be a nightmare for her.

My cross examination could still last until the end of the week, by which time the hearing will have lasted eight days. There are signs that the case may have to be extended beyond the 23 days that have been allocated to it. Very little time is being wasted, because the lawyer and I have noted the identifying numbers of each of the documents so that we are not taking ages trying to find any particular document.

So far, being cross examined has definitely been easier than giving evidence. Although I keep forgetting to take notes.

Monday, 23 January 2012
I'm going to begin tonight's section on Northern Soul with a DON'T. Don't buy any record with artists that have "Wigan" in their name. It ain't Northern Soul!

Now that we've made that clear, here are a few more classics...
Percy Wiggins - It Didn't Take Much - youtube link
Beverley Ann - You've Got Your Mind On Other Things - youtube link
Dana Valery - You Don't Know Where Your Interests Lies - youtube link
David and the Giants - Ten Miles High - youtube link. I think I have this one too. Not sure. Brilliant anyway!
Frankie Valli - You're Ready Now - youtube link. Remember to do your splits and stuff at 1:09. At 1:29, you may optionally spin like fuck!
Dena Barnes - If You Ever Walked Out Of My Life - youtube link
The Fascinations - Girls Are Out To Get You - youtube link
Frankie & The Classicals - What Shall I Do - youtube link
Laura Greene - Moonlight, Music And You - youtube link
Bunny Sigler - Girl Dont Make Me Wait - youtube link
Bobby Hebb - Love Love Love - youtube link. I deffo have this. Suits my dance style to a T.
The Soul Twins - Quick Change Artist - youtube link
Earl Van Dyke - 6 by 6 - youtube link. One of mine again. It was made for me to dance to this.
Yvonne Baker - You Didn`t Say A Word - youtube link. Another floor filler!
Darrel Banks - Somebody (Somewhere) Needs You - youtube link. Sooooooo Soulful!
Bobby Hebb - Sunny - youtube link. Just a timeless and beautiful song.

I felt today seemed far less stressful. I don't know if that's because I had two days off or because I was coming to the end of giving my evidence. I finished at 2:15, and the Uni's lawyer began cross examining me at 2:40.

I played my mp3 fles containing conversations I had with Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Kathy McCabe and David Black. I have a feeling that audio recordings are not played very often in tribunals, but with the advent of digital recordings as well as small devices that can record video, I expect that will change in the future. Employees will become more savvy when dealing with rogue employers like University of Stirling.

It's difficult to estimate how long the cross examination may take, but I think it's unlikely to go beyond this week. In a way the cross examination is easier for me because I don't need to prepare for it. I just have to answer the lawyer's questions. There is a theme to his questioning so far, but I feel he is flogging a dead horse. Indeed I had to point that out to him at one point. "I think you are flogging a dead horse", I said to him.

One difficulty with representing myself is that I am playing a dual role, like Superman and Clarke Kent. I am a witness as well as the person representing me. So the sequence of events is:
1 I give my evidence
2 The lawyer cross examines me
3 I can then give evidence relating to what he has cross examined me about.

That means that, at the same time as I'm answering his questions, I should be taking notes of what he's asked me. I'm not the best notetaker at the best of times, but to do it while I'm answering questions is very difficult for me. To make matters worse, my pen ran out of ink. It never rains but it pours.

Unlike Superman, I am allowed to wear the same clothes when I am a witness as well as the person representing me. That's just as well because I don't have many clothes that fit me now that I'm about twice the size I was before.

I did something wrong today apparently. When giving evidence, I gave submissions. I can't say for sure what the difference is, but since it was near the end of what I thought was my evidence, I don't think it mattered too much. Except, I'm supposed to give my submissions at the end, so I'll need to find out what they actually are. I don't think they dealt with this in the episode of Perry Mason that I saw. I think the episode I watched, he lost the case!

If all of this legal talk is boring all of you who have just come on to discover more Northern Soul classics, then stay tuned as I expect to add more later. Meanwhile, I hope you have all perfected your Northern Soul dance moves. Remember, it's not just how you look, but also how you feel when you are dancing. There's another excellent video clip I can point you to later. Keep the faith!

Sunday, 22 January 2012
Karen Stark has made a very serious mistake again with her fraudulent behaviour. At a meeting with me, Kathy McCabe, Mark Toole, Lynn McDonald and Dave Edgar on 20 January 2009, Kathy admitted that she knew that Una had assaulted me at the Christmas night out in December 2006, but that she took no action. The reason she gave for not taking action was because she wasn't present when the assault took place. Karen Stark was the notetaker at this meeting when Kathy also admitted that, also in December 2006, she had told me she wasn't interested when I told her about abusive treatment I was receiving from Jackie O'Neil. She repeated that she wasn't interested and said that she expects her staff to deal with such matters between themselves. Kathy also had her arms folded at one point during the meeting after she said she had complained that I had my arms folded during a meeting. She said that she considers arm folding to be aggressive. I pointed out to Kathy that her arms were folded. She quickly unfolded them and said she hadn't realised.

None of this appeared in Karen Stark's notes when I asked for them while I was suspended in May 2010. Her notes are a fraud aimed to give a false account of that meeting. However, once again Karen Stark has thought that she was smarter than she really is. It is now clear that her notes are a fraud. I had also asked Karen for her handwritten notes, but unlike the other notetakers from HR who had attended meetings with me, Karen said she destroyed them. It is now very clear that the missing conversations did take place, so why are they missing from Karen Stark's notes? Could it be that she was attempting to help Kathy McCabe survive my grievance? Was she attempting to make my Protected Disclosure to the Principal look false? Karen was already in serious trouble with the other fraudulent document. Now she is in even deeper shit. We now have one fraudulent document which refers to another fraudulent document.

Miss Stark may soon be facing private legal action from me.

The shit that Kathy McCabe was in has also now got a fair bit deeper. She will never learn.

Saturday, 21 January 2012
Check out these Northern Soul classics. Don't I spoil you?
Doris Troy - I'll Do Anything (He Wants Me To Do) - youtube link
Tommy Hunt - Crackin' Up Over You - youtube link
Dean Courtney - I'll Always Need You - youtube link
The Reflections - Like Adam And Eve - youtube link
Derek And Ray - Interplay - youtube link
Muriel Day - Nine Times Out Of Ten - youtube link. I've forgotten her name, but one of the Dundee soulers dances brilliantly to this, and I can still picture her doing it now even years later.
The Baltimore And Ohio Marching Band - Condition Red - youtube link. I'm pretty sure this is one of my small collection.
Andre Brasseur - The Kid - youtube link. Too fast for me to dance to.
Andre Brasseur - Holiday - youtube link.
The next time you're at a Northern Soul gig and you want the deejay to play one of these two, be sure to ask for the right one as there's a whole lot of confusion about the names of the tracks having been swopped. They've been used for radio theme tunes, so may sound familiar.
Al Apollo - I'm Walkin - youtube link. I got this gem on a free CD they handed out to attendees at one of the Dundee Soul nights.
The MVPs - Turning My Heartbeat Up - youtube link
Dean Parrish - I'm On My Way - youtube link
Judy Street - What - youtube link
Bettye Swann - Kiss My Love Goodbye - youtube link. A floor filler!
Dusty Springfield - What's It Gonna Be - youtube link
The Yum Yums - Gonna Be A Big Thing - youtube link
April Stevens - Wanting You - youtube link. I think I have this on vinyl.
Just Brothers - Sliced Tomatoes - youtube link

If you love the sounds of Northern Soul music but lack the confidence to strut your stuff on the dancefloor, here's a free lesson on how to do those Northern Soul dancesteps you've often wished you could do. youtube link.

All of the pain I'm going through at the moment will be rewarded soon when all of the lying bastards take the witness stand. It will be fascinating to see whether they stick with their lies despite all of the evidence that will show it's obvious that they are lying, and risk going to jail, or will they come clean and admit they were lying. I doubt if any of them had ever thought they would end up having to repeat their stupid unbelievable lies under oath in court. So although I'm finding it hard going at the moment, I'm sure it will all be worth it in the end.

Let that be a warning to all you people who lie at the drop of a hat, or have got into the habit of making up gossip. You might find yourself having to repeat the same pish under oath.

After the Christmas lull, viewing figures for my blog are once again the highest they have been since last March. They are exactly double the figure for the same week last year. The graph plots the rolling seven day average daily viewers.
Friday, 20 January 2012
Well, I'm glad that today is behind me rather than ahead of me. This was the worst yet. The subject matter is the cause of it, I think. It brings back painful memories of what was happening at the time. Hearing that Selina had made up stories about me; David Black changing his story; the sham disciplinary hearing; the mental torture of Mark Toole pretending he didn't believe me. "How was work today, Mark, honey?" "Fantastic! I mentally tortured this guy that was dedicated to his job." "Well done, honey! I hope they give you a merit award for that." "Yes, Gerry McCormac sure knows how to get the best out of people."

It's much harder than I expected. It is very stressful, and I would normally have stood up and walked around to try to distract me from it, but that's not possible. The good thing though, is that it is another day less to go. I thought I would enjoy giving my evidence, but I'm looking forward to finishing, probably by Monday lunchtime. It gives me the weekend to prepare. Then I will be cross examined by the Uni's lawyer. I don't know how long that's likely to take. Then it will be the other witnesses to give their evidence. Karen Stark is first up for the uni, but before that (I think), I have my own witness that I'm calling.

The uni's case seems too absurd to believe, and it is hard to believe that they are prepared to put themselves through it.

Thursday, 19 January 2012
My loyal reader from Glasgow, who repeatedly lets me know that they think I am an arse, tells me nothing else apart from that. I think they are an arse. The reason they are an arse is because they heckle me anonymously from the safety of their computer keyboard. They offer no explanation for their view that I am an arse. They simply repeat it as if they have some form of tourette's syndrome. I suspect it is a bully, and they want to show support for bullies in the only way they know how.

The bully is a strange species. What do they gain from doing it? It must give them some sort of thrill and excitement to see their targets suffer. It's about power as well I suppose. Bullies generally target people they perceive to be weaker than them.

Mobbing is a fascinating subject. How do 'normal' people become part of a mob that pounces on a target like a pack of wolves? I would not have believed in a million years that Selina Gibb was the type to become part of a mob, but she did. David Black did too. I think he knew what side his bread was buttered. It has always been my natural instinct to support the underdog or the unfairly treated. It must be some people's natural instinct to support the bully, whether that be to avoid being the target or to gain the thrills of being a bully.

All of those people who witnessed Jackie shouting at me, who witnessed Una assaulting me, who witnessed the incident where Selina didn't rush out of the tea room upset; what is going on in their minds just now and since they heard the lies told by Jackie, Una and Selina? Are they bullies or people who support the underdog? Or are they people who say they just don't want to get involved? People like Paul Scott, Stephen Winter, Elaine Bond and Eileen Leitch who, among others, know that Una Forsyth assaulted me. What the hell is stopping them from coming forward and telling the truth? By doing nothing, they effectively become part of the mob. When you say "I don't want to get involved", you are really saying "I'm quite happy to watch an innocent man suffer." Basically they become part of the lie.

I remember an experiment I watched on TV many years ago. A man was to be tested to see how he would behave when placed in a group of people who, unknown to him, had all been given instructions on what to do during the test. The examiner asked them a fairly simple arithmetic question that they each had to answer out loud in sequence. The others deliberately gave the wrong answer, and despite knowing it was wrong, the 'guinea pig' gave the same wrong answer. He did it with several simple questions. It showed that the desire to conform to the group was stronger than the desire to do the right thing. Another experiment showed that people were prepared to press a switch that they thought was going to cause someone in the next room to be electrocuted, just because they were told to. People will become part of a mob even though they know it's wrong. Paul, Stephen, Elaine and Eileen are all happy to keep pressing that switch. LINK to the experiment.

The hearing will resume tomorrow with me giving evidence about the disciplinary process. The Disciplinary Procedure states that the manager should identify two investigators from a different department. Despite there being 1400 employees in the university, Mark Toole couldn't manage that. He chose Graham Millar, whom he line manages, to carry out his dirty work. The investigation was a farce.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012
Thankfully, we have a day off tomorrow, because I am finding it quite tough going. I think I may have underestimated how long this is going to take, because I just managed to complete the evidence relating to the disciplinary investigation, and the grievance appeal. Chronologically we are at 2 June 2010 when I received Mark Toole's letter informing me that he was going to hold a disciplinary hearing.

My brain goes completely blank at times as I try to say people's names that I know almost as well as my own. I feel as though I could sleep for a week. And I don't feel particularly well either. I feel the depression kicking in. I've taken on an awful lot. Hopefully, things will improve by Friday.

At some stage, Selina Gibb will be called as a witness. I was reminded today of the stupid situation she has put herself in. In order to make up some stupid gossip about me, she completely misrepresented a conversation that I had with her when we were alone in the office. The story she made up included claims that I had gone straight to her desk to tell her about my grievance with Kathy. She claims that I was so angry that I went wild and red in the face and that I was spitting on her desk. This took place in January 2010. In April 2010, she was asked to make this story she had made up official as part of the disciplinary investigation, and she went along with it. She claims that as a result of that conversation she was frightened and anxious when she was with me. I have a digital recording of her joking with me at the end of February 2010, and emails from her inviting me to hear funny stories about her skiing lessons. When she made up that story, I bet she never thought that she would have to retell it under oath in court. That is the danger of gossip. I definitely wouldn't want to be in her position. She has also made a seriously bad decision by lying about an incident that was witnessed by several colleagues. That may be more difficult because those colleagues will know that she will be lying under oath if she repeats it in court.

Una Forsyth has denied assaulting me also in view of about a dozen university witnesses. So when she denies that in court, those people will also know that she has lied under oath.

Jackie O'Neil also lied about an incident when she screamed at me in front of around ten witnesses, including David Black who was standing right next to us. So all of those people will know that she has lied if she denies it again under oath. Eileen MacDonald was one of those witnesses to that incident. If she denies it, she will be lying under oath too. David Black will also be lying under oath if he denies it. Jackie has got herself in a terrible mess, and it's getting worse. It beggars belief that she would deny shouting at me when there were so many witnesses.

Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield will also be lying under oath if they stick to the absurd story that the grievance process wasn't a sham. It seems bizarre, but it looks as though they must be planning to. And of course, each will know the other is lying.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Another one from my small collection of Northern Soul records is "Tears" by Lee Roye. Youtube link. Remember to do the rapid hand clapping at 1:05 and 1:43.

It was very hard going at the hearing today. I felt as though I worked twice as hard as yesterday, but only got through half as much. If I had any whisky to drink, I'd be having a few right now. We seemed to get stuck at one part when I was giving evidence in relation to my Protected Disclosure to the Principal. All three members of the tribunal were interrogating me on this, but it wasn't really the content of it, but the technical workings of the email. I think there may have been at least one misunderstanding, so confusion was aplenty. I think we got it all cleared up in the end. I think it was partly due to the fact that my email to the Principal doesn't show the attached grievance document, but her reply to me does. Also I sent it at 13:11, but she received it at 13:12. The good thing from my point of view is that if something isn't clear or it appears dodgy, the tribunal wants it to be made crystal clear. So I can only say I'm bloody glad that I'm telling the truth, cos I think that if they sense you are lying, they will be like a dog with a bone.

I would estimate, and it can only be an estimate, that we could be around two thirds of the way through my evidence. So I may finish tomorrow, or since we have Thursdays off, Friday lunchtime. Then it will be for the Uni's lawyer to question me, along with the tribunal's questions I expect. That may take us up to Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. I'm trying to give my evidence chronologically, and we have reached the point of the sham disciplinary investigation. I'm currently at Una Forsyth's interview. It must be a while since I last read it because I actually had to laugh at one part.

I hope you like the sign that indicates the beginning of my tribunal update. If anybody could write a theme tune or jingle for it, I could use that too!

Monday, 16 January 2012

I have been mostly playing Northern Soul Instrumentals tonight. It was an instrumental that first got me interested in Northern Soul back in about 1975. It was "Bird Walkin" by Emanon's Orchestra. Youtube link. They used to play it at The Americana in Edinburgh, which I think is now Fat Sam's. Maybe if Sam had done a bit more dancing, it would have been called Slim Sam's. Hi to all of you who used to frequent The Americana and Clouds.

That's the weird thing about the Northern Soul scene now. It is attended by people of all ages from seventeen to seventies. That's because they keep the faith, you see.

The hearing began as schedule at approximately 10am. I took to the witness desk and promised that I'd tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

There was a little surprise just before the hearing began. The university has finally disclosed the System Assistant role description that was used for the role evaluation process. I was concerned that they may have produced another fraudulent document, but they have produced the real thing. Unfortunately for them, if they were planning to produce a fraudulent version of the role description, the important part that I was most interested in is on the very last page just above the signatures of the role holders and the managers. So fraud would have required involving too many people. The bit I was most interested in was the great big fat lie which states: "It takes five years to gain the Oracle skills at the level required of the System Assistants." The true length of time is probably less than five weeks. That is pure and simple fraud from both Kathy McCabe and Eileen MacDonald. Added to that, Selina Gibb had no Oracle skills whatsoever when she began her job as a System Assistant in July 2004, and she still had none in September 2009 when I gave her the most basic Oracle course. The role description is dated September 2007. How on earth are they going to explain that away?

Stirling University is certainly taking this case most seriously. Not only do they have a fully qualified lawyer to represent them, but a trainee lawyer has also been brought in. And just to give themselves the best chance they possibly can have, Karen Stark is also in court on a daily basis. And in my left corner... just little old me with no formal or informal legal qualifications. However, I did once watch an episode of Perry Mason.

Now, if only they had taken the issue as seriously when I was still employed by them, perhaps they could have saved a lot of expense. Money is no issue for the uni. They have money to burn.

I'm starting Monday's diary entry a little early for those of you who can't wait to get your daily fix of Alcohol Diary.

It's funny, but whoever it is that thinks I'm an arse is one of my most loyal readers. They are from Glasgow, and they read my blog several times a day. Now if I was anxious to read a blog, I'm pretty sure I would read one written by someone who is not an arse. For example, I'd read one by someone who is an elbow or a shoulder or something. Unless this is the new speak, like how "bad" was good for a while, but I think it's bad again now. Who can keep up?

The Employment Tribunal hearing begins at 10am. Come early to ensure you get a seat. It would be an awful long time to stand. Try not to laugh at the bit when Mark Toole tells the tribunal that he genuinely believed Jackie O'Neil when she told him that she didnae shout at me, and that he genuinely believed her when she told him that her upgrade failed because of me making a mistake. I wonder if Mark has been taking acting lessons so that he can look shocked and in complete disbelief when he discovers that she did lie, and that she caused the failure herself. "Oh my God! I had no idea that Jackie was lying. Yet her story was so believable. I'm sure it would have fooled anyone." I think the look he should go for is the Macaulay Culkin, a hand on each cheek and mouth wide open, look.

I'm still listening to Northern Soul. Or am I? The purists would probably say that if I am listening to a digital recording then it can't be Northern. It has to be vinyl. But not only does it have to be vinyl, it has to be an original release vinyl. You can't go dancing to a re-released version of Frank Wilson's "Do I Love You (Indeed I Do)" and think you're dancing to true Northern Soul. And if it has a question mark in the title, then you really ought to chuck it in the bin. I knew the guy who bought one of the only two originals for £15,000. He could have bought an LP with that!

Keep the Faith!
Sunday, 15 January 2012
34 days with no alcohol.

I've been listening to some Northern Soul tracks tonight. I must confess, I couldn't resist a wee dance now and again. August and Deneen's "We Go Together" is playing just now. It's impossible to listen to without tapping your feet. Check out Prince Phillip Mitchell's "I'm So Happy" on youtube. Be careful when you do your backdrops! Doo-do-do-doo-do-do-do-doo...

I'm turning into a disc jockey now, so I am.

Not heard this one for hunners of years. "Out of my Mind" by Rain with Charity Brown. Link. I have it on vinyl in a box under a pile of boxes somewhere. I've nothing to play it with anyway.

Loads of people say that music sounds better on vinyl and tape than it does on digital recordings. I wonder if I'm just lucky that my ears wouldn't be able to tell the difference, unless there were crackles on the vinyl. Sometimes when I listen to a digital recording of a song I used to play to death on vinyl, I expect the scratch noise that my copy had at certain parts of the record. Billy Paul's "Your Song" is an example.

Maybe some radio station could give a nostalgic feel to their output by causing the signal to fade in and out now and again like it did with Radio Luxembourg and Radio Caroline.

Saturday, 14 January 2012
33 days without alcohol.

It's 1:00am and I'm listening to some lesser known Dusty Springfield songs from the 60s just now. She had such a fantastic, soulful voice. I almost want to get up and dance.

Friday, 13 January 2012
32 days without alcohol. Of course, if I had money to buy alcohol, it may be completely different.

Three days to go until the tribunal hearing begins. I sincerely hope for the sake of all employees at the university and elsewhere that I am afforded a fair hearing, and not simply dismissed through a further level of a sham process.

I'm just back from seeing my doctor. I mentioned the swollen feet problem. Apparently it's not just my feet, it's my ankles and legs too. So more blood was taken to find the cause of the problem. Isn't blood amazing! It's bloody amazing! It tells you so much about yourself. Some parts of being a doctor would be very interesting. I suppose in a way, I was a doctor for databases.

Some brave anonymous person sent me a dreadful message from the safety of their computer last night. Brace yourself, because I'm going to tell you what it was. If you have a weak heart or you are disgusted by the mention of human body parts that are normally kept under cover, or you are just generally of a nervous disposition, I suggest you look away now, and rejoin me in two lines time....
They called me an "ARSE". Was it you, Gerry?
... Even if you are one of the unshockable readers who risked a peek because you thought you could cope with such abuse, you may want to take a moment to calm your nerves; have a whisky or something.

I just noticed that I now have four followers on my blog, and three of them are not me. Welcome to my followers, including those of you who regularly read my blog, but haven't YET signed up as an official follower. I still don't know what the perks are to becoming a follower. Lady Gaga has 17,949,837 followers on her twitter account, and she's never even worked for Stirling University!

My blog continues to get busier, and it is apparently upsetting some people at the university. I make my offer again that if I have written anything on my blog which is false, then they should let me know, and if it is false, I will remove it and apologise. The university can spend vast sums of money on legal fees, but no amount of money in the world can make a lie true. Truth is a constant. You cannot change the past. Rewriting history was just something that George Orwell created in his book, 1984 for entertainment purposes only.

Take David Black, for example, he tried to change the past in order to help his career. He thought it was in his best interest to deny that I had ever been treated disrespectfully by my colleagues. He did this less than two days after watching Jackie O'Neil screaming at me and slamming her hand on her desk in anger because she thought I had made a mistake, when it was actually herself who made the mistake. He gave his false evidence at a grievance hearing because he thought it was safe to do so. He thought that it would serve his own interests best by showing that Kathy ran a very happy family team, and that I was the one to blame. "To hell with the truth", thought David, "I'm looking after number one".

Then his lies came back to bite his bum. He was with me when I reported the screaming incident to Kathy McCabe, and Jackie placed him at the incident too. And he didn't deny that Jackie had screamed at me, so now he's already all over the shop, man. Then he signed the statement he made at the grievance hearing as being true. Then he told Ruth, during a telephone conversation lasting 11 minutes and 44 seconds, that Jackie had shouted at me angrily. Then he changed his mind again, and claimed that he was tired when he told Ruth that, and when he regained full consciousness, he remembered that Jackie didn't shout at me. Then he discovered that I have a recording of the conversation with Kathy McCabe, and once again he changed his story and admitted that she shouted at me. He's got himself into such a mess, that he now claims that although he now acknowledges that she screamed at me while slamming her hand on her desk, that he did not consider this to be disrespectful. He is to appear at the tribunal hearing, and I doubt if he even knows what the fuck is going to come out of his gob. Lying at a grievance hearing is actually a very serious matter. It represents gross misconduct for which you can be dismissed. But lying in court under oath is far more serious. You go directly to jail without passing GO. David gambled. Any decent person attending a grievance interview would tell the fucking truth. Not David Black. And that will be with him for the rest of his life. David Black, Liar! But maybe he's right. Maybe dishonesty is the best policy. After all, he still has his job, and no doubt he'll be considered a hero by the other liars. He might be perfectly happy that when he looks in the mirror, he sees an arsehole looking back at him.
A "princess"
Jackie O'Neil and Eileen MacDonald will find it pretty hard at the tribunal methinks. They have managed to survive despite creating false illusions by the magic of gossip. Gossip won't work at a tribunal. They will be confronted with hard facts; very hard facts! Eileen, in particular, seems to have been treated like a princess at the university despite her gossiping ways. She was apparently shitting herself when I had an informal grievance submitted against her. That grievance that I made in June 2008 has still not been processed. Apparently that's what happens to grievances against princesses. So God only knows how she will cope when confronted with her own lies, misconduct and incompetence which are as clear as day. You'll find out on this blog which is open to offers of sponsorship. It currently has four followers, of which, three are not me. One day you may wish you had sponsored my blog!!!!

All of the liars may become the subjects of claims for defamation which has caused damage to my health, my career and my reputation. There is clear evidence of their lies that triggered my dismissal. The tribunal case is but step one.

Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Thirty days with no alcohol. I expect I'm very much in the minority by abstaining for that time. I wish I could say I felt better for it, but sadly I don't.

The Employment Tribunal hearing begins on Monday. That will be roughly 16 months since I made my claim. I think that is something that the tribunal services should work to improve. It's far too long in my view. Better late than never though I suppose.

The real fun will begin when I get to cross examine the liars. I have no idea what they plan to say at the tribunal. They have all lied in response to the questions I asked a couple of months ago, but surely they must realise that it will be obvious that they are lying. They are taking a real risk because they really can end up in jail if they perjure themselves. Will they continue with their lies regardless even in the face of documentary evidence that they are lying? There are still some documents that they are unwilling to disclose. My view on that is that if someone has nothing to hide, they wouldn't object to disclosing documents. The documents that are being withheld will uncover lies.

Jackie O'Neil is, I would imagine, in big trouble. She lied at the grievance investigation as well as making a malicious complaint against me. If she lies at the tribunal, she could go to jail. If she doesn't, she could lose her job. It's a difficult position, but she only has herself to blame. The university is trying to help her though by refusing to disclose the instructions she used for an upgrade she was performing when she screamed at me. Mark Toole has to try to pretend that he believed her when she said she didn't shout at me in front of a dozen witnesses, and that I was to blame for the upgrade failing. Two investigators plus Karen Stark and Mark Toole will have to explain why they didn't do the logical thing and interview those witnesses, including David Black who was standing right next to me at the time. Karen Stark is in a particular pickle, because she had also learned that Jackie had lied about the "our useless DBA" incident. Nobody carrying out a reasonable investigation would adamantly refuse to investigate Jackie's story. And that's what Stirling University has to do in order to win the case. They have to show that they carried out a reasonable investigation. They can't claim that they didn't have enough time. I was suspended for three months. Three months! I'd imagine that most of that time was taken up by Mark Toole wondering if it was worth the gamble to break the law and just dismiss me for no good reason.

Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield are also in a huge pile of shit over the grievance process. Each of them is going to have to go through each line of their fraudulent document as well as my grievance and Kathy's grievance and explain how my allegations were completely ignored and how Kathy's allegations were upheld. They are also going to have to explain why Karen Stark was rummaging around in documents and making up her own "decisions" in 2011 using evidence that didn't exist at the time Eileen Schofield made her decisions. They really could go to jail for this, and it would be no more than they deserve. There is a widespread contempt for the law at Stirling University, and there needs to be a substantial shift in their mindset. It needs strong leadership, and Gerry just isn't up for it. Any respectable Principal would be horrified to learn that his university is committing fraud, but not Gerry.

Peter Kemp will have to explain why he did absolutely fuck all about the information I sent to him in a 25 page letter.

The university is being represented by a lawyer who costs a fair bit of money. My guess would be around £2000 a day. Although they publicly try to belittle my claim as having little prospect of success, that is not reflected in the fact that they are spending so much on legal fees against just little old me with absolutely no legal qualifications.

Employment Tribunals have rules and regulations, the overriding objective of which is that cases should be dealt with justly. "Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as practicable, ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing."

I don't consider we are on an equal footing. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I have been mentally damaged by the treatment I received from the university, and I'm put up against a fully qualified lawyer with yonks of experience. Why doesn't the university use an employee from HR to represent them? Alternatively, the university should have to pay for me to be represented by a lawyer of equal ability. Is that such an outrageous suggestion? Cases shouldn't be judged on the quality of representation, but on the quality of the evidence. Maybe it's because I have the advantage of having the better case that I have to be handicapped in terms of representation?

One of the topics in my case will be the role evaluation process (Framework). It is my position that the process was implemented incredibly badly and that it should be scrapped and implemented properly. I had informed Peter Kemp in 2008 that the process couldn't possibly ensure equal pay for work of equal value. The tribunal has the power to order the university to implement role evaluation properly as it is a legal requirement. I would strongly recommend that Martin McCrindle plays no part in the implementation. I remember him telling our team that Stirling University was implementing the process more robustly than other organisations that he felt would soon come a cropper.

Saturday, 31 December 2011
19 days without alcohol.

Thursday, 29 December 2011
17 days without alcohol.

Stirling University has lodged 220 pages of my blog as evidence for the employment tribunal. If we are to read all of that, the hearing could run until this time next year. I think they are trying to make up for the shortage of evidence to support the allegation that I bullied women for years. All those years and all those women, yet not a single document to back it up. Not even a fraudulent one! How does that happen? There is, however, evidence to support my position that I was bullied by women, and that nowt was done about it, except a cover up. Kathy has only made things worse for herself by denying that I had reported to her about the abuse I received. She will get herself in one holy mess at the hearing. Not to be missed!

Monday, 26 December 2011
Two weeks and no alcohol. Tune in tomorrow to see how many days it will be without alcohol.

Good this, innit! Is there a better page on the web?

My right foot is beginning to catch up with my left foot in size. You might think I'd be losing weight by not drinking alcohol. I'm enormous!

Noon update: Both feet are back to normal size again. I have very nice feet!

Sunday, 25 December 2011
Sweet Jesus!
13 days without alcohol. I bet you didn't expect to see that four months ago. My Substance Misuse Worker would be so proud of me. They say that reforming alcoholics should take it one day at a time. I'm different. I'm going to take it two days at a time. What does that mean anyway? I'll take each day as it comes. That's another one. Well, I'm going to take each day before it comes. How do you like them apples?

Merry Christmas to all my readers. Take each Christmas as it comes.

Saturday, 24 December 2011
It's still only 9pm on Friday, but I thought I'd start my new day anyway. The reason is that I've just self harmed by cutting myself with a blade. So if you don't want to know the results, look away now!

The reason I did it was because I was feeling anxious because of the university refusing to supply the upgrade instructions that I asked for that would show that Jackie lied, and that Mark Toole conducted a sham disciplinary process.

The self harming helps relieve the anxiety, I think partly due to the fact that it requires some concentration for me to do it the way I want, so I'm not thinking about stuff that's upsetting me. It is a distraction. I do get some satisfaction from seeing the blood, but I think part of that is down to receiving feedback that I've done it right. If I don't cut deep enough then I won't draw blood and that's very disappointing. But it's also a nuisance when the blood runs onto the carpet and stuff.

I know that in a few minutes there will be a feeling that's like a 'buzz' that is pleasurable and relaxing. It feels satisfying.

I won't bother with the red pen test, because I just know that wouldn't work for me; and I don't have a red pen. As well as forcing me to concentrate, the pain also acts as a distraction I think. I generally cut about 12 three inch long lines. I'm trying to restrict it to certain areas. I'm very careful not to cut too deep or close to major veins.

A lot of times I self harm without realising it. I dig my fingernails into my skin when I'm feeling anxious. That's how it began in fact. I only realise I'm doing it when the blood drips out.

I just realised that my doctor doesn't even discuss alcohol with me now. I'll be having an alcohol free Christmas I expect. This page is becoming a bit redundant.

My left foot has swollen to about twice the size of my right foot. This happened about three weeks ago as well, then went back to normal after a week or so. It really looks like a comedy foot. I thought about asking my doctor about it the other day, but since it was back to normal I didn't bother. I never used to get any ailments, now I'm getting them all at once. There's no way I could get it in a shoe.

People still log on to my blog exactly at midnight. If you're one of them, can you email me and tell me why please?

Friday, 23 December 2011
I must have mentioned to the psychologist, although I don't remember doing it, about the self harming getting worse. He told my GP who asked me about it yesterday. It had only got worse briefly. Apparently some people do it because they like to see the blood. I don't particularly enjoy seeing the blood, or at least I don't think I do. But I don't particularly mind either. I may have even forgotten why I began doing it. The next time I do it, I'll try and analyse what's going on in my mind. It may just be that it's become an addiction. There have been so many addictions. Anyway, the doctor explained that some self-harmers get the same effect by drawing lines with a red pen on their skin, because it takes the place of the blood. Now, I don't know why for sure I cut myself. I know that it must seem to most people like a ridiculous thing to do, but whatever the reason is for me doing it, I just knew right away that drawing on my skin with a red pen would be no substitute for me. In fact, I would think that that was more odd than cutting myself. I think I do it when I'm feeling anxious, and it's a distraction. But, if there are any self harmers reading this, you might want to give the red pen a try. I might try it to see, but my instincts tells me that I wouldn't be fooled. I do know that when I do it, I am very careful.

I stopped going to the psychology sessions. I believe they were actually making me feel worse. I really can't cope with them at the moment. After the tribunal hearing is over, I will have to try it again. It takes a lot of effort and concentration, and I'm lacking both.

I was supposed to see the doctor last week, but I missed my appointment again. That's four times out of the last five appointments I've missed for some reason or other. He's very understanding though, thankfully. I wasn't even guaranteed to make yesterday's appointment. I left my house without my appointment ticket, but I was pretty sure my appointment was for 12:15. I didn't want to go back to get the ticket in case it made me late. The further I walked, the less confident I was about the appointment time, and I really didn't want to miss another appointment. I got there at 12:05, and I had the correct time. The receptionist said the doctor was running late, so I went for a walk. I try to be in waiting rooms for as short a period as possible because there's nothing to do in there but fill my head with thoughts. When it was getting close to my appointment time, I walked back. But then, because I can't concentrate, I walked right past the doctors, and was on my way home when I remembered where I was supposed to be. I got there just in the nick of time. I very rarely leave home, but whenever I do, I'm almost guaranteed to walk past a turning, and have to walk back. It's even happened twice within about twenty yards of each other. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The lack of alcohol hasn't been a problem so far. There was something I was doing today that made me think that my concentration was improving, but I can't remember what it was, or if my concentration really was better. I notice the problem with my concentration most often when I'm googling. I have something that I want to google; I open up a google window, and in that two seconds, I forget what it was that I was going to google. It happens every day, and probably many times a day. But it can't be because I'm thinking of something else in those two seconds, surely? It's really annoying, because if I was going to google something, it must have been of interest.

I keep meaning to say, and I will now, that I apologise to those of you who are regular visitors to my blog, and who may get bored of reading me say things that they've already read a few times before. That's the problem with blogs, I'm afraid, and especially this one. A large proportion of visitors each day are brand new, and it's difficult for me, a non blogger type, to get the balance right.

Anyway, that's enough gumph for today.

Thursday, 22 December 2011
Since there isn't much happening with my alcohol graph which just shows that I haven't drunk any for ten consecutive days, I've got a special treat for graph lovers everywhere. It's a graph showing the trend of the traffic to my blog for 2011. As you can see, we are ending the year much busier than we started.

Wednesday, 21 December 2011
You can't seem to get enough of my blog just now. The post March weekly visitors record has been smashed again. I imagine there will be a lot of interest in the witness's answers to my questions. Some have tied themselves in knots with their lies. If it wasn't so serious, it would actually be hilarious. They had 48 days in which to answer the questions, yet many remain unanswered. They left it until the last moment so that I couldn't ask them to disclose more documents.

There are several documents that they would prefer the tribunal didn't see. For example, the terrible feedback that Kathy McCabe received when she was enrolled on her Future Leaders training course.

They also don't want to show how Kathy divvied up the staff development budget, and how she promoted women far more often than men.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Yesterday was my blog's busiest single day since 10 March 2011 when Eileen Schofield was in the news for having carried out another sham grievance process. Her victim snapped and sent her death threats. I wonder if she will continue to carry out sham investigations, or has she learned her lesson?

At one point there were at least seven people from five UK cities logged on to my blog. It's only been recently that the blog software has been able to provide real time information on blog visitors. You're all welcome.
11:35 UPDATE
There has been an extraordinary number of visitors so far this morning. I would imagine there must have been more than seven visitors at some point, but unfortunately I was busy with legal matters and wasn't checking the real time figures. Is there something happening that I don't know about? I know that there is a group of people who are visiting the blog because I phoned their office yesterday to obtain the upgrade instructions that Jackie O'Neil was using the day she screamed at me. The university supplied me with the wrong instructions. But I don't know what else is going on.

The university has still not replied to the questions I posed on 2 November 2011. What's the secret, I wonder?

Monday, 19 December 2011
From drinking more than a litre of whisky a day, to drinking no alcohol in a week. It can be done. Just don't try it too quickly.

There's more evidence that the fraudulent document was precisely that; a fraud. Whoever created it forgot that it was supposed to contain only information that came from the investigation, and not just random statements to make me look bad.

They've included a very bold and insulting statement that appears to come from nowhere. I asked them to provide any documents that contain information that supports it, but they haven't, because there couldn't have been any. They've refused to say where it came from. It's a statement that casts doubt on my professional integrity and judgement, and I know that it is absolutely false. So I'm very keen to discover the source of it. It's exactly the type of shit that Kathy McCabe would come out with.

Even worse, the document states that this particular allegation couldn't be investigated. So how on earth did Eileen Schofield manage to come to the very insulting conclusion that she did? Maybe there was another email clipped to something months after the investigation finished.

What a shambles!

A large number of people in Stirling University somehow got the idea that it was okay to throw as much shit my way as they liked. The worm is turning though. It will be my day soon. Keep it here, folks.

Sunday, 18 December 2011
Only 10 cl drunk in the last week, and six alcohol free days on the trot. Can you guess what is coming tomorrow?

Needles and Pins
There has been an unusually large number of google searches for Kathy McCabe reaching my blog over the past week or so, especially from English and Welsh cities. Could she be applying for jobs maybe? No searches for Liam though!

Saturday, 17 December 2011
My alcohol consumption has dwindled away to 15 cl in the last week, and is getting lower. For those of you have a drink dependency, I have to admit that it is not all due to self control. I can't drink alcohol because I have no money to buy it. I am even currently struggling to finance my coffee dependency! I'm very lucky not to have the same need for alcohol that I did back in August, or I could have been in a right state.

The uni is beginning to supply the documents I asked for, but there are some that they are refusing to provide because they don't help their case. I've still not had answers to my questions, but they say they will send soon. They are holding on to the answers for as long as possible. It's more than six weeks since I sent the questions. Ridiculous!

They haven't been able to produce a single document that refers to the problem with women that they alleged I had for about eight years. That was exactly the number of documents I predicted there would be. The judge at the tribunal said that the they would expect to see documentary evidence of me having bullied women over time. You would think that Mark Toole and HR would have expected to see documentary evidence of it too, before they sacked me. They couldn't because they had only invented it after I made my protected disclosure to the Principal.

Saturday, 10 December 2011
38 days, and still no answers to my questions.

Stars On 45
An alcohol free Friday means that I equal my previous best of 45 cl for the week. It also means I've had four days this week without alcohol. I don't think I've done that for a long time. I confidently expect to break my 45 cl record today.

Friday, 9 December 2011
37 days, and still no answers to my questions.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
For people who have never suffered from it, or known anyone who has suffered from it, I'd imagine that depression is an illness that is difficult to understand. I've suffered from it for well over a year, and I still don't fully understand it. I asked my GP about it and what the anti depressant pills do to help it. He told me, but I didn't really understand what's going on, but I thought he said that the brain lacks a chemical that the pill somehow helps to put back. But don't quote me on that. His answer was much longer and he used long words too. So I'm guessing I shouldn't have asked.

Now, I'm guessing that depression can cause a downward spiral in the way you feel. My amateur understanding, which might be completely wrong, is that if you are feeling low, you lose that chemical, which causes you to feel even lower, etc, etc.

I'm guessing again, but I think the pills replace the chemical indirectly. Performing pleasurable acts also increases the level of that chemical, which I think is serotonin. Unfortunately, depression makes you feel that you don't want to do the things that used to give you pleasure. With me, it is making me feel like I don't want to do much at all. To the untrained eye, that could appear as just plain downright laziness. And I would imagine that if you tell someone suffering from depression that they are just lazy, it's not going to help them feel any better. I say that in case you were thinking of doing just that.

So I maintain this blog every day, just about. How am I able to do that, but not read a book or wash my dishes? I can only think it's because of the subject matter which is constantly on my mind. My GP did say it would help if I did try to concentrate on other important issues. But I can't. There are lots of things that I don't do that I know I should. Some of them I associate with unpleasant uncontrollable thoughts.

I watch some TV, and I get some pleasure out of that I suppose. I sometimes listen to music. I stopped doing that for a very long time. I can tell from my psychological sessions that I'm in a bad way. I'm a long way from being cured. At this moment I can't envisage ever being cured. But I suppose other people have felt that way and got better. I never ever thought I would be the type of person to ever suffer from depression; whatever that type I imagined may be.

I will wash my dishes today, and confirm that I've done so on here. I'll do it with the music on.
Dishes 100% washed!
Now my back is killing me. If I was a horse, they would have shot me by now.

Thursday, 8 December 2011
Three days in a row without whisky. And still no answers to my questions.

I feel I'm sinking further and further into a black patch. I'm trying to hang on for the tribunal hearing to clear my name and to expose the corruption at the university, but at the moment, I'm not sure if I can last that long. I feel a very strong sense of hopelessness about the future. Pointlessness. I feel as though I died a long time ago, but I keep waking up to another Groundhog Day.

I had another psychology session yesterday. They actually make me feel worse. I just can't concentrate, and I have no motivation to carry out the projects I'm supposed to do. So, along with everything else, I feel it would be hard (impossible) for me to be brought back to life. I said I might not go back for any more sessions.

Suicide is on my mind more and more now. When I visualise it, there's a sense of relief I get when it's over. But that doesn't last long, because it isn't real obviously. On the other hand, I don't want to miss the hearing, even if it is literally the last thing I do. Depending on how I decide to do it, my blog could become busy in the extreme. I would definitely like that to happen.

The hearing begins on 16 January and is due to finish in March. It may go on for longer if necessary. I definitely want to be there. It's the getting there that's the problem.

That's another weird thing about time. Once it's past it seems to have gone quickly. But January and March seem so far away in the distance. It's almost as though they don't really exist.

If I do decide to go, I'm pretty sure it won't be today. It's not likely to be tomorrow either. Then I'll be two days closer to January and I might be coming out of the black patch or I might feel even worse if that's possible.

Unfortunately there are signs that my sleep is getting worse again after a very good spell in which I was sleeping about 70% like a proper person. That will be nothing compared to what it would be like if I have to start sleeping outside. I doubt if I'd last long in those conditions.

At last week's session, I had to set myself three goals to accomplish before this week's session. They had to be specific, measurable, attainable and realistic. I failed to achieve any of my goals which, to most people, would sound simple. One was to read a chapter of my book every day. That was specific, measurable and realistic but apparently not attainable for me. I didn't even get as far as looking at the front cover. I over-reached. I'm an over-reacher. I set myself impossible tasks. I'm bound to fail. I should have made my goal to look at my book; touch my book; pick it up; put it back down; turn it over; read the title. Then I would have attained my goal, maybe. Instead I had to go and be an over-reacher. A chapter a day? Who was I kidding?

Another one was to wash all of my dishes once a week. I'm an over-reacher. What can I say? I should have made my goal; to stop bloody over-reaching!

Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Que Sera Sera
Two consecutive alcohol free days take me below the 70 cl mark for the sixth time. Obviously the fifth time wasn't the last time, and I'm not going to make any bold predictions this time. Whatever will be will be.

During his 11 minutes and 44 seconds phone call with Ruth, David Black mentioned that my situation was like an "elephant in the room" at the office. That was early June 2010, by which time I had been suspended from work for almost three months while Mark Toole carried out his fake disciplinary investigation. I can't help wondering how all those people in my team are managing to get along with people they know that lied to get me sacked. Does that become acceptable behaviour after a while, I wonder?

If you witnessed a girl being raped in the street, would you walk past as if it were normal? If the rapist was a friend of yours, would you continue to be friends with them? If he invited you to take part in the rape, would you? On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you would join in on the rape, and 10 means you would either take physical action to stop the rape or immediately contact the police and then have nothing to do with your 'friend' afterwards; how would you rate yourself?

David Black is a 0. After talking with Ruth about the incident with Jackie and telling Ruth that he would send me an email the same day confirming that Jackie had shouted at me in anger, he changed his mind. First, the email didn't arrive. I could sense a cop out. I already had experience of his cowardliness. So Ruth wrote to him to confirm what he had told her. He decided to write back and lie and say that she hadn't shouted. He claimed that he was tired during that 11 minute 44 second telephone conversation, and that's how he had got it wrong for all of those 11 minutes and 44 seconds. What a pathetic excuse for a man! Isn't it ironic that I am the one who is receiving psychological treatment, while someone like David is considered fit to walk the streets as if he was normal? It will be interesting to hear what this coward has to say at the tribunal. Is he going to claim that from just a few feet he didn't hear Jackie screaming, and that he didn't see her slamming her hand on her desk in anger? How is he going to explain his meeting with me and Kathy in which he takes part in the discussion about the incident, but doesn't appear to correct me when I describe it, but casts doubt on Jackie's version of it? He has got himself into such a mess simply by being a spineless twat! This is a guy who worked across the desk from me for six years, but couldn't even bring himself to tell the truth to help prevent my unfair dismissal. It wasn't as if Ruth was asking him to lie. All he had to do was tell the truth. How will he explain that 704 second phone call with Ruth? Will he claim to have answered the phone in his sleep while sleepwalking and having a bad dream? It is a crime to lie at an employment tribunal, but will he be tempted? Watch this space!!!

It's now five weeks since I asked the university for additional information ahead of the tribunal hearing. I have received nothing in that time. There is nothing that I've asked that should take more than a few minutes to answer. So why are they so reluctant to respond? They have a great deal to hide, but it will have to come out eventually.

Tuesday, 6 December 2011
One of the reasons I had to reduce my alcohol intake and why I started this page is because my doctor told me that I would have to in order to receive psychological help. Unfortunately, the therapy I'm receiving is not particularly helpful at this time. My psychologist understands the problem that I generally can't concentrate on or find motivation for anything apart from my issues with the university, and with the tribunal hearing coming up in January. The therapy requires some motivation as well as concentration. We agreed that it would probably be more helpful after the tribunal matter is over, but I agreed to continue attending in the meantime. He also understands that when it's over, it could be a very dangerous time for me, even if I win. Will I be able to start concentrating on other things again, or will I be left with a huge gap with nothing to fill it but thoughts of suicide? I said that it's possible that winning might provide the cure to my depression, and I might not need any more therapy. I didn't really believe it while I was saying it, and he also said that it was unlikely.

The problem is that when I was working, my work took up most of my concentration and motivation, and I think that's why it has effected me so much. I guess some people in my situation would just dust themselves off and move straight into their next job. However, I'm the opposite of those people. I had committed myself to my job at the uni. That's why I put up with the bullying from Kathy for as long as I did. I think if I ever faced a situation where I was being bullied at work again, there is a real danger that I could react extremely aggressively, and may even potentially kill someone. I really couldn't cope with being bullied again. I'd much rather be dead. Employers must learn the seriousness of bullying and nip it in the bud. Anybody found carrying out sham grievance procedures to cover up bullying should be jailed. It is that serious. That wouldn't just protect the target of the bullying. It would also help protect the bully and the person carrying out the sham grievance process from revenge attacks. I speak as someone who has never been the slightest bit aggressive in my 55 years. But I could easily see how someone could snap if subjected to a fake grievance process after suffering from bullying for any length of time. Anybody thinking of covering up for a bully should give that some serious thought. If I ever read about someone being killed in revenge for having carried out a sham grievance process, I would have very little, if any, sympathy for them, because they were cruel bastards! It's a form of mental torture.

I hit a black patch on Sunday. I think I'm coming out of it again. I had a fairly long spell before Sunday without a black patch. The tribunal case is definitely keeping me alive. Had it not been for that, there would be nothing. There would be no point in being here. I think the hearing could be very useful therapy. Kathy McCabe has avoided my questions for too long. Finally, she won't be able to avoid them. I look forward to hearing her answers.

Monday, 5 December 2011
Life is shit!

Saturday, 3 December 2011
My Poor Friend Me
It had to happen. Someone finally played the paranoia card. Someone going by the name of Anonymous.

I received a message on my blog last night suggesting that I should get it into my head that it's not the sixteen other people, but me who is the problem with my attitude. It's a theory that every one of the sixteen or so liars would love everybody to believe. And, of course, Anonymous could well be one of them.

It would provide a very simple and attractive solution to quite a complex problem. However, it's a theory that will be blown to smithereens in court by the sheer weight of evidence.

The problem is one of corruption and group behaviours. In order to be part of the group, you have to behave a certain way. If you don't fall in line, you will be the next victim. So a large proportion take the coward's way out, and conform to the group mentality. I wasn't a member of the group because I was too busy doing my work, as well as a lot of theirs. They proudly do things within the safety of the group that they would not feel proud for society to learn about.

At the tribunal hearing, I will have the fortune of having evidence to show that so many people were willing to lie and behave dishonestly in order to protect the people who were victimising me. Finally, society will learn what the people in the group were proud and quick to do.

Within the group, Selina Gibb may be considered a hero. She was prepared to carry out her deed to get rid of me. The fact that she lied in order to do that would only make her more popular within the group, but society is more likely to view her as a disgraceful liar who would lie in order to end a man's career; a man who had gone to great lengths to help her, and who wrongly thought she was his friend.

Within the group, David Black may have been considered a hero. He refused to admit what he saw and heard from a few feet away. Society is more likely to view him as a pathetic coward who would allow his closest colleague of five years to be victimised, bullied and unfairly dismissed while he sat back basking in his new found popularity within the group.

Within the group, Una Forsyth may have been considered a hero. She set the ball rolling by complaining that, because of me, she was frightened to attend work. Society will see her as a simple liar. They will wonder how on earth anybody in their right mind could have believed her. But, of course, they will also learn that nobody believed her. They just pretended to, in order to join the group.

Within the group, Eileen Schofield may be considered a hero. She produced a report that stated that Kathy McCabe hadn't bullied me, but that I had bullied Kathy. Group members would have rejoiced at learning this. Society will see her as someone who was prepared to carry out a sham grievance procedure to bring about the required result. Society would think it wouldn't have required a sham grievance process if I was guilty.

Within the group, Karen Stark may be considered a hero. Her unrelenting determination to get rid of me was successful. Society won't see it that way. Society will view her as considerably corrupt, and wonder how on earth she is still in her job.

Within the group, Eileen MacDonald may be seen as the leader. It was her jealousy and hatred of me that encouraged all of the gossip and ill treatment of me. Society will see her as extremely incompetent and devious, and someone who only got her job through being friends with Kathy McCabe. They will also see that she was extremely incompetent despite my genuine attempts to reduce her incompetence. Perhaps even some of the group members will be surprised to learn the extent of her incompetence. Society may well wonder why she was promoted to a position in which she was to manage others and receive a salary of that magnitude.

Within the group, Graham Millar and Gail Miller may be seen as heroes. They carried out the disciplinary investigation that 'persuaded' Mark Toole that a disciplinary hearing was required. Society will know that they behaved dishonestly and that their investigation was a sham. They will also know that Mark Toole knew it was a sham, and that, although he may also be considered a hero within the group, he deliberately unfairly dismissed me. Society will know that his act was premeditated. They will also view him as weak and cowardly, and unable to control Kathy McCabe. They will also see that he didn't give a fuck about my health.

Within the group, Peter Kemp may be considered a hero too. He allowed Kathy to do as she pleased. He allowed her to use her budget to finance her friendships within the team. He was prepared to lie at his interview for the grievance hearing and suggested that I was the problem. He also suggested that Eileen MacDonald was good at her job, and that I prevented her from doing it. Society is more likely to be swayed by the facts that show this guy to be a consistent liar who couldn't do the job he was paid to do.

So while all the members of the group would love to persuade society that I was the problem, and not them, I think they will fail on the basis of facts. Tribunals tend to look at the facts rather than gossip and hearsay and anonymous comments on blogs. The group will have their opportunity to persuade the tribunal that I was the problem. Normally, it would be tempting to believe the story from such a large number, however the facts are plain to see. Their numerical advantage is actually a disadvantage. All those group members suddenly going quiet when faced with the evidence and facts. I can't wait!

I would welcome Anonymous to come back, maybe without hiding behind their anonymity, and give me their theory on why the uni is taking so long to respond to my questions. Also, could they please explain Eileen Schofield's apparent ability to see into the future?

I keep hearing from the uni's lawyer how university employees dislike my blog. Why is it, do you think, that none of them make any comments on my blog and identify themselves? People might jump to the correct conclusion; that they have something to hide!

Friday, 2 December 2011
The Only Way Is Up
I just had 5 cl to drink, but it still puts my graph line up. That's what I get for not drinking last Thursday!

Still no answers to my questions. That's now a month. These people are really going to struggle in court if they are finding these questions difficult. I'm assuming of course that university management has actually passed on the questions to the people concerned. It's possible they haven't given them the questions because they fear some might tell the truth. It's possible they are trying to feed them the answers they would like them to give.

What a mess the university has got itself into. They could have dealt with the problem properly when it was just bullying and sex discrimination. But no, they decided to add a sham grievance process. As if anybody would think that a grievance process that has an outcome that I bullied Kathy McCabe would be believable. Then they decided to make it worse with a sham disciplinary process that wouldn't fool a blind man on horseback. Not satisfied with all of that, they decided that they should commit fraud to try to cover up the sham grievance process. What do they plan next? To commit murder to cover up the fraud, maybe? Where's it going to end? If ever there was an organisation that needed proper leadership, it is Stirling University. And Gerry (I know how to get the best out of people) McCormac is not that leader.

Was all of this worth it just to cover up for a bully like Kathy McCabe? You would have thought that they would have learned from the Donaldson affair, but they didn't. If they could go back in time and have the chance to deal with my protected disclosure properly, I wonder if they would do it any differently. In court, I will have to go through their fake grievance document line by line with Schofield and Stark while they pretend that it was a genuine process. "Did you ask Mrs McCabe to respond to this allegation?" "No." "Why not?" "Because we didn't want to hear her answer." "Why did you ask other people about my allegations?" "To cause friction between you and them." "So how could you reject this allegation when you haven't even asked me or Mrs McCabe about it?" "For that very reason."

There's ten pages of this rubbish, and that doesn't even include the allegations that didn't make it on to the fake document. Somebody must have thought they were too difficult to fake or something. Stark has convinced herself that her fake document is believable. The tribunal might think she's insane. At some point one of the tribunal members will stop the cross examination and ask Stark if she is being serious. She'll say yes, and I will continue line by line. A few lines later another tribunal member will stop to ask their lawyer if his client is being serious. We may require an adjournment. "Could we have a month to consider our response?"

Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Four weeks, and still no answers to my questions. And these are the easy questions. They get a whole lot harder in court. I'm really looking forward to the hearing. Some people will face some very difficult questions in the face of irrefutable evidence. I will finally get to clear my name of the ridiculous accusations, and show up the liars for what they are. I was really lucky to have all of the evidence I have. They could have done this to somebody else and got away with it just because of a lack of evidence to refute it. It's not easy when so many people are prepared to lie, and even prepared to make up fake documents. How sick is that!

Tuesday, 29 November 2011
That's almost four weeks since I asked the university for additional information. They really do take liberties. It's funny to think that Kathy McCabe pulled me up in front of HR and senior management for not replying to an email within 23 minutes; an email I hadn't seen because I was bloody busy working. She just wanted to complain about anything, desperately. You might think she is sick in the head, but it is just pure evil. She knew what she was doing, and the effect it was having on my health.

Monday, 28 November 2011
Down Down
My alcohol intake continues on down. I'm almost sober now!

Sunday, 27 November 2011
The Last Time
I've crashed below the 70 cl barrier again, for the fifth time. Who knows; it could be the last time too. I don't know. I'm making a bold prediction that I will stay below 70 cl for longer than before.

It's less than six months since my Substance Misuse Worker was trying to get me to stay in hospital for about ten days to come off alcohol. I think the money I've saved the NHS should go towards buying my whisky. Hospital wouldn't have worked for me. It wasn't even worth considering in my case. That shouldn't put off anybody else who has the option though. Graphs on a public blog may not be for you! It definitely worked for me. It's like a crowd of people watching to make sure I don't over drink. If you are in the same position I was in, and am in, then it's worth a try. What's the worst that can happen?

My sleep continues to be fairly good most nights. At least it is way better than it was about two months ago. It makes a big difference when you get a decent night's sleep. That reminds me, I asked my doctor what it was he said that good sleep helps with, and this time I remembered. It's concentration. He's maybe right. It's hard to say. I've a book that Ruth gave me to read about a year ago. I'd love to read it, but I just know that I wouldn't be able to concentrate. But I've done a fair bit of work on the tribunal case recently. The problem is that I don't think that's a good example, and this came up when I was talking to my doctor last week. He suggested I try thinking about other things and dealing with other important matters. I said I would try, but I haven't. I'm not able to concentrate on anything else. It's a fear that I have that once it is finished, I'll be left with a big gap. What on earth would I fill it with? It is a real concern.

They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!
I've got my psychological sessions. I'm supposed to do some homework for it, but I really don't have the motivation for it. That's ironic, isn't it! I now know that events cause thoughts that effect feelings. The same event can cause different thoughts in different people; so we feel differently when we are in the same situation. Unfortunately that wasn't the homework. My situation is that I have been given homework to do. I'm thinking that I don't have the motivation to do it. That makes me feel I'm a failure. I'm not sure if this is helping my depression!

ISN'T IT WEIRD HOW SOME PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESTROY OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES! People aren't born thinking that way. It's a learned behaviour. What is even more strange is when people behave that way in groups. How does one begin a conversation with another person in which they suggest that they destroy another person's life? How does that actually happen? If you know the answer, then please let me know. It would be a fascinating topic for my blog.

Friday, 25 November 2011
An alcohol free Thursday puts me back on to 70 cl for the week. Last week's slip up is but a mere memory. I'm giving myself a well deserved pat on the back. I feel I've got my alcohol drinking much better under control. It hasn't been easy, and there might be slip ups ahead, but I've come a long way since I needed to drink in order to cope with late afternoon anxiety.

My reward for cutting back was to receive therapy. I had my first session on Wednesday due to a cancellation. The problem with the therapy is that it is depressing. It was the same when I had my assessment last week. The reason it is depressing is because it forces you to think and talk about things that you are perhaps trying desperately not to think about.

Wednesday, 23 November 2011
My weekly alcohol consumption is back down to 90 cl. That's more like it.

I wish I could give you some news about the questions I've asked the uni, but I'm afraid I'm just as in the dark as you are. In fact there will no doubt be several people at the uni who know more than I do about what's going on.
12:20 I've just received a very worrying email from the university's lawyer in response to me asking him if the university intends to provide the additional information I've requested voluntarily. He says that he intends to meet with his client at some unspecified time next week, and that he hopes to have a more substantive response then.

I have written back to ask him to confirm whether or not he has not already made contact with the university in the three week period since I first made that request.

This is the same delaying tactics they used earlier in the year when they ended up providing me with faked evidence. I wonder if this time they will produce a fake video of me wildly attacking Selina alone in the office with my face all red. They could have slow motion footage of the saliva coming out of my mouth as I spit in rage on her desk. Another video will show Jackie being ever so pleasant as she points out a mistake to me. No shouting and no desk slamming.

The lawyer has replied but with no further information than what he already gave. He's had three weeks to discuss it with them, but he wants another week before they decide what to do.

Tuesday, 22 November 2011
My alcohol intake for the week is down to exactly 150 cl. I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that tomorrow it will be no higher than 100 cl.

Monday, 21 November 2011

Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport
Can you guess what it is yet?
17:30 Oh Dear! What Can the Matter Be?
I've still not received any response to my questions. What could be taking them so long? These are questions that, if asked at the tribunal hearing, we would expect answers to straight away. We couldn't have me ask a question, then take a break for days, then reconvene when the witness has thought of an answer. I've seen them on the telly. People give their answers right away. So what's the problem now? They must have expected most of the questions. There's nothing too surprising, I don't think. The ones that have lied have got to choose whether to stick with their lies, or to come clean. All these people who thought that dishonesty was a cinch are maybe thinking it's not as easy as it seemed.

"This is your fault, Eric; you told us it would be dead easy and that we would never get found out. You never told us about all this evidence he could have that would make us look like right mugs in the witness box. What do we do now, Eric?"

"Nothing! Not a fucking thing. Pretend you never heard the fucking question. If you don't say fuck all, then you can't be fucking wrong. That's a fucking fact. I learned that in the TA. Cut your fucking tongue out with a carefully concealed penknife, then they can't force you to say fuck all. That's an old fucking army trick I used a couple of times. The bastards fucking hate that. Remember to swallow the fucking thing before the bastards get a chance to sew it back on."

Sunday, 20 November 2011
Extra! Extra! You heard it here first!
It looks like the tribunal hearing is to begin on 16 January 2012. It is to sit four days a week, and is scheduled to run to at least March 2012. There are no reporting restrictions in place, and members of the public may attend. I intend to keep my readers informed of events on a daily basis, or to the best of my ability.

Saturday, 19 November 2011
You've only gone and done it again. Another post March weekly viewing record for my blog.

The alcohol graph is taking a nice downward turn as well. On Tuesday it will take a dive I expect. That will be the exotic bird's nose!

I'm Still Waiting
Still no reply to my questions. We'll have to remain on tenterhooks a little while longer.

Friday, 18 November 2011
We just missed out on breaking the viewing record again yesterday. There's still a chance it could happen today though.

Time In A Bottle
Saw my doctor today. I mentioned the issue of time lapse; how time seems to be flying by, despite life being shit. (I didn't say 'shit' though). I mentioned that it was June that the Tribunal hearing began. I told him that, although it's been five months, if I'd been asked how long ago it was, I would have said about a month. He had the answer for this right away. I've a genius for a doctor. It's Groundhog Day again. Because all of my days are very similar, I haven't experienced five months of normal time. That really makes sense.

He also replaced the sleeping pills I'd taken by mistake. Isn't he good!

Thursday, 17 November 2011
The cynical among you, which would include the uni's lawyer, will look at my graph and think it's not a genuine graph. You'll think I'm making a drawing of an exotic bird or something. You probably think I'm teetotal and that I'm writing this from a Hawaiian beach. If only!

Word must be getting around about my blog. It's been very busy of late. And I don't think the uni's lawyer has been on this week yet. He is a very special visitor who tries to spread the word about my blog to as many people he can. Thanks Alun! Now if you could all be as busy as Alun, my blog could be making me money through advertising. Just tell all your friends. They don't have to be judges.

I guess a lot of you are interested in the questions that I've posed to uni employees, and like me, you could be very interested in seeing their answers. I'm really looking forward to Eileen Schofield's answers to my questions about the fraudulent document. How on earth are they going to dig themselves out of that hole? They must have thought that they were very clever and that their fraud would never be discovered. The whole idea was completely stupid. To carry out a sham process was bad enough, but to then try to make it seem as if a genuine process could actually produce an outcome that I bullied my manager and that she never bullied me must be the absolute height of stupidity. Then on top of that, it is a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment. They must have been desperate to try to mislead the tribunal. This was after they had done everything in their power to persuade the tribunal judge that the grievance process was not relevant to my case.
But I'm very interested in what all of them have got to say. Part of me still doesn't believe that they are going to actually defend this case now, but I have to prepare as if they will. I've got a couple of months to prepare, with about 18 witnesses to prepare questions for. I will need to try to find the motivation from somewhere. You would think motivation wouldn't be a problem, but it still is. If I was my real self in good health, I would give every second to this task. It would be perfect, and I'd still be improving it. Unfortunately, I'm not, but I am improving I think, I hope! The good thing is that all of the evidence is in my favour. There's nothing in the uni's favour that I can think of. My only concern is that they produce more fraudulent documents. How convenient it would be for them to produce a fake final warning that they allege I received or something of that nature. Nothing is out of the question. There are already two fraudulent documents, and I'm fairly sure there is a third. They must have thought I came up the Clyde in a banana boat!

The hearing is planned to take place four days a week for several weeks. I'll be going into unknown territory as regards my health. I expect it is going to be hard going, even if I had been fully fit. When the hearing was postponed in June, I was very disappointed about the further delay, but I now think I'm glad it was postponed. I really don't think I was fit for it back then. In fact, I know that I wasn't. I hadn't prepared for it at all. The fact that I realise that now must mean I'm improving. Back in June I was having the afternoon anxiety attacks. When I think of it now, I must have been mad to have thought I was prepared. The difference then, of course, was that there were only two witnesses and it was only going to be one week. It's amazing that that was five months ago, yet it feels like it was only a month ago. There is something very strange going on in my brain with regard to time lapse.

All of this effort and expense they have gone to in order to protect a bully. It's complete and utter madness. It's not even as if she is fantastic at her job. They could have got shot of Kathy and got somebody far better who didn't bully. Then certain team members would be shitting themselves. Team members like Eileen, Jackie, Selina and Eric. The new manager would be asking them what the hell they do.

Maybe I'll get the answers today.

Wednesday, 16 November 2011
The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
There's good news and bad news. You did manage to beat the new post March viewing record for my blog, but it's unlikely to be beaten today again, unless you tell all of your friends and they tell all of their friends, etc. Anyway, that was the good news which doesn't really make up for the bad news.
NOTE: I genuinely didn't think there was any chance of yesterday's record viewing figures being beaten today. Not only have you beaten them, but it isn't even 9pm yet. Well done. Keep them coming.

Some of you will already have noticed the sudden upward movement in my alcohol graph line. I had quite a lot to drink last night to try to drown my sorrows. Two weeks ago I had to get rid of my car because I could no longer afford it. The same is likely to happen to my home soon.

You might visit my blog one day soon and see that there are no updates. That could mean one of a few things. It could mean I have no internet connection because it has been cut off. It could mean I have no electricity because it's been cut off. It could mean I'm homeless for not paying my mortgage, or it could mean I'm dead. There's also a chance I could be in jail.

That was the matter that I was pretending didn't exist by burying my head in the sand. My bum is about to be well and truly bitten.

Thank God I was a member of the union and received protection from unfair dismissal! I'm being sarcastic now. I paid something like £15 a month for membership of the UCU (University and College Union). It was supposed to protect me from unfair treatment from Stirling University. I was badly let down by them too. If I still have the means to do so, I plan to write a bit about my union later in the week.

I now have to reduce my alcohol intake for a completely different reason. I won't be able to buy it.

I don't understand the visitor counting software that comes with the blog. It's 8:30am, and it is still updating yesterday's viewing figures.

I had my assessment with the psychologist yesterday. That was depressing too. That's no reflection on the psychologist who seemed very professional. It just reminded me of how shit my life is. I was also reminded of how I never showed anger. I always bottled things up. For example, every time Jackie O'Neil screamed at me, I just let her off with it without saying anything in return. What can you say in those situations? And I guess that's why she kept doing it. There was no discouragement from me, and none from her manager. How does a woman get to her mid forties and still think it's appropriate to scream at a man and slam her hand on her desk in an office? It's madness! Stone cold sober she was too. There is definitely something wrong with her brain. But she knows that. That's why she had to lie and say she didn't scream at me. What a fucking head case! And all of my team mates will say, "But she means well".

For some odd reason, people seem to think it's okay to abuse me. Amazingly, even Jaana Stewart abused me one day. I remember when I first joined the university, Jaana was a very quiet young woman that wouldn't say boo to a goose. I always gave her my support because she was a genius. She never really understood that she was so much cleverer than everybody else, even though she was handicapped by the fact that we were all talking in what is a foreign language to her. There's no way I could work in an office where everybody else spoke Finnish.

You may have noticed that I have begun swearing a few times in my blog. You might think I do that in real life a lot too, but I don't. I very rarely swear. And I never ever swore at work in my life. That was one of the things I liked about the university when I joined; nobody swore. It stayed that way for several years in my team until Eric changed that. It was actually a shock when he first started doing it. Then one or two others did it occasionally too. I don't know why I do it in my blog. I think maybe I'm trying to get rid of my 'no anger' image.

Jaana was another one who seemed to get caught up in the belief that I was not to be respected and treated with dignity. I think the gossip had a lot to do with that. I'm pretty sure she would struggle to come up with a real life reason for anyone to mistrust me or think I was nitpicking or anything. She was just being drip fed gossip on a regular basis from Eileen MacDonald. I am surprised that Jaana gave any credence to Eileen's crap. I'm also very surprised that Lynn McDonald was taken in by Eileen's crap. Lynn is non technical, and probably didn't understand that Eileen is virtually non technical. Eileen was absolutely hopeless as a programmer. She only got the job by knowing Kathy. She wasn't interested in programming. When you aren't interested in something, it makes it very difficult to learn. Eileen had learned very little in eleven years as a programmer. It's unbelievable actually. She has been a programmer since 1999, but the shit she said in her statement is proof that she was completely hopeless and never listened to me. I could see how she could fool non technical people like Lynn and Eileen Schofield, but I just don't understand how she could have fooled Jaana. Some of the stuff Eileen says in her statement is bizarre. It's like saying black is white. She was so out of her depth. But this will all come out at the tribunal hearing. This is a woman who, at the time she gave her statement, had eleven years experience as a programmer, including several years as a senior programmer. She lacks the knowledge of a weak student, yet she confidently says that she knows my job better than me. It could only happen with Kathy McCabe as a manager. That's something else I'll have to ask Kathy at the hearing; how can a senior programmer with eleven years experience, and after me explaining things to her over and over and over, still come out with such shite? I may have to use a different word at the hearing, maybe nonsense. How can she still be spouting the same shite about me after I had raised a grievance two years earlier about the shite she was spouting about me? Is it by any chance, Kathy, that as a manager, you are fucking hopeless? The correct answer is yes, but God only knows what Kathy will say. She probably won't know what to say until she has already said it. And why, Kathy, did you have a senior member of staff screaming at me years after I had already told you about her screaming habit? Please describe what action you had taken to stop the screaming, Kathy? The answer is fucking none, but she will come out with her usual shit and say, "Well, I think it's better for senior members of staff to sort these things out between themselves. I shouldn't have to deal with anything that any normal fucking manager would deal with in a fucking second. I prefer to take action when I see someone has their arms folded during a team meeting. But only if it's you, Allan." While she is saying this, she will probably have her arms folded. Nuts! You could bet your bottom dollar that if I had ever shouted or even raised my voice at Jackie, Kathy would have been on to me in a second. The difference is that I am a man and Jackie is a woman.

Would you agree, Mrs McCabe, that the shite contained in the statement Mrs MacDonald made in 2010 is very similar to the shite contained in her email to you in 2008? "Yes, very similar shite. Practically the same shite even."

As her manager, Mrs McCabe, what action did you take to better inform Mrs MacDonald, and to perhaps stop her from talking such shite? "None, although I am a manager by name, I don't really like managing people. But the money is better."

Isn't it true, Mrs McCabe that Mrs MacDonald was also a line manager? If this statement represents her level of knowledge and understanding, wouldn't the people she line managed be in a state of confusion? "Oh yes! With you telling them one thing and Mrs MacDonald telling them to ignore you because you were just nitpicking, I'm sure they would be as confused as fuck."

On reflection, Mrs McCabe, was it not a bad idea to promote Mrs MacDonald to Senior Programmer with responsibility for other members of staff when she didn't have sufficient understanding of her own job? "No, I had to promote her. It's the only way I could give her more money to keep her. If I hadn't, some other employer would have come along and snapped her up."

Would you agree, Mrs MacDonald, that the shite contained in the statement you made in 2010 is very similar to the shite contained in the email you sent to Mrs McCabe in 2008? "Yes, very similar shite. Practically the same shite even."

So, would you agree, Mrs MacDonald, that you had learned very little in that two year period? "No, I disagree entirely. I'd say I learned absolutely fuck all. I enjoyed some good gossip, though."

Dr Kemp, I understand you told Mrs MacDonald she was doing a good job. May I ask how she could have done a good job, when she admits in her statement to not knowing how to do her work? "She's a woman. She was pregnant. It's nice to tell pregnant women good things to hear."

Tuesday, 15 November 2011
You just made it, but in the last hour before midnight, the week's viewing figures for my blog reached the highest they've been since March when everybody was logging on to read about Eileen Schofield's death threats, and we were all waiting to hear what the uni was going to say in reply to my questions about the sham grievance procedure. Then in April, they replied with their fraudulent document.

There's a chance you can beat them again for the week that ends today. We'll see. I'm not 100% sure what's making you all read my blog at the moment; maybe (like me) you are waiting to hear the answers to the questions I sent to the individuals at the uni, or maybe you are all just very interested in my drinking and general health. Whatever it is, you are very welcome. Tell your friends too. Tell everybody at Stirling uni too. The more the merrier!

I thought it may be helpful to some of you, or to people you know who may suffer from depression as well as problems in getting to sleep, to say a bit about these new pills I'm on. I feel sure they are making a big difference. The pills I was originally prescribed were Citalopram. I didn't think they were doing anything for me, so I asked my doctor if we should try something else, and he now prescribes me Mirtazapine. Since I began taking these, I feel I am sleeping a lot better at night, but I'm not drowsy when I'm awake or anything. It's difficult to judge, but I think they are also helping with my mood. But that might also be because I'm getting more sleep. It also may just be down to time. I don't know. I've googled for side effects, and it may cause drowsiness. I think it did for me for the first few days, but not any more; touch wood. So far they haven't had any negative effect on my work as a porn star!

Monday, 14 November 2011
Who's Sorry Now
My apologies to all of my readers. After 103 days, approximately, I didn't update my graph yesterday for the first time. I fell asleep. To make it up to you, I've brought it bang up to date. Enjoy!

Pie in the Sky with Diamonds
Watching X Factor tonight, I realised that I will probably never be able to listen to anyone sing Over The Rainbow again without actually hearing them sing 'wae a pie'. Neither will you now, I suppose!

Talking of X Factor, you may be interested to know that Gamu from Tillicoultry has recorded three new tracks you can hear here. Enjoy!

Note: For my non Scottish readers, 'wae' means 'with'. Tell me of one single blog where you get as much free education as this one.
12:30pm It's now 12 days since I wrote to the university's lawyer with my request for additional information. I've still not received a reply.

For example, I asked Kevin Clarke two simple questions:
Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?

Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?

It should only take Mr Clarke a few minutes to decide whether to lie or to tell the truth. Why does he need 12 days? If he takes that length of time to answer every question at the tribunal hearing, I'll have retired before the hearing finishes.

Saturday, 12 November 2011
I'm back up to 140 cl, but I'm fairly determined I won't go above 150 cl.

The blog software comes with a graph that shows the time of day that readers are reading pages from my blog. During the week, by far the busiest time is around 9 am. It seems as though it's one of the first things people do when they get into the office. Universities, not just Stirling and not just in Scotland, provide a large proportion of regular readers.

Another peak is around midnight. I still think that this is possibly people who think that the software somehow updates this page at midnight, which it doesn't. Of course, it could simply be that that's when people get home from a night out, or it might be the last thing they do before going to bed.

Would you believe I missed my doctor's appointment again yesterday! That is ridiculous. That just isn't me at all to miss appointments. It is so embarrassing. The reason I missed it was because I overslept. Ironically, it is a good thing that I am sleeping better, and it is fairly regular now. I think these new anti depressant pills are the cause. It has been over a week since I last couldn't sleep. It makes such a big difference. I really hope it continues, because I feel sure that it would help with other problems too.

I've received a letter from the Psychologist, so I've to arrange for an assessment. Depending on what I need though, it could take more than eight months to receive therapy. That could be disappointing. I'm pretty sure that people who are suffering from the type of depression I have will not be able to see or think that far into the future, or anything like it. I expect that many will either have been cured or have killed themselves within that time. That is not said in any way as a joke, I hasten to add. I would have thought that depression really needs to be treated much sooner than that, but if there's a lack of resources, then that's it I suppose. It has even taken around ten weeks just to get this letter offering me an assessment. If I had been offered this a year ago, I would have turned it down because I just wouldn't have considered the possibility of still being around in eight months time. I won't be turning it down though, because I've already experienced living far longer than I expected. I hope that makes sense.

I'm sure there will be people who read this page who are bored of me talking about suicide and yet not doing it. I am aware of this, and I do try to keep it to a minimum. I'm trying to be as honest as possible throughout my blog, including this page. It would not properly reflect what's going on in my life if I didn't mention that suicide remains a real possibility. My mood changes over time back and forth. If you read this page hoping for a good suicide to come along soon, then you may be reading this for the wrong reasons, and you may read it for a long time, only to be disappointed. I certainly don't think about suicide as much as before, but I still think about it fairly regularly.

I don't know how many people think about suicide, but I'm far from alone in doing so. In my post, Bullycide, I detail how difficult suicide really is. It's not the easy option that some people may think. It takes a lot of guts, or a lot of stupidity. After you eliminate the stupid methods, it still takes a lot of bravery. Not so much that it will be the end, but that it might not be the end and that you are left with an incomplete job. That is the greatest fear among the non stupid I would imagine. Far more people would commit suicide if it was easier. That's why farmers and health professionals show higher rates of suicide. They have the ways and means to do it efficiently.

As I sit here right now writing this, I do not wish to kill myself. Tomorrow, I could feel completely different. I think the employment tribunal and the expectation of justice is what helps keep it to the back of my mind much of the time.

The dispute I have with the uni has certainly been an eye opener. The sheer number of people who are prepared to lie in order to end a man's career has shocked me. Many of these people I would never have dreamed would do such a thing. But without a shadow of a doubt, they did. As well as them, there are the people who know that others are lying, but up until now, they haven't come forward and spilled the beans. I have to say that I am very disappointed in them too. I am seriously considering creating a post that lists all of the people who were in my team along with what they knew. Why should I keep quiet to protect them, while they watch me suffer at the hands of the liars? Why indeed?

Coming up, the causes of my work related stress...

Friday, 11 November 2011
Yesterday I said that I think I'm more in control of my drinking than I was before, even though I'm still drinking excessively. That was what I was thinking at the time I wrote that, and I still think there is a measure of truth in it. But if I can control it, then why do I still choose to do it. The operative word is 'choose'. I am choosing to drink rather than needing to drink, I think! Sometimes I doubt myself. Am I sometimes not telling the truth about my drinking? I definitely do not get the uncontrollable urges and anxiety that used to build up during the day. But life is still shit, and alcohol can dull the senses and take my mind off things, although I'm not sure that in the long term that is a good thing. However, I still have great doubts about there being a long term.

Interestingly, the uni's lawyer talked yesterday about how he would like to question my doctor at the tribunal. My immediate reaction was that doctors are far too busy to spend a day or days at a tribunal. I imagine I'm just one of hundreds of patients that he has. How would he cope if dozens of us asked him to attend a tribunal. I thought about this today, and I realise now that the reason he probably wants to question him is because there is a chance that I am faking depression.

That's a problem with stress and depression and other mental injuries and damage. Outwardly, you could appear normal. You don't have a great big bandage around your head to indicate an injury. You don't walk with a limp or with a crutch. My crutch is my whisky.

The depression I have was definitely brought on by the treatment I received from the uni. I was first suicidal in 2008 while I was off work for five weeks due to stress because of Kathy. That stopped once I got back to work, but I was still suffering from stress, although working reduced the stress. The sham procedures, and particularly the sham disciplinary procedure carried out by Mark Toole brought the suicidal thoughts back. At that time it was so bad that I didn't even want help from a doctor. There was no point. Why would I want to see a doctor if I just wanted to die? It took several months of that before I eventually thought I might not want to die after all. That's when I went to see the doctor. But I definitely remember even after that, that I still wanted to be dead. The major thing in my life at the time that made me want to live was the employment tribunal and justice. And I was lucky that I even made my claim to the tribunal at all. I really didn't see the point because I was convinced I was going to be dead soon. I only made my claim on the very last day possible, just as an insurance in case I didn't kill myself.

While I was with the uni, I was seeing the Occupational Health doctor fairly regularly, but to be honest, he was of very limited help. The cause of my illness was Stirling University. We both knew that, but there wasn't anything he could do about it. When I told him that I was probably going to kill myself, he advised that I see my doctor, but I wasn't interested.

If I had killed myself, it would have been pure and simply murder by Stirling University, and particularly Mark Toole. I pleaded with him several times to carry out the investigation properly, but he just refused. And the only reason for refusing was because he knew without a shadow of a doubt that I was innocent. He wasn't the least bit interested in all of the evidence I showed him that proved that the allegations were false. If I had killed myself, or if I still kill myself (because I still think that that is the most likely outcome), then it's just as if he had put a gun to my head and shot me in cold blood. In fact, if he had done that, I wouldn't have suffered so much.

If I kill myself and decide to kill someone else at the same time (because for a long time that seemed the most likely outcome), then although, strictly speaking, I would be a murderer; both deaths would be the responsibility of Stirling University, and in particular, Mark Toole. I would expect there would be an investigation into the way I was treated by him and the university. I'd imagine it would be a fairly extensive investigation that would look into all of the false allegations that were made against me. Mark Toole would have to explain his actions. It wouldn't take the police long to see that he had deliberately unfairly dismissed me knowing that my mental health was already damaged after years of bullying.

Mark Toole should be hoping that I don't kill myself, especially not along with someone else.

Depression and stress are not a barrel of laughs. I know that at times I try to inject humour into my writings, but that is to try to make my blog less depressing. It also helps cheer me up a bit. But curing depression requires a lot more than being told a joke. I can sometimes laugh, but I'm still suffering from depression.

I think the new pills I've been given may be better than the previous ones. But I've no idea what they are supposed to do. The new ones help me sleep better, and that in itself can be reducing the depression. It was due to the fact that they help sleep that the doctor said they helped with either motivation or concentration. I think that possibly my motivation has improved slightly. I've done a fair bit in the last couple of weeks with tribunal stuff. But because of the subject matter, it gets upsetting, and every so often I have to stand up and walk away from it.

I am definitely motivated by justice and revenge. I am naturally very determined, and although the depression is holding me back, I am still determined to win this tribunal case if it's the last thing I do.

Eleven To Fly
So what do you have planned for eleven minutes and eleven seconds past eleven today?

Thursday, 10 November 2011
The drinking looks bad on the graph, but I don't think it's that bad really. I'm drinking too much, I agree. But I think I am in control of it. I'm certainly far more in control than I was at 3 August. If I desperately wanted to reduce my drinking, I'm pretty sure I could do it. But I don't. Every now and then I ask myself why I'm doing this. Why am I trying to drink less? Well the answer is always at the top of the page. But is it still relevant? Do I still care? I was supposed to be rewarded with sessions with a psychologist, but that seems to be taking forever. I don't even have an appointment yet. Unless it's in these envelopes I've still to open! I doubt it, but I see my doctor again this week, and I might ask.

These new pills I got for depression are definitely helping with my sleep. I'm regularly sleeping right through the night now. They were supposed to also help either with my motivation or my concentration. I can't remember which. I know that I still make mistakes with things that I never would have done in the past. I'm not sure if my motivation is improving or not. I've done a fair bit recently with the tribunal stuff, but I know it's not as it should be. My self harming isn't nearly as bad as it was even a month ago. I have serious problems that I'm not facing up to; that I can't face up to. I'm just hiding from them because they are too scary. I fear that if I think about them, I will sink lower and lower into a deeper depression. I also fear that if I don't think about them, things will only get worse, and I don't even want to think about that.

On a more positive note, I attended the tribunal meeting today. These meetings are closed to the public, so I can't tell you what happened. But I can say that I learned something today that almost made me fall off my chair when I heard it. It involves a bunch of other people who might actually fall off their chairs when they hear it, unless they've already heard it, in which case they would already have fallen off their chairs.

I haven't received the answers to my questions yet, but hopefully it won't be much longer. One of the weirdest things ever is going to be when I cross examine Selina Gibb at the tribunal. She will be what is termed a hostile witness. The weird thing is that it will be the first time I've spoken to her since we were laughing and joking about her skiing lessons. Completely out of the blue, Selina then made a malicious complaint against me saying that I had caused her to be nervous around me. That gives some idea of how sick my team is. I would never have believed in a million years that Selina would ever even think about doing something like that. But she did it. It really happened. It's like something out of the Twilight Zone. Was the real Selina taken away in a space ship and replaced by an alien Selina? It must have been a shock to everybody in the team too. I vaguely remember when I first found out, when I read her statement. I was completely stunned. My whole belief system was shattered in those few seconds. It will be very strange cross examining her, because I will have to keep reminding myself that this isn't the Selina I knew. It's Selina the lying bastard! How weird is that? How fucking weird is that? It was the way the investigators did it too. They never even mentioned Selina once. Yet they had just interviewed her the day before they interviewed me. It was fresh in their minds, but they had to hide this from me, just like they hid everything else from me, during their 'fair and thorough' investigation. How can people behave that way and still live with it in their conscience? When Selina decided that she was going to lie in order to take my job from me, I wonder if she ever considered that I might take something just as important away from her, by way of revenge? Something so important that she would wake up every day for the rest of her life that she had managed to get any sleep, and regret ever having lied about me. And for what? What did she gain by doing this? She hasn't taken me up on my offer of taking a lie detector test. She's a cowardly lying bastard. I had known her for about ten years, and she was pretending to be my friend. How fucking sick is that? How fucking sick is that? That may sound harsh, but how would you feel if it happened to you? At least I get to face her in court. We'll hear the audio recording of her being 'anxious and nervous' around me. We'll see the other evidence that proves she's a liar. Then I get to ask her why. Why?

Wednesday, 9 November 2011
The CMD at the employment tribunal is later on today. I'll need to shave and shower again.

I've more or less completed the list of documents I'm requesting from the uni. I'll probably send that off today. They've had my list of requests for additional information for a week now, so I hope to receive the responses at the CMD. Failing that, I hope to hear why not. For all I know, they might not even have given the questions to the employees concerned.

Wouldn't you expect an employer that has boldly and confidently sacked an employee, to at least have the decency to respond quickly to questions arising? I was suspended for three months while they investigated and carried out the disciplinary process. You would think that in that time, no stone would be left unturned. That would certainly be the case in any normal disciplinary procedure. However, this one was carried out by one appropriately named Mark Toole. Mark thought he was clever enough to make some trumped up allegations sound worthy of dismissal. Mark is basically a coward who is working out of his depth. He came to Stirling, and one of the first things he found on his plate was Kathy McCabe. Kathy had applied for Mark's job, but didn't get short listed. On failing to be short listed, Kathy took the huff, sent everybody in the team an email telling us how bitterly disappointed she was, then buggered off home when she was supposed to have a team meeting with us. It was the best team meeting we ever had! Unfortunately, she decided to return to work the next day. Kathy was a plateful, and poor Mark couldn't deal with her. She had had things her own way for far too long. Next thing on Mark's plate was a formal grievance from me against Kathy. He persuaded me to give him a chance to deal with it informally. I did and he couldn't. I was thoroughly unimpressed by him at every stage. He exudes cowardliness. I felt as though somebody was needing to give him a shake just to get him moving. He just wasn't up for the job at all. He's got even less personality than I have. He took the course of least resistance and got rid of the victim. At least that's what he thought was the course of least resistance. He knew my health was bad, and that I could probably offer only minimum resistance. He got that wrong!

Most bullies are cowards. Mark is the definition of the cowardly bully. He thought he would gain popularity by getting shot of me. I doubt it somehow. I think it will just have confirmed in most people's minds that he is a coward. Spineless!

So he decided to pretend to believe all of these complaints about me. It was the coward's way out. So then he called upon the services of arse licker, Graham Millar to carry out a sham investigation. Graham doesn't need to be asked twice to lick arse. He was in there like a flash. Mark's instructions for Graham were to interview the liars; make up a report as though everything the liars said was true, no matter how absurd they sound; include some conclusions about the lies you've heard; then interview Allan, but don't tell him what the allegations are; ignore everything he says. Graham does like any puppy dog does; exactly as it's told. Three bags full, Sir! Anything else, Sir? Can I lick your arse please, Sir?

This is senior management at Stirling University. How pathetic! I thought the way to the top was through honest hard work. How wrong I was.

Poor Mark and Graham hadn't realised that there was an abundance of evidence that proved the liars were liars. Mark found out too late. He couldn't go back. Even in the face of obvious evidence, he still had to keep up the pretence that he believed the liars. So he sacks me, and keeps the liars.

At the tribunal, Mark has to keep up this pretence. As far as he is concerned the liars were probably telling the truth, he'll claim.

Mark had already took the cowardly course of action with redundancies. Instead of getting rid of deadwood that contributed least to his department, Mark got rid of the team and manager that would put up least resistance. But at a staff meeting with Christine Hallett, he didn't even have the guts to stand up and defend himself.

I look forward to cross examining the cowardly bastard. I wonder how many times he will say "On the balance of probability".

Tuesday, 8 November 2011
After four days in a row in which I've drunk 20 cl, my graph doesn't look so good now. I just realised that even if I had 20 cl every night, I'd still be below 1.5 litres. That's today's maths lesson.

I've still not had a response from the uni. I wonder how they will arrange it. Kevin Clarke will obviously get to see what I'm asking each individual. He may decide that nobody should answer any questions, or just some of them. The lawyer will advise what they should do too, I expect.

The uni's strategy up till now has been to refuse to answer questions by claiming they are not relevant. I'm not sure how they got away with that. They also opposed me calling witnesses. They wanted to limit the scope of the hearing so that the tribunal could hear as little evidence as possible. When they did eventually answer questions, they created the infamous ten page fraudulent document which will require very detailed questioning. That really was a stupid idea to do that. Karen Stark is hoping that it won't be obvious; but it is! Eileen Schofield will be asked all about it too. I don't envy her one bit! There's another document that I'm going to request, and they are almost certainly going to have to create it fraudulently too, because it is highly unlikely that it ever existed. Then they will be in one hysterical mess, because they aren't smart enough to create fraudulent documents that are believable; they've shown that already. Once I ask for it, the clock will start, and we'll see how long it takes them to make it up. They might think it will be easy, but it won't be, because it has to fit with another fraudulent document, and the degree of difficulty increases exponentially with the number of documents. You see they are trying to pretend that they carried out a genuine grievance investigation, when really they didn't. Eileen's decision had nothing to do with any evidence. So lots of things that would have taken place with a genuine investigation, haven't, because there was no need. Now they are making a futile attempt to fill in the gaps, piece by piece. I've even been giving them clues by posting it on my blog, but they are still making a mess of it. They could be on a Britain's Dumbest Fraudsters video, they are so bad. When they create this particular document I'm about to ask for, they will reach a point when they will say "Shit! What do we put here?" Then they will remember me saying this, and realise what I was talking about. Ha Ha Ha!

Monday, 7 November 2011
It was good while it lasted, but my drinking has increased again. But, it was the weekend; and is a man not allowed a drink at the weekend?

Another thing I'm experiencing about time is that the two weekend days just seem to blend into a single day. I know it's the weekend, but I have to think very carefully before I could say what day it is. And it seems like it was just a couple of weeks ago since I was writing about it being the 1st of October.

I've become a recluse. I'm Howard Hughes without the money, or the hygiene. I hate having to go outside where all the nasty people live. In fact, I don't even like leaving my living room. I'm not really coping at all. I have my head buried in the sand, but it will all come and bite my bum eventually. I don't know what the hell I was doing with my metaphors there.

I have to deal with the tribunal hearing though, and I've a meeting in Glasgow this week to attend. It's called a Case Management Discussion (CMD). We've had quite a few of these already. This one shouldn't last long as we have already decided how the case is to be managed. I think it's mainly to decide on the witnesses that are to attend. I think there is likely to be around 17 witnesses, including me. There may be more because the uni intends to call witnesses who will give evidence in support of the argument that I should not be reinstated. I will argue that, since I was dismissed for making a protected disclosure, all of the detriment I was subjected to should be undone. So I would be reinstated and my grievances should be handled appropriately and independently. I now have grievances against a very large number of employees; one of whom is Gerry McCormac. I will also argue that Gerry is not fit to be employed by the university; or any university for that matter. His predecessor was worse, but Gerry is even worser!

I said earlier that all of the detriment should be undone, but that's not possible really. How would they be able to give me back two years of my life? How will I ever be able to trust anybody again? How will my health return to normal? How can I be sure that I won't become a murderer?

Another witness to be called is Doctor Peter Kemp. At last I hope to have a normal talk with Dr Kemp. I intend to quiz him about his behaviour in response to grievances I lodged against Kathy McCabe and Eileen MacDonald. What on earth was he thinking of when, a few days after I poured my soul out to him in a 25 page letter giving details of Kathy's bullying behaviour, he wrote to tell Kathy that she had his full support? And why, just days after I lodged a grievance against Eileen MacDonald, did he tell her that she was doing a good job and not to worry? Why was he so determined, at his grievance interview, to make it sound as though I was the problem, and not Eileen when all of he facts proved otherwise? If he genuinely thought that, then why didn't he handle my grievance in accordance with university procedures? I definitely need to hear what this geezer has to say for himself. I have a feeling that Dr Kemp will try to avoid the questions, but I will repeat the questions until he answers properly. Of course, that goes for all witnesses, especially Kathy McCabe. I still don't believe that the uni will allow Kathy to appear as a witness, but I also can't see how they could be planning to prevent it. She obviously has information that is relevant to my case. They've said I bullied her over a period of time. They've produced a ten page document that is supposed to give details of a thorough investigation that showed I bullied her over a period of time. She denies ever bullying me or treating me differently on the basis of my gender. I have cast iron proof that she is a liar. How she will respond to this, nobody knows; not even herself. She was absolutely determined not to answer my questions at mediation, and she avoided answering them in meetings with Mark Toole; so how on earth is she going to cope in court? And her behaviour only got worse after those meetings, so she has even more questions, and more difficult questions to answer. Kathy's husband, Liam is the uni Finance Director. That may have helped her before, but I can't see how that will help her at the tribunal. And I don't see the tribunal taking too kindly to Kathy refusing to answer my questions just because they cast doubt on her honesty. She is going to have to answer my questions, and that means there is no predicting what she might say. There are no boundaries to Kathy's lies. Nothing is too stupid for Kathy not to come out with it. This is what I meant when I said that Colin Sinclair would have been a better friend for Kathy if he had persuaded her to answer my questions at mediation. Now things are far, far worse for her. Mediation was private, but the hearing is open to the public and details can be published in the press and the WWW. I am really looking forward to cross examining Kathy, but I still don't believe it will happen. If it does happen, I would expect it to mean that the uni has decided to stop protecting her, and that could lead to her own, and possibly Liam's departure from the uni. We shall see. I'll get some idea what to expect when I receive, or don't receive, the answers to the very few questions I've sent for Kathy to answer. But it's not just Kathy's dishonesty that will be evident; her whole belief system will be on show. Things that she genuinely believes to be right that any normal person would be appalled by; she will defend. I believe that Kathy actually thinks that sex discrimination is okay, but she is aware that it is illegal, so she might have some other name for it that doesn't make it sound so bad. She might try to defend her discriminatory behaviour by using some dodgy logic. I will be fascinated to hear it.

There are a number of witnesses who find themselves in a particularly difficult situation. They gave false statements that led to my dismissal and significant injury to my mental health. Those people may find themselves the subjects of defamation claims. My request for information includes the simple question to each of them; Was your statement true or false?

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they admit that they lied, they could immediately be sued for defamation. If they claim that they told the truth, they will have to defend that position in court in the face of strong documentary evidence. Their statements are obviously untrue, and it will take only a very brief period of time before the tribunal realises this. If they do repeat their defamatory statements, the risk of legal action is greater. But if they tell the truth, they still have the risk of legal action, but they will also have the risk of losing their jobs for having made malicious complaints. None of this entered their heads when they made their false statements. They just assumed that they would get away with it. What they were saying was music to Kathy's ears. Not one of them gave a damn about me and the effect it would have on me. To make matters worse, these were individuals who I regularly went out of my way to help. I now consider them to be sub human. They deserve everything that is coming to them. And they have no idea what could be ahead of them. I can confirm that none of them has even as much as offered me an apology. When I was sacked, they probably had a good laugh, and celebrated with cakes.

Saturday, 5 November 2011
My drinking crept up a bit yesterday to exactly 70 cl. I count that as not above the red line. Do we all accept that?

There are more questions than answers
I've still not had any response to my request for additional information from the uni. Two more individuals I'm seeking answers from are the current and former Principals, Gerry McCormac and Christine Hallett. I seek to discover the reason for apparently ignoring the fact that management was corrupt. How exactly did Christine Hallett handle my protected disclosure? Did she follow it up in any way? Did she try to contact me to find out if the matter was being dealt with satisfactorily? Or did she just simply put out instructions that I was to be fired for bringing the matter to her attention?

When Gerry was informed that the uni was failing to comply with its legal obligations, what action did he take? Did he just decide to sweep it all under the carpet?

Gerry and Christine are two witnesses I intend to cross examine at the tribunal. Just six weeks after I made my protected disclosure to Christine Hallett, I was suspended from work and then sacked after a sham disciplinary procedure and a sham grievance procedure. Just a few days before I made my protected disclosure to her, she had written to every member of staff telling us how the uni was committed to ensuring that we could all work without fear of victimisation and discrimination. That must be some kind of record. I need to ask her about that commitment, and what happened to it when I needed to see it in action. How on earth was I supposed to know that she was just kidding us on?

I wasn't aware of it at the time, but apparently this wasn't the first time Professor Hallet had turned a blind eye to corruption in the university. I need to ask why she told us all she was committed to fair treatment, when she had already shown that she wasn't committed to that at all.

Was the only reason she got the job as Principal because she was so open to corruption?

I'm also calling Eileen Schofield and Kevin Clarke to cross examine them on the grievance procedure. At some stage a proper grievance hearing will be required to handle the grievances between me and Kathy McCabe. Stirling University employees need to feel safe in the knowledge that when they make genuine complaints they will not end up sacked because of it. Kathy McCabe had ample warning for several years about her behaviour, and she must face proper grievance and disciplinary procedures.

Eileen and Kevin will be required to explain how, even after an appeal, such a ridiculous outcome can be possible. Kevin will need to explain how he saw exactly zero flaws in the process which was completely flawed. Is it safe for the university to have someone as incompetent as Mr Clarke in such an important role? I will point out many flaws to Mr Clarke and ask him how he does not consider them to be flaws. I intend to publish his responses in this blog, and allow the readers to decide if he is fit for his role. Similarly with Eileen Schofield. It is vital that the public learns what these people get up to. Ideally it should all have been handled internally, but Professor Hallett's inaction meant that it has to go public.

Friday, 4 November 2011
I've not had a response yet to my request for additional information from the university. The additional information is sought from thirteen current and former employees. My questions are not particularly difficult. They are the type of questions that a witness would be expected to answer right away at a hearing. The only difficulty for those individuals is to decide how they are going to answer them; honestly or dishonestly. Should they decide to lie, they will have to be prepared to vigorously support their lies in the face of strong evidence at the tribunal.

Another course of action would be refuse to answer, claiming the information is irrelevant. The uni tried this strategy before, and I don't think it is likely to work this time. All of my questions are relevant, and if they claim they are not; they will have to explain why. The hearing is going to deal with all matters relating to my dismissal, sex discrimination and detriment I suffered in response to whistleblowing to the Principal, Peter Kemp and Kathy McCabe.

The uni has got itself, as well as a lot of its employees, in a horrendous mess. They were so desperate to get rid of a whistleblower that they didn't even want to consider the consequences. In my appeal against dismissal, I informed them that if I was dismissed, it would probably damage the reputation of the university and several of its employees, but they went ahead with it anyway.

It's funny now that I think of it, that Martin McCrindle asked me to keep quiet about the treatment I'd received from the university. It was his view that employees can say whatever they like at grievance and disciplinary investigations, and that it should remain confidential. Basically, he was asking me to be complicit with the corruption that had made it necessary for me to blow the whistle in the first place. Wouldn't you have expected him to realise that if I was prepared to blow the whistle to the Principal, then my dismissal would only result in me blowing the whistle outside the university; to the regulating authorities, and to the public at large? Was he seriously thinking that by dismissing me, I would then decide to keep quiet about the corruption that I had already blown the whistle on? Are there any recorded incidents of that ever happening before where after a whistleblower is sacked, they decide to stay quiet about it?

The information I have requested includes questions to Kevin Clarke which ask if the grievance procedure was a sham and whether or not he acted dishonestly when he made his decision to reject my appeal against Eileen Schofield's report which to my astonishment states that my manager, Kathy McCabe had not bullied me, but that I had bullied Kathy McCabe. I've also asked Mrs Schofield questions which seek to determine whether or not she really does have powers that allow her to see into the future, or if she is just a bare faced liar. Wouldn't it be good if she replied saying "I am just a bare faced liar!" or "I really do have powers that allow me to see into the future". More likely she will try the "It was all just an honest mistake" approach.

The correct answers are obvious. But will those be the answers they decide to provide, or will they risk lying to the tribunal? I can hardly wait to find out. Can you?

Some questions seek to obtain confirmation that voices that can be heard on audio files belong to certain members of staff, and not to well paid actors. From one audio recording you can clearly hear Selina Gibb, whom I later discovered claimed she was anxious and nervous around me at the time of this recording, talking to me in a manner that does not remotely resemble a nervous or anxious person. Selina had made up a whole story about how I had frightened her during a very brief conversation I had with her, and which she initiated. Selina must have thought there was no way in the world that I could refute her allegation. She gambled, and lost. She had also sent me personal emails during this time she was supposed to be frightened of me; emails that invite me to hear "lots of funnies" and which contain a smiley face. I look forward to seeing Selina again in court. Incredibly, the last time we were together we were laughing and joking as we often did. Little did I know that Selina was a liar.

Wednesday, 2 November 2011
I've finally completed the list of additional information that I require from the university relating to my Employment Tribunal claim. Hopefully it won't take too long till I receive that information.

The anticipation of doing it was definitely worse than actually doing it; and I'm glad it's now done. I've still to request the documents that I'll need for the tribunal, and I'll try to get on to that while I'm in the swing.

Naturally, I would prefer that the people I've asked information from would be honest, but dishonest responses would be just as good, possibly even better, where I have evidence that it is dishonest.

The meeting that I was to attend last week at the tribunal was cancelled, and will now take place next week. The university will need to get availability dates for all of the witnesses I intend to call. There are thirteen, and this does not include the ones that their lawyer intends to call. It will now take place during December, January and February.

The information I've requested includes questions to four people regarding voice recordings I have of them. But I would imagine that all of the questions to thirteen individuals will be quite challenging, and these individuals will have to think very carefully how they answer them. I would always recommend people tell the truth, but once you start on a lie, it's bound to become difficult to get out of it. I will be fascinated to see the responses. It would also be interesting to know what their lawyer advises them to do. I don't think he is legally allowed to advise them to do anything but tell the truth, but I may be wrong. If anybody reading this knows, I would be very interested.

Today is another milestone day. I could no longer afford the upkeep of my car and had to sell it. It's one of many, many, many detriments I've suffered as a result of making my protected disclosure. To sack someone for whistleblowing should be a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, in my view.

Tuesday, 1 November 2011
I'm on a roll. Another alcohol free day takes me to 45 cl for the week. That's less than half of what I used to drink in a day. I can just imagine you all cheering. Thanks.

I've certainly come a long way since 3rd August when I started this page. And the page, and the knowledge that there are people reading it; including some who know me; has been a huge help. The problem is far from solved though. I just feel that I currently have some control over it. And I don't know why. The only thing I can think of that's helping is that I was concerned by the amount of money I was losing gambling while drinking. I never really cared that much before, but my finances are at rock bottom now; in fact they've gone below rock bottom! So drinking less whisky at £10 a bottle helps too, but I don't think that has influenced my drinking.

My self harming isn't so bad now either, but that could all change again as well as the drinking, at any time. With less, or no alcohol, I'm also more able to control my gambling. Gambling is my means of taking my mind off stuff. I just realised today that while I gamble, I never think of the uni and I don't have any unpleasant fantasies. And if I do it without drinking alcohol, I can minimise my losses.

You may be wondering where I got to with the letter I was sending to the uni's lawyer. Well, I made a great start, then I paused, and while I was pausing, my fear of doing it built up. Yet I remember that when I got started doing it, I ended up enjoying it. So what am I afraid of? I imagine that it's going to be upsetting. I know that doesn't make any sense. I even know that once I get started, it won't be upsetting, or at least that's what I'm trying to convince myself. I'll just have to force myself to restart, and if it does get upsetting (and I don't think it will), I'll stop and take a break. How does that sound? Logical?

I might have a drink tonight, but then again, I might not. No pressure seems to be the way to go.

Monday, 31 October 2011
A second alcohol free day makes the week's consumption a mere 65 cl; taking me below the 70 cl line for the fourth time. The daily cls consumed were 20, 10, 10, 10, 0, 15, 0. Add them up and see! And there's a fair chance that I could soon beat my previous lowest of 63 cls.

Of course, doing it for a week is one thing; it's another thing to make it permanent. It will be interesting to see how long I can stay below the 70 mark this time. This week was relatively easy, but will it stay that way?

All is not good, however. I'm trying to ignore how bad things are. I don't know if that's good or bad, but at least it stops me worrying about things most people would be a nervous wreck over. Things are indeed pretty bad! I'm surprised that I've actually been able to reduce my drinking during possibly one of the worst weeks in my life.

Saturday, 29 October 2011
An alcohol free day takes me to 95 cl for the week ended yesterday. I've not had an alcohol free day for ages. I might have to start a graph for my coffee drinking though.

Everything I do seems to become either an addiction or a phobia. Even my blog is addictive. Some of you readers are finding it addictive too I can see. My good friend from the West of Scotland logs on every single day. But she's managed to cut it back to just twice a day now.

I've had a bit of a headache for the past few hours. It's my own fault I suppose for having far too much fun!

Well, I hope that's cheered up your day. Till the next time...

Friday, 28 October 2011
I'm probably speaking too soon, but I feel slightly more in control of the alcohol again. There's a chance that either tonight or this weekend I could go below a litre for the first time in about seven weeks. I'm not going to put pressure on myself though. If it happens, it happens. This recent reduction has happened without me hardly even giving it much thought.

Thursday, 27 October 2011
Time, The Magician
I may have mentioned it once or twice before, but time is literally flying by, literally! It's now Thursday, but surely last weekend just finished a couple of days ago. What's going on? Is it the same for you? Or is it just me?

My blog was busy again yesterday. I wonder if it's people who are keen to discover if there are any more of those embarrassing little pieces like "Don't mention you hate the fucking bitch" or maybe an email that tells its own story.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Eric Hall
For me, it is the ultimate in irony, that the one person in our team who had no interest in gossip, is now publishing all of this stuff on the World Wide Web. The difference with my gossip though, is that it's all absolutely true. I don't make stuff up, unless I make that pretty obvious. I think people know that I wouldn't say stuff if it wasn't true. Yet, somehow I don't think the gossips in the team will like my blog. Funny that!

Is there ever any justification for lying when those lies hurt someone else? I realise that some people might try to justify some of their lies because they claim they are lying with the intention to protect or stick up for a friend. Is that justified? Would you expect or want your friend to lie on your behalf in a way that hurts another honest individual? And if you accept your friend's 'helpful' lie, does that give you an obligation to lie on your friend's behalf?

I think the questions we should ask ourselves when we consider lying for a friend are:

Why does my friend need me to lie for them?

Isn't there a more helpful course of action other than lying?

Why should I hurt an innocent person by lying?

Do I really want this person as a friend if I need to lie on their behalf?

What if I get found out?

What if someone lies to hurt me in revenge? Or even worse perhaps, what if they tell the truth about me?

Take Colin Sinclair, for example. He lied at the grievance interview to say that his friend, Kathy, had answered my questions at mediation. He thought he should lie because he knew that Kathy had behaved abysmally at mediation, and that she was a bully. What could he have done instead? He could have taken Kathy aside and explained to her, in a supportive manner, that her behaviour was dreadful, and he could have tried to find out what her difficulty was in answering my questions. He could have helped her try to see that by answering the questions, and by participating properly in mediation, she could begin to stop being a bully. Otherwise, why was she there, and why was he there?

Why, when he already knew I was being bullied, should he then hurt me more by making me out to be a liar for having truthfully stated that Kathy didn't answer any questions?

And why does he want Kathy as a friend, when he knows she's a bully who wasn't even interested in stopping being a bully? How do you tell your kids that it's okay for some people to bully, provided it's your friend?

So who wins by Colin lying? Kathy is still a bully; it's just that it's far more public than it needed to be. She may have to appear in court where not answering my questions is not an option. Her answers might find their way on to my blog. I could justifiably ask her to repeat the answers that Colin alleges she gave at mediation. How would she be able to do that? I don't think Colin's lying has helped anybody. It's a lose, lose, lose situation.

Unless Colin has a dark secret that he needs Kathy to lie on his behalf about, maybe?

Bullying is wrong. It is also bloody stupid, particularly in Kathy's case. Did she not realise that I am much bigger than her, and could easily knock seven flavours of shit out of her? Was she blinded by her power? By knocking the shit out of Kathy, I would have been abusing my own power, but maybe all's fair in war? Maybe I should have knocked the shit out of Kathy and claimed self defense? She has knocked so much shit out of me that I wanted to be dead. Colin reads a lot of books, and he'll be familiar with the effects that bullying has on the targets.

I might talk about this again another day where the guest liar on that occasion will be none other than Eric Hall. I will describe Eric's lying ways and his motive for lying. Then I might even discuss the ones with selective memories.

Well, I can't give you it all in one day, or you would have nothing to look forward to.

Poppy Watch
Saw my first poppy today, 27 October.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011
00:20am. My, were my readers busy yesterday. Especially those from around the Stirling area.

The pill
So the sleeping pills are gone. I need to look forward. I can't remember when I went to sleep last night, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't later than 2:30 am. That means I woke up about 6 hours later than I would have expected to. So what could be going on?

The doctor said that the new pills had an element of sleeping pill in them. This added to the confusion, because sleeping pills generally begin with the letter Z. So I had sleeping pills nine days in a row which the doctor would certainly not have approved of, then I had my first new pill which also makes you drowsy. Well, I'll see what happens tonight when I try to sleep.

A General Moan About Stuff
My drinking is going through the roof again. I did expect this, but that doesn't make it any better. My life is in an utter mess at the moment, and I don't think I have the strength and mental ability to sort it out. It does look gloomy. The only thing in my favour is the tribunal case. It does seem to be taking forever. I'm not sure, but I think the judge may have said that the case is now on a priority list. The uni may be hoping that the longer the case takes, the better it is for them. However, my compensation is bound to be linked to the loss I've suffered, and the longer this goes on, the longer I've been away from my work, the longer it is likely to take me to get back into full time work, if that is ever possible. However, money seems to be no object to the uni. The longer it goes on, the greater their legal costs. In April, when it became obvious they had committed fraud and that their case was hopeless, I invited them to withdraw their defense of my claim. They declined. I then offered them an opportunity to have a Pre Hearing Review in order to consider if the uni's case had any prospect of success. They declined. So eventually when I win my case, it will be pointed out that the uni declined those offers, and that they insisted on having a full hearing when their case was laughable. Should they decide not to answer the questions I am currently preparing for them, then they may be in deeper shit. But they are playing with public money which doesn't seem to be the same as real money.

For some strange reason that I probably won't ever find out, the uni has thought that they were going to be able to defend this case without me being allowed to cross examine Eileen Schofield, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O'Neil, Una Forsyth, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Kevin Clarke and Peter Kemp. But these are all people who are critical to the case, and strictly speaking, the uni should be calling them because their evidence supports the university's case. I don't intend to call any witnesses who actually support my case. That's pretty unusual, but this is a very unusual case. I did receive an offer from someone who wanted to appear as a witness in support of my claim, and I am grateful to that person, but I decided that it's not necessary. I feel that I'm under pressure to keep the numbers down, but I think all of the above should attend. In addition, it is possible I may call Eric Hall, David Black and Gerry McCormac, but that may depend on other matters.

McCabe, MacDonald, Gibb, O'Neil and Forsyth have to attend because their complaints against me were not investigated properly. The tribunal must see how their statements withstand the reasonable interrogation that they should have received from the uni. Schofield and Clarke have to attend to explain why my own complaints were not given proper consideration. Miller and Millar have to attend to explain their bizarre investigation. Kemp has to appear to explain his dishonesty, particularly over MacDonald. Hallett has to attend to explain her mishandling of my protected disclosure.

Someone from the uni has to attend in order to counter my argument that I should be reinstated. From their own point of view, that person should be honest, so I've no idea who they would have in mind for that. This may mean that I would have to call McCormac. If he is corrupt, then the uni may struggle to argue that an honest employee sacked due to corruption and for making a protected disclosure, should not return to his job. McCormac may have to undergo an independent investigation to determine why he took no action over widespread corruption at the uni. If he has decided to remove Clarke in order to reduce corruption, then it may be seen as too little and too late. But he isn't saying that he is sacking Clarke. It was under McCormac's watch that the uni committed fraud. Ultimately he has to take responsibility for that, particularly since I had already brought the corruption to his attention, and that he wrote to me basically to say that he was going to ignore the fact that there was widespread corruption.

If someone had written to me telling me that several databases weren't working properly, and I replied saying that I was going to take no action, I would expect to be sacked if my inaction hurt the uni in any way. McCormac is no different. It's just more serious.

Monday, 24 October 2011
Hello Greenland. Was It Something I Said?
I was looking at a map of the world that shows all of the countries you lucky people who read my blog come from. I've had visitors from just about every country in the world. There are a couple of tiny African countries where I might have to spend a bit more on advertising. However, there's this one massive country where not one single person has ever visited my blog. It turns out to be Greenland.

I had no idea that Greenland was so huge. How can a country that size not be getting to the World Cup finals regularly? I've never even heard of a Greenland football team. Well, I think the reason for that, is that its population is tiny. No, I don't mean it's populated by dwarves. There's just hardly anybody there.

So, if you know anybody from Greenland; would you do me a favour please, and ask them to visit my blog. Thanks.

The place in the world that hosts my largest number of visitors is Stirling in Scotland; followed in joint second place by Glasgow and London. Good morning, Maam!

An utter, utter idiot!
Yesterday I described how I was keeping hold of my sleeping pills because they were too precious to use. Well, I won't have to worry about that any more because I've just realised I've been mistakenly taking them instead of my new anti depressant pills for the past nine days. What an utter fool!

The confusion began when the doctor prescribed me the new pills. He gave me two versions. One that I had to take for just a week. Then I was to move on to the others. But I've mistakenly been taking the sleeping pills instead. I thought it was odd when I opened the packet. All my pills come in blister packs, and this packet looked as though the chemist had already removed some. But that was me that did that. And I wondered why there was nine instead of seven!

No wonder I've been sleeping well recently! It also means that I've not taken any medication for depression for about two months because of all the confusion with doctor appointments and stuff. How depressing is that?

It's like I'm suffering from dementia or something. I would never have done that in a million years. I am actually worried that I am losing my mind. I could be a danger to myself and others. I don't know.

I wonder if this may be the reason I have chosen to snack all the time instead of eating properly. A while back, I left the hob on all day. Another time, I put metal in the microwave. I might subconsciously be frightened that I'm going to do something stupid again. This is really worrying. I can't trust myself! This is all very upsetting. And God knows what's going to happen to my sleep now! This is not good! This is not good! This is not good!

This is not good!

This would never have happened to me if it hadn't been for those bastards at the uni. I fucking hate the fucking bastards!!!

2:20 pm. I woke up around 12:40pm. I can't remember ever waking so late in a day.
I've calmed down a bit. Sorry about the language earlier. But I'm still very angry!
If I kill myself, the bastards responsible are, in no particular order:
Eileen MacDonald
Selina Gibb
Kathy McCabe
Jackie O'Neil
Una Forsyth
Karen Stark
Eileen Schofield
Mark Toole
Graham Millar
Gail Miller
Eric Hall
David Black
Kevin Clarke
Christine Hallett
Gerry McCormac
Martin McCrindle
Karen Plouviez
Peter Kemp

Note to the police: You will find many of them in Stirling University Room 4B19, or in the tea room 4B21 having a good laugh about how they managed to kill me. There are some home addresses in my 'The Personnel' page.

Sunday, 23 October 2011
And Sleep
I'm going to have a bash at describing what happened to my sleep in the past couple of months. You may remember that the doctor gave me 14 sleeping pills. I was to begin by taking one per day for the first four days, then one every alternate day for about a week, and then one every third day, etc. I think things were going great for a week. I remember I was even thinking of sleeping in my bed. (I've slept on my couch for about 18 months.) Then I ruined it one night by switching off the TV. I need the TV to be on to help prevent the thoughts. Then there was a period when there was tennis being played on TV until about five in the morning. Now, for someone who can't sleep, it can be a godsend to have something to do during the night. So I made use of the tennis for a couple of weeks.

Then, and this is the slightly embarrassing part; I couldn't use the sleeping pills any more. I still have them. And the crazy reason I haven't used them, is that, if I did use them, I would no longer have them. I knew the doctor wouldn't prescribe me with any more. So they are like gold dust; I feel they are too precious to use, even if I can't sleep. Now, I can fully understand that that is illogical, but I also understand that it is also logical. I wonder if I will soon start to have arguments with myself. Is that a sign of madness? I do wonder if I'm going mad. I also wonder if I am one of the few sane people on Earth.

Lately, I've had some very good sleep, but it's never consistent. Recently I've noticed that time has become irrelevant. There's no pattern to my sleep. I have no "bedtime" or anything remotely like a "bedtime". So that's what I've been meaning to get written down for about two months now, and although I don't think it makes particularly interesting reading just now, I'm glad it's done.

The Man in the Mirror
I catch myself in the mirror every once in a while. It's horrifying! I've aged about twenty years in the past two years. I almost don't recognise myself. I suppose when you look in the mirror, there's a strong clue as to who it is you see looking back at you. It must be me. I feel very close to the bottom of the slippery slope!

Killing Fantasies
I've been amusing myself recently by imagining how people will react to the questions I ask them, either the ones I'm sending to the uni's lawyer just now, or the ones I ask in court. These imaginings and thoughts have somehow replaced most of the dark fantasies of killing people.

I'm a totally non violent person. I've never been interested in taking part in violent acts. I've been vegetarian for 24 years (actually 24 years and 23 days) because I'm opposed to killing animals. And I'm not particularly an animal lover. So it was very odd for me, of all people, to have obsessive thoughts about killing people.

People should be aware that murder does happen, obviously. It's perhaps also worth considering what would increase or decrease the probability of you becoming a murder victim. Why do people kill? And why do people get killed? What proportion of murder victims are killed for revenge; because they seriously wronged someone? I have no idea, but I expect that by doing someone a serious wrong, your chances of becoming a murder victim must increase. If you informed your life insurance company that you were about to do someone a serious wrong, they might want to know about this serious wrong. How serious? Who are you going to do it to? Then they might decide to increase your premiums, or decide that you are uninsurable. So surely before you decide to do someone a serious wrong, you should consider the increased risk you are putting on your life, and even the lives of those close to you. Isn't it a bit arrogant and stupid to think that you can just keep doing people serious wrong at no cost to yourself?

When Eileen Schofield received death threats, I wonder if she thought of popping along to her life insurance company and explaining that she has a tendency to do people serious wrong. Eileen has a characteristic which, in my view, would make her uninsurable, or at least very expensive to insure. To receive death threats could actually be a blessing in disguise. It could give you the jolt that you need to change your behaviour that attracts death threats. But just as important, surely, people should avoid doing serious wrong to others, simply because it's wrong! There is pleasure to be had in simply being a good person. And if we were all good people, then there wouldn't be any murders. Eileen Schofield has many reasons to try to become a good person before it's too late. She should actually aim to be as good as the person who threatened her life. He would probably never, under normal circumstances, do anyone any wrong, but Eileen would do it at the drop of a hat.

I suppose that people just don't expect to become a murder victim, just as most people don't expect to become a murderer. But, as I said at the beginning of this little passage, murder does happen, obviously. So why increase your chances of becoming a victim by doing people serious wrong? People who may start out by fantasising, may eventually carry out their fantasies, especially if you have wronged them so seriously that you have left them with no reason to live.

Saturday, 22 October 2011
Good Morning, all, I trust you all slept well. And for my readers from the other side of the world, Goodnight, I trust you will sleep well.

I had 20 cl to drink last night, and it has caused a massive move upwards on my graph. More accurately, the fact that I drank only 5 cl the previous Friday had a big part to play in that.

I began talking a few nights ago about why people read this page; and they are still reading it, I can tell you. Part of it is due, I sadly suspect, to negative reasons. It's like watching a car crash; or a side show at the circus. It's not only about watching a man struggle in his battle against alcohol addiction. We are watching him struggle to keep hold of his livelihood, his dignity, his sanity, and his life. I'm pretty sure that some visit my site to see how much closer I am to losing each of those struggles. And I welcome them to my blog because if and when I eventually pull through, it will give me great pleasure to stick two great big fingers up at you!

My West of Scotland visitor is one of them. They definitely visited three times yesterday. If it's who I think it is, then she would not have particularly enjoyed yesterday's diary entry. She would have found it embarrassing. She should consider what inspired me to create my blog; bullying, injustice, corruption, cowardliness, selfishness, cronyism, discrimination, mobbing, dishonesty, cruelty, mental torture, victimisation. I'm battling against all of these things that happen every day in 21st century Britain. When I see that you visit my blog each day, I'm further inspired, because I see you as someone who is in favour of at least some of these aspects of modern Britain. I laugh in your face, but I also hope that you will learn. I've asked you to contact me and discuss this. You are not ready to learn. You are still hurting. You see me as the baddie in all of this. Why? Because I'm trying to stand up for myself and other people who go about their daily lives honestly and not wishing to hurt people? Please create your own blog in which you defend these negative aspects, and put your own name to it. Enjoy the reaction you receive. While there is no shortage of people who gladly take part in these negative aspects, they tend not to court publicity for it. I am giving them a little piece of the publicity they deserve for their behaviour.

It is worth remembering that, despite everything I've said in my blog, and all of the negative publicity I've given to named individuals; the only person taking legal action is me. How do you explain that? [I'm laughing in your face again, by the way!]

Come out of the safety of your cowardly anonymity, and tell the world why you favour corruption over honesty. No, the corrupt never seem to do that. While they enjoy the benefits of corruption, they also wish to enjoy the benefits of being thought of as not corrupt; or even the benefits of being corrupt while considering themselves as untouchable.

So, to my visitor from West of Scotland who thinks I'm an arsehole, but hasn't got the guts to put their name behind such a bold statement; although you type of cowards inspire me, you also make me fucking sick. Why not openly and proudly defend your right to be a coward? Please tell me why I am an arsehole. The only logical conclusion I can come to otherwise, is that the arsehole is, in fact, YOU! Does anybody disagree?
Makes my blood boil, so it does!

When Mark Meets Selina. Read what happens when Mark plays the audio file to Selina.

Friday, 21 October 2011
I only had one drink last night. I was busy most of the day preparing a letter for the uni's lawyer. I've been putting it off for ages because I thought I was going to hate it and get upset doing it, but it was actually quite enjoyable. Maybe my motivation is returning?

While I'm doing it though, I can't help wondering if it's not all just a waste of time. I'm trying to put myself in the uni's position, and, for the life of me, I can't imagine why they would even want to consider defending this case. I am far from convinced that they will. There's tons of evidence involving lots of people, and absolutely none of it helps the university. There are likely to be a dozen or more witnesses to appear, and I most certainly wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes. There's one exception, and that's me. I suppose I'm a witness too. I won't mind being in my shoes, providing it doesn't rain!

The letter I'm writing, which is already 26 miles long, may actually encourage the uni to throw in the towel. I'm asking for additional information that I'm entitled to. In a way, it forces the uni and the witnesses to show their cards. In other words, do they intend to lie at the tribunal, or do they intend to tell the truth?

It's 2:10 am, and I've suddenly thought about having a drink as a reward for all the work I've done maybe. But I've done my Thursday graph, so it would have to be included in Friday's. I'm actually quite tired, and if I had any sense I would be trying to get some sleep. There's still a whole lot I meant to say about sleep stuff. Those of you who follow this daily will know that I keep saying that, but I don't actually do it. I'm not even sure if I remember it all now. I remember that some of it is fairly embarrassing, and I think that's what puts me off writing it down. I wonder if in years to come, I'll look back at all of this shit and laugh!

Back to the letter; it requests a certain amount of information from each of the witnesses which will allow me to know if they intend to tell the truth at the tribunal. For some, and possibly for all of the witnesses, that is going to be a very big decision. Some might already have made their decision, some might have no idea that they will be called as a witness, and some will be praying that they are not called.

The uni will almost certainly not want to provide the information I will be requesting, but they might have no option. It's all relevant information, otherwise there would be no point in me asking for it. I've got to find out some time, and it might as well be sooner rather than later. If I know in advance that someone is going to tell the truth, then it will save me and them a lot of time. In fact it may even mean that they don't have to appear at all.

In addition to that, as soon as one witness shows that they intend to tell the truth, the uni's story begins to crumble, and it's already in tatters. Am I mixing my metaphors?

Anyway, whether a witness shows that they intend to lie or tell the truth, it's bound to be good for me, and it's bound to be bad for the uni. For a whole variety of reasons, it will be a difficult decision for the individual. They will have to consider if they think they can lie under pressure. The pressure is guaranteed to be high. They will have to consider how much they think they will have to lie. They might not know for sure. Some will know that it is already far too obvious that they have lied, and that they know there is too much evidence to prove it. Some might think they could possibly get away with it on their own, but that they are tied in too closely with someone else who may crack. For example, there would be no point in Graham Millar continuing to claim his investigation was genuine while his co-investigator Gail Miller sings like a bird. That would be brilliant actually if Gail could confirm it was a sham, and Graham swears on oath that she is lying. How good would that be?

There are some witnesses that the uni surely wouldn't want to appear under any circumstances.

Kathy McCabe for one would be completely unpredictable under even the slightest bit of pressure. I really do not believe they would ever allow that to happen. I've seen Kathy come up with the most ludicrous stories even after she's had days to think of one. Her style of refusing to answer questions just won't sit well with the tribunal either. She would want to take charge. In fact, she would try to bully the tribunal. She doesn't like not having it her own way. She is bound to be a non runner.

I would also be shocked if they allowed Una Forsyth to take the witness stand. Una has given herself one of the most difficult tasks, while she is also one of the least capable of handling it. I hope Una realises that she has Graham Millar to thank for her current situation too.

I could imagine Jackie O'Neil getting angry with the tribunal members and raising her voice at them. There's too much evidence for Jackie to overcome anyway. Jackie made a very stupid decision to get involved in all of this. However, her stupid decisions and refusal to listen were bound to catch up with her eventually.

I also wonder if Eileen Schofield is trying to distance herself from the mess she made. She has made it very difficult for herself by getting in too close with Karen Stark. With Kevin Clarke on his way out, will there be anyone willing to support her? It was maybe okay to be a liability while she was Kevin's liability. She's brought quite a lot of publicity to the uni.

I get the feeling that Karen Stark just doesn't understand the difficulty she's in. I wish I had had more time when I was cross examining her. It could take weeks to go through her evidence.

Well, I'm going for a sleep, and I didn't have that whisky. Aren't I a good boy?

Can't believe it's the 21st of October already!

5:46 am. Had exactly zero sleep. How does that happen? How can I go from very tired, to not being able to sleep, and then to feel wide awake? My mind was still full of tribunal stuff. I suppose I could get on with the letter.

You might be wondering the same as I'm wondering. I obviously spend a lot of time here talking about tribunal stuff. So why don't I just use that time to better effect, and spend it doing official tribunal business? And the answer is I don't know, but I had a bad experience when I was preparing for the disciplinary hearing, and I actually found it a very unpleasant task, and I was able to work only for short periods after which I felt very anxious and had to stand up and walk around the room.

11:35 am. I managed to get some sleep eventually.

Can I ask you a question? Just about every day, weekends included, at least one visitor from London logs on to my blog. Do you think the Queen reads my blog? Morning, Maam!

If she does, she hasn't become an official "follower". In fact, not many people have. Two, last I looked; and one of them was me! There's a technical reason why I follow myself; I wasn't just trying to make myself look popular. Of course, the other one could be the Queen. One can't assume that her logon name would be "Queen", can one? Does the Queen enjoy a tipple? I can't remember. I wonder if I'm being considered for a knighthood, for my services to something or other? Of course, I would accept graciously, Maam. I should maybe open those letters!

Why doesn't my follower from West of Scotland just become an official follower? Actually, I may have overstated the number of times they log on each day by mistake. So far today it's once. I can't remember what the benefits of being an official follower are, if any. I think it may just be like a sign of support, like pressing the 'like' button on Facebook maybe?

From time to time, I do receive emails in support. I got two in the one day just a few days ago. Thanks. Curiously, one of them was anonymous. Now, if you were the Queen, what fake name would you use for sending anonymous emails? It definitely wouldn't be Mrs Queen, would it? Well, neither was this one.

This is a blog which people are ashamed to admit they read, I'm afraid. Strictly speaking, you could lose your job for reading this blog. I wonder if the uni has it on a list of unacceptable viewing websites, right beside Huge Tits and Massive They still block my emails to all staff, and probably all students at the uni. I tried emailing five executive members of the local branch of my union, but the university prevents them from receiving them. That would be like me blocking the uni from emailing their lawyers. They consider me to be subversive. I'm like one of Gaddafi's opponents, and I suppose Kevin Clarke is like Gaddafi. Poor Kevin's been overthrown. His style of leadership belongs in the dark ages. But Gerry can't say in public, what he says privately about Kevin; what everybody says privately about Kevin. If my anonymous emailer was the Queen, then even the Queen says Kevin is a weirdo! I'd bet that Sir Alex Ferguson knew instantly that he was a weirdo. He really needs a better disguise.

I'm actually quite surprised that they haven't just blocked any attempts to log on to my blog from the uni. I am beginning to wonder if they actually have made it part of the curriculum, going by the number of connections I get each day from the uni. I wonder if everybody from the uni who reads my blog every day pretends that they don't. "Ooops, here's Kathy coming, I'd better cover it up with Huge Tits And Massive" Or do they all talk about it openly in the tea room each day?

"You should see what he's saying about you now, Eric! You must have really done something to upset him; what was it?"

"I may just have lied a bit about him at the grievance interview. By the time I remembered he'd get to read my statement, it was too late."

I wonder if Kathy asked Eric if he really did say that he "hates the fucking bitch"? "

"Well, I might have said it, Kathy, but you know I didn't mean it. You know that I really love you, really! Allan has taken my innocent comment completely out of context! How could anyone not love you, Kathy? The whole team loves you. You've said it yourself, many a time!"

"Well, I suppose that's true."

Back to this letter I'm writing to the lawyer... Another benefit I get from this is that it gives me a rough idea of how much time I'll need to cross examine them at the tribunal. For some of the witnesses, it could be less than an hour, for others it could be more than a day, maybe even more than two days. For example, I hadn't realised that there was so much that I could ask David Black. And if he was to consider lying, I could just pull out all of my evidence. Thank God, I rarely deleted emails!

How would David react to being asked these questions? First of all, he's likely to shit himself. He may actually do that a few times. Then he will need someone's advice. He'll think about whose advice he should get. He'll probably go running to Eric, and ask him for his advice. Eric will probably advise him to bring a spare pair of trousers and underpants to work in future. David will write that down, then ask Eric what he should do about my questions.

Eric will lift his cup of coffee to his lips, slowly take a sip, and say "Bananas!"


"Exactly, David. Bananas!"

Eric will tell David about a bloke he used to work alongside, when he worked in the bank. It may actually be the same bloke that Eric used for all of his stories. Whenever anybody asked this bloke a question, or if anybody asked him to do anything, he just replied, 'Bananas'. It wasn't long before people realised there was no point in asking him anything, because all they'd get in response was 'Bananas!' So they soon stopped asking him any questions.

"My advice to you, David, is Bananas! You got me?"

"So you think I should just answer all of his questions with 'Bananas'?"

"Exactly, David. Exactly!"

"Whatever happened to that bloke, Eric?"

"It was a real shame, David; a real shame! Somebody asked him what monkeys like to eat, and he got really stressed out. Went on the sick. Never came back. Took early retirement, I think. He was never the same after that. Good bloke he was, an' all! Loved a pint, so he did. A real shame."

As David turns to leave the room, Eric has another thought.

"Wait, David! That's not going to work. Let me ask you something. Who in the world would you least like to upset?"


"So when you answer the questions, what mustn't you do at any cost?"

"Upset Kathy!"

"You learn quick, David! You will go far. And you didn't need my advice after all, did you, David?"

David moves towards the door, feeling pleased that he didn't need anybody's advice after all. He knows that his mum would be very proud of him when he phones her at lunchtime to tell her.

"And another thing, David. Don't mention that you hate the fucking bitch. I did once, but I think I got away with it."

David writes that down too, and carefully underlines it!

"One more thing, David. You might want to consider wearing long trousers until you regain control of your bowels."

David wishes he'd brought his bigger diary, but manages to squeeze this last piece of advice along the margin. He will tidy it all up when he gets back to his desk.

Coming soon on Alcohol Diary....

David phones home; but will his mum be as proud as he expected she would be?

Eric considers a career as an Advisor. But could there be banana skins ahead? And how long would he get for coffee?

Eileen receives some questions. They are non technical, but still pretty hard. Will Lynn support her through the easier, multiple choice ones at the beginning?

Selina listens to an audio file. It's a solid gold blast from the past! Will it be a song she will sing along to? Or will she feel too nervous and anxious to join in?

Allan asks Una for a date. How far will she be prepared to go?

This and much, much more to come on Alcohol Diary. Stay Tuned!

Probably, to be continued...

Thursday, 20 October 2011
Another 25 cl last night, and still my graph doesn't go up. That won't last forever, so if I want my graph to stay decent, I'm going to have to get a grip. But I just don't feel I'm in that place. Whatever the hell that means! I remember when I started this page, I was trying really hard to control my drinking, and it was far more difficult then. Now I feel I'm drinking for totally different reasons. Reasons that two months ago I would not have accepted as valid. The Allan from August would have been ashamed of me right now. I went through some very difficult times to reduce my drinking, and now it's as if I don't care. I wonder what the Allan from December will think of me now.

It was all going so well. I felt I was my Substance Misuse Worker's star pupil. Now, despite my graph looking fairly decent, my drinking is out of control again. The graph is hiding the truth at the moment.

As far as blogging goes, this page is a complete mess. It probably breaks every rule in the blogger's bible. I feel I owe an apology to people who were interested in my journey out of alcohol addiction. I've let you down. I had hoped I could have inspired people in a similar situation, but I'm messing up, and I can only hope that people don't make the same mistakes that I'm making. I really didn't want to fail. And I think I started this page because I expected I wouldn't fail because I felt so determined not to fail; but I'm failing. I'm not used to failing, and I don't like failing, but I'm failing.

I think the reason I generally don't fail is because I always feared failure. I'm not afraid of this failure, because I feel I've already hit rock bottom. But I know that I haven't. Rock bottom is losing the tribunal case. I can't let that happen. But winning the tribunal may turn out to be an anti climax, because my life will still be a mess. It could possibly even be worse, because it might only be the anticipation of winning that is keeping me going. I can't see my mental health suddenly repairing overnight. If I get my job back, that might help, but I expect it might take a long time; if ever. It really is so important that bullying stops. It's so damaging! Kathy McCabe and her supporters have a lot to answer for.

Wednesday, 19 October 2011
I ended up drinking 25 cl last night, but my graph line went down because I had 35 last Tuesday. Isn't life great!

Well, to be honest, no; life stinks at the moment. Things are pretty bad, but only when I wake up and realise that it hasn't all been a bad dream. I really have been sacked from the job I loved. A job I loved so much that I spent thousands and thousands of hours doing it for free. Much of that time was spent doing other people's work; especially Jackie's and Eileen's. God, was I stupid! But, how could I have known that human beings could be so sick in the head?

For well over a year, since before I was sacked, Stirling Uni has refused to provide me with a certain document that proves Jackie lied. Martin McCrindle, during my appeal, said he'd send me a copy. He never did. I keep asking for it, and the uni keeps saying they won't give it to me because they say it's not relevant to my case. At the time Mark Toole sacked me, he and Karen Stark had lots of evidence to show that Jackie had lied to them, but they had to work hard to cover it all up. At my disciplinary hearing, I showed them more evidence that she was lying. Totally ignored! At the tribunal, they will be invited to explain how they could ignore all that evidence, and still say that she probably told the truth? What on earth are they going to say?

Their last hope; that the tribunal would rule such evidence as irrelevant; was knocked on the head by the tribunal recently.

My letter of dismissal stated that I had bullied several women on the basis of their gender, over a period of time. Just a few months before this, the staff at the uni completed questionnaires. One of the questions asked if you were being bullied at work. I, of course, answered yes. Almost certainly, those five women would have said no. That would have been contrary to their false statements. I asked for the uni to provide their answers, but they declined. Something to hide, I guess. But the judge has said that if I had been bullying several members of staff over a period of time, there would be several documents that support that. Now, I'm confident that there won't be any such documents; not real ones at least. But Karen Stark has a gift for making the unreal seem real. With her fraudulent powers, will she or anyone else be tempted to create fake documents that talk of me bullying several women, and will the date of these documents just happen to fit with the period required? It must be very tempting! The judge has stated that that is what would be expected, so would the uni, when asked to produce them, simply say that they don't have them; that a big dog ate them?

How does a man, like Mark Toole, get to be head of a large department when he is so stupid that he is willing to sack a man for bullying several women over time, when there isn't a single piece of evidence to support this? That's not the stupid part. The stupid part is that he thinks he can persuade a tribunal that he acted honestly. So when he's asked to present that evidence, (and there was none when the hearing began in June), what is he going to say?

He has taken the Una Forsyth approach to lying, and made it too big and too unbelievable. Mr Toole was shown countless documents that showed that I was on very good terms with these women. Any genuine Director of IS would have known instantly that the women were lying, and Mark Toole knew too. He knew long before he even saw those documents I showed him. But he had already made up his mind to sack me. I had done the unforgivable, and blown the whistle on him. He was out for revenge!

How could he have predicted that I would have evidence that showed that one of these women, Una Forsyth, whom I had allegedly bullied over a period of time, had cooked my favourite meal for me. Who on earth cooks meals for work colleagues that bully them? Mark Toole is going to tell the tribunal that Una did. Who on earth would send a private email to someone who has bullied them over time, inviting them to hear "lots of funnies"? And who would add a smiley face to their email when, at the same time, they are frightened to be around me? Mark Toole is going to tell the tribunal that Selina did, and that he believes them. Who would laugh and joke with a bully that they are frightened to be around? Mark will by now have heard the recording of Selina joking with me, just as I had told him. Is he going to tell the tribunal that she sounded frightened? After the hearing is over, I will make the recordings available on line, and let you be the judge.

Employment Tribunals do not insist on the same level of proof that would be required to convict at a criminal court where the prosecutors have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Toole only has to show that, on the balance of probability, I was guilty.

Mr Toole used the phrase "balance of probability" at the appeal hearing. However, it seems that he wishes to believe that he can decide whatever he wants, regardless of the evidence. It's his trump card that he intends to play over and over. But it is not the powerful weapon that he thinks it is. He has to describe how he believes one story is more likely to be true than the alternative story, and that he made his mind up after a reasonable investigation. Stirling University will be expected to have carried out a more thorough investigation than resources would allow a much smaller employer. I was suspended for three months. That allowed plenty of time for a thorough investigation, and plenty of time to consider what, on the balance of probability, was true.

My opposite number at the hearing will be the university's lawyer, Alun Thomas. I have mixed feelings about Mr Thomas. Obviously, he is being paid handsomely for the job that he is doing, but he has been given an impossible job to do. He knows that if justice runs its course, I will win; and that I will win big! So he has to try to prevent the tribunal from hearing as much evidence as possible. He made a valiant effort, and almost succeeded, but failed. The task before him is enormous, but the university can offer him very little to work with. So he has to take any grain he receives and make it sound a great deal more than it is. On the other hand, he has to try to make as little as possible out of the mountains of evidence that I have. You could be the best poker player in the world, but unless you can make your opponent fold, your Ten High will never beat your opponent's Royal Flush. I might be the worst person ever to have represented themselves at a tribunal, but I have no plans to fold my Royal Flush! the best Mr Thomas can hope for is to point out that his Ten High is made up almost entirely of red cards. If all of this sounds confusing, it's because I've gone off on a poker metaphor. Quite good, isn't it?

It's only 1:40pm, and I'm tempted to drink alcohol. It's not because I am feeling anxious, because I don't think I am. It's just that alcohol does what the medication doesn't seem to do. It reduces the pain of being in such a terrible world with such terrible people. I stay away from people as much as possible now. Most of them are terrible. Last year when I found out that Selina had made a false statement against me; it meant that nothing was impossible, and that nobody was trustworthy. Yet everybody in that team knows what she has done, and they all just accept it as if nothing could be more normal. I am cast aside by people who I thought were my friends, but who now live their lives in a pretend world in which I am guilty. "Friends" like David Black and Lynn McDonald that went for lunch with me each week. I now feel ashamed and stupid to have ever thought that they were friends. Alcohol helps to mask that shame and stupidity. I even thought Selina was my friend. How stupid can you get? Can that be a world record? Alcohol is a fantastic invention. It makes all of the terrible people disappear; at least for a while. A great big gun is also a fantastic invention. I'll see what I've got in my fridge. I'll be back in two minutes...

I'm having my first whisky of the day at 2:27 pm. I no longer record the exact time that I start drinking. I'm lucky if I can remember to within an hour of when I start.

I wonder if Lynn understood what it was like to discover that my friend, Selina had gone behind my back and made up these lies about me. I'll tell you how it felt. It felt like everything on which I had assumed in my life no longer had any basis. The impossible and the unbelievable had happened. It was as if this wasn't life at all, but just some huge experiment. To obtain some idea of the shock, Lynn would have to imagine how she would feel if something very similar happened to herself. That in itself is difficult because it hasn't. So she should really try to put herself in this position.

Lynn turns up to work one day and is immediately asked to report to Mark Toole's office. Mark tells her that there has been a very serious complaint made against her, and that she is suspended while a full investigation is carried out. All of her colleagues are informed of her suspension, but that that should not be taken to mean that Lynn is guilty of anything. Naturally, people will assume there is no smoke without fire, and that people aren't suspended for no good reason. Lynn is told that she is not allowed to talk with any of her colleagues, who, unknown to Lynn, are now her former colleagues. She still doesn't know what's going on. Nobody will tell her.

Mark informs Lynn that there is to be a disciplinary investigation to determine what action, if any, should be taken. Mark still doesn't tell her what the complaint is. She starts to feel isolated. She can't sleep at night. She is sick with worry. Mark tells her that her suspension is to continue, and that she is not allowed on campus, and still not allowed to talk to her colleagues. Weeks go by, and eventually Lynn is to be interviewed by Graham Millar. Lynn asks Graham what she has been accused of. Graham tells her that he doesn't have a specific issue to ask her about, but just asks her about how she generally gets on with people in the team. Lynn states honestly that she believes she gets on fine with everyone. Obviously there will be some that she feels she gets on better with than others.

A couple of weeks later, Mark writes to Lynn telling her that there will be a disciplinary hearing, and that one of the outcomes may be that she will be dismissed due to gross misconduct. He attaches Graham's report which is very damning about Lynn's behaviour. It also criticises her for her apparent lack of remorse for her behaviour, and the profound effect it has had on one of her colleagues.

Lynn is sick with worry, she still doesn't know what it can be about. Then she opens a statement from one of her colleagues. It's a colleague she thought was a friend. Lets just say it was me. Just the day before Lynn was interviewed, Graham had interviewed me. I had to hold back the fake tears while I told him of a fake incident involving Lynn. I falsely accused Lynn of having sexually molested me in her car while we were on our way back from lunch. I falsely told Graham that I couldn't work with Lynn any more because of this incident. I falsely told him how I had tried to persuade her to stop, but she wouldn't, and that I was frightened that she would do it again. I lied to Graham by saying that she was wild with lust. She was all over me. Graham fell for my story, hook. line and sinker. A colleague was there to comfort me while I pretended to be upset. Graham's report refers to how upset I was. It states that Lynn just doesn't seem to be able to take no for an answer.

Lynn is in despair, until she remembers that I had emailed her to say that I really enjoyed lunch, and that I looked forward to next week's lunch. That's the proof she needed that my allegation was false. At her disciplinary hearing, Lynn points this out to Mark. Mark quickly dismisses it, and asks if she has any excuse for acting the way I had lied about her. She had no excuse for behaving in such a disgraceful manner, which of course, she hadn't.

A week later, Mark writes to tell Lynn that she is dismissed. Nobody from the team ever speaks to her again. She receives her office mug in the post, but no leaving gift; not even a card.

David, who was in the car with me and Lynn at the time she didn't molest me, confirmed that she hadn't, but later changed his mind, saying he couldn't remember if she molested me or not, because he was tired. And he couldn't remember if Graham interviewed him about it, because he was tired. David then removes Lynn from his Facebook friends.

Lynn finds it very difficult to get a new job. Job interviews seem to go well up to the point where she is asked for references, or she is asked why she left her job at the uni. There are lots of good people looking for a job, and most of them haven't sexually molested me in their car. Lynn hasn't either, but officially she has. Officially, I could complain to the police and have her put on a sex offenders' register. I think I might. The buzz I got from lying felt good. I need another buzz.

She notices that people she used to know don't speak to her any more. They do give her funny looks though as they cross the street to avoid her; especially the men, and especially the women too.

She feels very angry with me. She doesn't understand why I did it. I don't care. I'm alright, Jack! She lies awake at night wondering why I did it. I sleep like a baby. People will know not to sexually molest me in future. No means no, and Lynn should have known that.

Lynn takes alcohol to help her get some sleep. She can't sleep because she is thinking of ways to get back at me. She wants to kill me. She visualises killing me, and for a moment, she enjoys the feeling. She repeats this over and over with different killing methods; just for that brief moment of enjoyment of imagining me dead at her hands. I don't care. I'm alright, Jack!

Lynn considers suicide. She considers it a lot because there is also a brief pleasure gained from that consideration. She considers it almost every waking moment that isn't spent thinking about killing me. I don't care. I'm alright, Jack!

Lynn wonders how she could have been so stupid to have thought I was her friend. How, she wonders, could she not have known that I was capable of such an evil act. You can wonder as much as you like, Lynn. I don't care. I'm alright, Jack! Why not just learn from your stupidity and move on? You are a loser; now live with it, or don't... whatever! And what's all this about us being friends? As if! You are a whinger, Lynn. A whinger who can't even hold on to their job. No wonder you can't get another job; you could whinge for America! No means no, remember? Keep your hands to yourself in future, you perv! Sex offenders like you should be branded. You shouldn't be allowed out while there's kids about. Or even when there's adults about. Who the hell would want to employ pervy Lynn? Just remember in future that if someone says no; they mean no! Most folk can understand that, Lynn. Why can't you? Aren't you just being paranoid?

I just wish to confirm that Lynn has never molested me in any way. I'm relieved to say that all of the above was just a lie. I actually felt pretty bad even though it was a pretence. How can people do this for real? I think it might be a relief for Selina and her friends when they admit they lied too.

If Lynn was able to put herself in that position, how would she have felt about people who were providing me with support despite the fact that they knew I had lied? I invite Lynn to email me with some sort of explanation. Can she please explain why she was supporting Eileen MacDonald, a known compulsive liar. And when did you first discover that Selina was lying about me too? And Lynn, did you ever lie about me too? Maybe just to feel like part of the clique? When we were going for lunch, were you just gathering dirt on me to pass to Eileen? Please email me at:
10:40pm I'm not sure, but I think I might be in a period that is worse than the previous period. The questions I have are:

1. How would I know?
2. What would be the point of knowing?

Yep, that just about covers it. How would I know, and if I did know, how would that knowledge help me? And if I'm not sure, then it can't be much worse than before, otherwise I would know instantly. So basically, it probably hasn't happened, and it wouldn't make any difference if it had happened. I'm definitely sleeping better, and that helps because it means there's less time awake. It's supposed to make my waking hours feel better too.

Washing the dishes hasn't improved my eating habits. It may actually have frightened me from dirtying any dishes again. The absurd thing about it isn't that it has to do with the dishes, or that it hasn't to do with the dishes. The absurd thing is that I don't know why I'm not eating properly. How can I not know why I'm not eating properly? That's crazy! And it has nothing to do with the intrusive thoughts. And it has nothing to do with a loss of appetite, because if a cooked meal was put in front of me, I'm pretty sure I'd eat it. But the thought of a cooked meal just never enters my head. Tomorrow morning, I'm making eggs, definitely! Definitely!

My reader from West of Scotland who dislikes me might, when the technology becomes available, find themselves blocked from reading my blog. And since they now regularly visit my blog three times a day, they might miss it. May I respectfully suggest that they try disliking me slightly less. Why not post a comment if there's something I've said that you strongly disagree with? And three times a day is a bit addictive, don't you think? You should maybe take something for that.

I'm on my fifth drink tonight. That will have to be my last. My drinking has got way out of control again, but he alternative doesn't appeal either.

In the interest of justice, I am considering writing to the university's lawyer tomorrow to ask for some additional information. The time for the hearing is fast approaching, and I think I can possibly save the tribunal a whole lot of time, and possibly make it unnecessary for certain witnesses to attend. At least it would mean that I would be able to show the tribunal that I genuinely value the tribunal time. It will be interesting to see how the uni responds. They might refuse to provide the information. If that happens, I may have to ask the tribunal to issue them with an order to provide it. Obviously the information would be highly relevant, otherwise there would be no point in me having it. However, up till now, the uni has been very cagey, and the only information that they have agreed to provide so far turned out to be fraud, and it took them five months to invent it. The uni really has got itself into a right pickle with this. They've had some bad luck, but they have also acted extremely unwisely.

It wasn't long after I informed the tribunal about their fraudulent document that the uni announced the forthcoming retirement of Kevin Clarke. I wonder if there's a connection. Kevin is a bit of an embarrassment for the uni, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's been given the boot. Highly unlikely that Eileen Schofield would step into his position. She may even be next for the boot. A big clearout is what's needed. If Kevin is getting the boot, it would have been much better for it to have been done openly, as part of a statement of the uni's intention to rid itself of corruption. Hmmm.

We are to have another day at the tribunal next week before the main hearing begins. I really struggled at the last one. I would just as well have not been there. Thankfully the tribunal was on its toes, and so it didn't matter to much. I really must sort out this motivation problem.

To be continued, probably...

Tuesday, 18 October 2011
I can't remember if I had two drinks or three drinks last night. So, as a punishment, my new rule is that if I can't even count my drinks properly, I have to go with the worse figure which in this case is 15 cl. Lets hope that that will teach me a lesson. I'm sorry to those of you who are using my graph for gambling purposes, but you should build that information into your decision on whether to go higher or lower.

My brain is fried. I really must make a list of things I'm to do, and when I'm to do them. It's like I'm thinking through fog with only half of my brain; the not so good half. The amazing thing is that I was far more alert, even super alert, when I was drinking a litre of whisky a day. Can someone remind me why I am cutting back?

I've almost stopped watching TV now, apart from sports and comedy. I can't follow anything that has a storyline. I used to watch Hollyoaks a lot, but I've given up because the characters or actors all look very similar now. And I've lost the motivation to watch the repeats. And I've lost the motivation to watch the repeats.

Thanks to those of you who are taking the time and trouble to write to me with your support. I really do appreciate it. It reminds me that the world isn't populated entirely by corrupt people.
It's 7pm and I've come back on for a blether. My blog has become my best friend that doesn't lie about me, so I turn to it at moments like these. I'm feeling down and I've hit the bottle again. I don't know where the saying 'hit the bottle' came from; maybe a cowboy movie; but what I mean is I've started drinking, and I might not stop until I fall asleep. Being asleep and being drunk are two of the best conditions to be in. There is another one, but I'm not going to talk about that tonight, even though I've already hinted at it.

Although I'm feeling down, I think it's a just a short term thing again. But then, how would I know? I'm no expert, despite the way I was joking the other day. You did know I was joking, didn't you?

Despite all the drivel I talk on this page, it has easily become my blog's most read page every day. There are many reasons for that, obviously. The main reason will be that it is the most frequently updated page. In other words, I may talk shit, but at least I try to keep the shit fresh. I can only guess why people read it. I can make informed guesses though because I receive certain information about where my readers are from and when they log on. I don't receive your name and address and inside leg measurements, so that's all safe. But there is a very unkempt bloke from Perth who logs on regularly, and I suspect he has a very short inside leg measurement. He and I have stuff in common (not the measurement I hasten to add!), but there is one thing at least we disagree on. He apparently thinks the sun shines out of Kathy's arse, while I tend to go with the more popular belief; that the sun shines from about 90 million miles away in outer space. The odd thing about my Perthian friend is that he slags me off (on line) to his female friend who, from what I've heard, dislikes Kathy every bit as much as I do, and probably told far more people about it than I ever did! If he has any evidence whatsoever that I have exaggerated Kathy's behaviour, I would love to see it, and if he wants I'll publish it on my blog.

Sorry that that will mean very little to almost all of my readers. Please wait while I go and pour myself another well deserved drink...

...I'm back. Now where was I? Yes, why people read this page. People who log on from England or Europe in the middle of the night must, in my thinking, either have sleep or drink problems. Hi to those people! I can sometimes tell why people read the page because of what they googled (or yahood, etc.) Frequently used searches include: suicide, alcohol, bullying, employment tribunals, stirling university. Sometimes it's the name of a member of staff. The most frequently searched names keep changing. Currently it's Gerry McCormac, but surprisingly there is always a steady number for Selina Gibb. The last time I looked, Selina's page had most visitors, followed by Una's page.

I'm going for another drink. I'll try not to be so long this time. This will be my third drink...

...How quick was that then!

Where was I? Yes, I was still talking about why people might read this page. Now, I'm actually doing this live, and there's been no rehearsals or anything, so please forgive me for the blunt edges and stuff. While I was making my drink just now, I had a great idea about something to write. Unfortunately, I've forgotten what it was. Maybe it will come back to me later. Now, as luck would have it, I've just remembered what it was, but I'm not going back to edit out the rough edges. This is like the 50th anniversary of Coronation Street; it's live. What you see is what you get. This is me.

So, right now, I'm keeping the 'reasons for reading this page' on the back burner, while I talk about my allegedly "great idea". Now, you have to remember that I'm now on my third drink, and that my idea of "great" may not be the same as yours. That will be the last time I remind you how many I have drunk. From now on, you'll have to remind yourself.

The great idea! Yes, I just had a flash. Now, please don't run off to the nearest patent office to steal my alcohol fuelled idea. This could be my fortune.

While I was on my way to pour my drink, an idea came into my head (and I'm still thinking it's great at this stage). I was thinking about how I used to drink more than a litre of whisky a day, and not feel drunk, but now that I've reduced my drinking, I can start to feel tipsy after much less alcohol. [Please note that although I said this was live, and that I wouldn't go back and edit what I've written, I may have to do so in the interests of understandability. Some of you might have understood what I meant by "frunk", but some might have struggled.]

So, my idea. Some people like to boast how they drive better after a few drinks. Some men think they are God's gift to women when they've had a few. Friends in a pub might argue about which of them talks the most shite after a couple of pints. "See you! I love you, so I dae!" Aye, that sort of shite!

Allan's idea (Notice how it has a name now) is to have like a TV game show, probably hosted by Ant and Dec, (but that's not been finalised just yet) where all of the participants have drunk the same amount of alcohol in the same amount of time, just before going on air. ["On air" is the term that we, in the business, use to describe when the viewers at home can see you on their tellies. I'll try to remember to define any of these terms I may use.]

So, Allan's Show [Notice how the programme now has a working title. It's not finalised yet, but I think we'll probably go with it. It was my idea, after all! Once it's in production, the team will probably shorten it to Allan's]. You can always tell when a show is going to be a hit by the fact that they have gone to the trouble of creating a short name for it. For example, I'll give you a shortened name, and you tell me if you have no idea what the full name is... Strictly, The Street, Curb, TOWIE. Are you getting the hang of it now?

I'm going for my fourth drink. I won't bother telling you when I'm back. You should notice by the fact that there is more writing.

Right, I'm back. I just thought of something. Please don't any of you mention any of this to Ant or Dec. I'm thinking I could maybe just get Dec to host the show for half the money. I don't know why ITV never thought of that. I guess I might be thinking outside the box. And maybe ITV didn't realise we're all having to face cuts. And maybe they didn't realise that the burds don't fancy Ant.

Where was I? Right, before the show, the contestants each drink the same amount of alcohol in the same amount of time. At this point, I'm thinking that, for the first show, the amount of alcohol shouldn't be too high. At this stage I'm thinking that there could be semi finals and finals where the amount of alcohol would obviously have to increase in line with the viewing figures. That idea just came into my head as I wrote it, by the way. That's how we creative people work. There is no time like the present. It's either now or never. Coincidentally, that just happens to be the name of another game show I'm working on. (Shortened name is Never). Sometimes the name of the show is invented before there is any idea for the show. 'How to Look Good Naked', for example, was a great title for a programme, but they decided to fill the programme with a pile of shit. That's a trap I intend to avoid. Naked was a fantastic title for a programme hosted each week by very attractive women, such as Jennifer Aniston, demonstrating how a woman can look attractive despite being given a dress allowance of absolutely nothing. That would have had viewers switching on in their hoards. Instead, some graduate decided to fill the programme with Gok Wan. Nobody has me reaching for the off switch faster, except maybe the guy in the Go Compare advert.

Where was I? Right, I remember. So the contestants have all had their drinks, and an independent judge (someone cheap) witnesses this. At this point they are told that while they are on air (Please see above for definition of on air), they are not allowed to swear. Now this is where it starts to get interesting. Obviously, we want them to swear. That's what brings in the viewers. But we have got to pretend we don't like it. So swearing becomes part of the game. Remember we are testing the contestants' ability to remain sober, or to appear to remain sober. Contestants will lose points if they swear, and get this; the number of points will depend on the number of viewers who phone to complain. Viewers will be charged to call and complain, but we'll say it so quickly, they won't know how much it's costing them. And we'll keep them on the line for ages.

Now, you remember how we creative people are always thinking? Well, I've already thought of a spin off. It's the sign of a great programme, that it should have a spin off. For example, Cheers begat Frasier, Porridge begat Going Straight, The Mary Tyler Moore Show begat Lou Grant AND Rhoda. Two spin offs from the one original idea. That has become the standard. Personally, I would never go into production without knowing that there was at least one spin off in the pipeline. A spin off and a shortened name. Without those, you have nothing!

Going for drink 5.

Where was I? Yes, the spin off. I could host this myself, actually, and save a bit of money while launching my own career in front of the camera. I don't have a name for the spin off yet. That shouldn't be taken to mean that I lack creativity; it's just that the booze is taking effect. I'll try to have at least a working name for the spin off before I fall asleep.

The spin off at this stage might turn out to be a Christmas Special like those Alright On The Night specials hosted by Denis Norden (Still alive, in case you're wondering).

Now please again, don't rip off my idea, but the spin off will basically be the highlights from viewers calling in to complain about the swearing. We will have a number of people answering the calls who will be trained to take the piss out of the caller. For example, if a caller complains that a contestant swore on TV, they will be asked to describe the word and how offended they were by the word. They will then be asked to compare how offended they were by how offended they would be by other certain curse words. They would be asked to place, in order of offensiveness, a number of swear words. The funny thing about this is that they would be encouraged to swear as much as possible during their phone call, for which they are paying. Obviously if the call is used for the Christmas special and the DVD, the viewer would receive an appearance fee. That should keep their face shut, and avoid any legal difficulties.

My creative skills didn't take long to kick in. I have a title for the spin off. I'd Rather Have A Fuck!. Short title, Rather!

Sunday, 16 October 2011
I've only gone and went and done it! I've washed all my dishes. I think it's been around three months since that last happened. My plates are so clean, you could eat your dinner off them. You wouldn't want to eat your dinner off my floors though. Although, if you saw my floors, you could be forgiven for thinking that many people had tried to.

So you might be wondering what came over me. Well, I couldn't figure out why I wasn't eating properly, and I wondered if it had anything to do with the fact that I had no clean plates (or floors!). Now, please don't jump to conclusions while you read this, but just minutes after washing those dishes, I made myself a proper meal. However, I'm not so sure that the two are connected.

Washing the dishes wasn't as horrendous as I had anticipated. I won't pretend that it was fun, but I received a lot of satisfaction; not from doing it, but from having done it. I am still very pleased with myself. I need to bear that in mind for future reference, but I'm not sure that referring to previous successes works, to be honest.

There is a problem, and the clever among you will have already spotted it. If I'm so proud and happy at having clean dishes, I may not want to dirty them, especially when I know it requires like three months worth of willpower to clean them. Well spotted if you knew I was going to say that. I'm doing that audience participation thing. Do you like that? Please don't feel bad if you didn't foresee what was coming there. I wouldn't have either. But I'm sure that if you pay attention, you might spot the next one. You, at the back; pay attention!

Wouldn't this be a great page for psychology students to gain some real life experience? It could become part of the curriculum, and required reading; just like Tarka the Otter was required reading when I was at school. (I never read it!)

That could actually open up a whole new career for me, but the clever among you will have spotted the flaw. Full marks if you realised that, with a new career, I would eventually become cured, which would spell the end of my new career, etc, etc... I would only be useful to society while I was completely useless. I think that's called a paradox.

To be continued, maybe...

Saturday, 15 October 2011
Continuing yesterday's explanation for why I'm not keen to be examined by doctors. The next reason is that during my mid twenties, I was shocked to learn that doctors are sometimes required to stick a finger up your bum. I suppose I was immature, but I felt that that wasn't for me, thank you very much. Having matured quite a lot since then, I no longer have a problem with this. If a doctor needs to stick a finger up my bum, then so be it.

However, I personally have one important rule about this. Obviously the doctor who has their finger up my bum mustn't be a man. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with a man's finger up my bum. Equally as important, the doctor who has their finger up my bum mustn't be a woman with whom I have not already had a sexual relationship at least one calendar month before the need for the examination became known. However, I reiterate that I have no problem with any other doctor performing this act if it is absolutely essential. A general anaesthetic would be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. I think that it would be necessary for a second doctor, who also fits the criterion, to witness the act in order to ensure that nothing untoward is going on, and that the doctor with their finger up my bum receives no pleasure other than the normal pleasure one receives from doing one's job well.

If they asked me to describe the pain. I'd say it is like the pain of having someone's finger up your bum. It's like driving the wrong way up a one way street.

Following that examination, I must have no further contact with that same doctor ever again. Not even eye contact. This is regardless of whether or not I farted while their finger was up my bum.

I'm pretty sure that this will be a standard requirement for most male patients who require a finger up their bum, and that the medical profession is familiar with, and sympathetic to their needs.

Friday, 14 October 2011
I've an appointment with my doctor today. I definitely know what time it's at! I'm keen to see him, but there's also the fact that my alcohol intake has almost doubled since I last saw him. He had planned to arrange for me to see a psychologist, but he might insist that I get my drinking back down to an acceptable level. I'll get the result of my liver test, and I need to ask him about my amazing hot and cold chest. He might have to call in all of his doctor colleagues to check out my amazing hot and cold chest. I'll get my prescription renewed, but I'll need to ask him if it could be the cause of my loss of concentration and motivation. It's important that I am able to concentrate on the tribunal hearing, and that I have the motivation to deal with it. But I doubt that it's due to the pills, because I've not had them for three weeks, and the problem hasn't improved any. When I was going through what I believed was the worst period of my depression, motivation was not a problem, and I didn't have the memory lapses either. And I didn't have the memory lapses either.

I got quite a lot off my chest (not my amazing hot and cold one) yesterday, didn't I? It actually feels good to do that. It's therapeutic. But it wouldn't even matter if nobody ever read it. Lets try that out. Nobody log on tomorrow, and I'll see if there is still a benefit to recording all of the nonsense in my life. Doctors should recommend it. That's another one of my free tips for doctors.

People are still logging on to this page exactly at midnight, despite what I said a few days ago. I wonder if people are having bets about the direction my graph takes each day? If so, I would quite like to get in on the action.

My West of Scotland reader hasn't contacted me, and they still don't like me, and they still log on two or three times every day. If they don't like me, I'd imagine it can only be upsetting them to log on so often. I'm pretty sure it's not a uni employee, and it's not someone whose main interest is my alcohol habit or mental health. I think I know who it could be; someone I've never met. That would obviously explain why they don't like me!
I've finally seen my doctor. I apologised for missing last week's appointment. I told him that I got the time right, but that I got the day wrong. He was okay about it, and even said that I at least got one out of two right. I assume from that, that he must have some really stupid patients who get both the time and day wrong. When I get to that stage, they should just shoot me.

I had to take a list of things that I had to talk to him about. It's like a shopping list that my mum used to send me to the shops with. I told him about my loss of motivation and concentration. He has prescribed me different anti depressant medication that he thinks might improve either my motivation or my concentration. I can't remember which. I should have paid closer attention, but I couldn't be bothered. He gave me the results of my liver function test, and they are almost within the range of a normal person. I told him about my increased drinking. He wasn't overly concerned about that, and even commented that he was pleased with my efforts. I reminded him that he was going to refer me to a psychologist, but he had already done that. Apparently these things take time.

I told him about my amazing hot and cold chest. He gave me a physical examination, but he admitted that my amazing hot and cold chest had him stumped. I wondered if he would in fact call in his colleagues to have a look at my amazing hot and cold chest, but he must have known that they would be stumped too. I get the impression that he's one of the more senior and experienced doctors. He thinks it's nothing to worry about, and that it's unlikely to be related to my liver, but to my back.

I do not like being examined by doctors, and there are a number of reasons for this. I suspect that it's common among men, because relatively few men attend doctors. For some absurd reason that I don't even understand, I am going to embarrass myself by trying to explain the problem I have with doctors, and it may strike a note with other people, or most embarrassingly, it might just be me. I'm trying not to be embarrassed by such things, because hey, what's the worst that can happen? This is good therapy.

There is a language that doctors use, and there is an assumption that everybody knows and understands this language. I was in the queue at the surgery a few days ago, and the receptionist asked a patient if she would require an interpretor. The patient, in very good English, said she would like a Czechoslovakian interpretor. That's not the type of language problem I'm referring to, but my problem would be even worse if I was to visit a Czechoslovakian doctor.

When I was a boy, my mum took me to see the doctor because I was in pain. As a boy, my view of the process required was; boy has pain; doctor stops pain; boy gets back to playing football with minimum delay before it gets too dark, and his mates have to go home. Absolutely no need for conversation. If you've any questions, doctor, ask my mum. But this doctor asked me to describe the pain. I hadn't a clue how to describe pain, and it was getting darker. I just looked at him blankly. He asked me if it was a dull pain or a sharp pain. I could feel the tension, frustration and panic all building up inside of me as I could see that this doctor really expected me to know what he meant, and to give him an answer. My mum, who I could usually depend on in such situations, was no help. She just repeated his question. Whatever age I was, I had learned nothing about the different flavours of pain. I could tell that they were thinking I was stupid, and so I had to say something. "It's a sore pain!" Laughter ensued. And it was the laughing at type of laughter, rather than the laughing with. I knew that I must be stupid. Doctors were to be avoided. After that, I kept quiet about any pain. The pain of going to the doctor was a very different type of pain. I didn't know if it was a dull pain or a sharp pain; all I knew was that I felt hurt.

There was a less traumatic version of this today. He was examining my back, when he pushed his fingers in. I made an involuntary move forward. He asked if it hurt, and I immediately said that it didn't hurt. What it was similar to, was having the doctor test your 'knee jerk reaction'. Then he did it a couple more times, and I started to wonder if it did hurt. Then I began to question myself as to what he actually meant by 'hurt'. But I said nothing. And then I began to wonder if I had misled him because I really wasn't sure if it hurt or not. In the hours since then, I have gone from being 100% sure that it didn't hurt to 100% sure that it did, as well as all of the levels of probability in between. But I expect I was supposed to answer him within a few seconds. Regardless of what I think, I have promised myself that I won't phone him up to change my answer. That would just be stupid, unless it would make a big difference. If it was an answerphone that answered, there is no way I would speak, because then there would be a permanent record of it, and I might change my mind again later.

I imagine that he thinks he was asking me a very simple question, but I could write a book in response. The correct answer was surely to tell him that I didn't know. But if I actually said that, I'd really be saying that I was too stupid to answer a question that he probably asks hundreds of people every day without having to witness a song and dance. Even little boys are expected to know about all the different types of pain and the names given to them, but this was a much simpler question, with just two possible answers, and I'm a grown man. If I said I didn't know, he might assume I'm just a troublemaker. I'm not even going to compare which would be better; to be considered stupid, or to be considered a troublemaker. If I had to choose, I suppose I would have to go with troublemaker. But I'm not 100% sure. Which one would receive more respect?

Some people wear a necklace that says they are not to receive penicillin. I feel I should wear a necklace that says that I shouldn't be asked any questions that may influence a medical diagnosis.

I wonder if my automatic response of denying it hurt was simply and subconsciously to rule out the possibility of a follow up question like "Can you describe the pain?"

I can just imagine that when I die, the coroner's report will say something like:

"He said it didn't hurt, but it must have done. He died while leaving his tenth different message on the doctor's answerphone. His last words were "it definitely didn't hurt". Official cause of death - Gross Stupidity!"

Bastards! They couldn't even afford me the respect of 'Gross Troublemaking'.

Another reason I don't like being examined by a doctor, is the same reason I dread, or have dreaded, all of the following situations:

Weddings, especially my own
Funerals, but probably not my own
Talking with someone who has a stammer or tick
Arguing with someone
Listening to someone explaining how any part of the human body works
Being wrongly suspected of a dishonest act
Scolding my children when they were young
Speaking to an answerphone

Can you guess what it is?

To be continued...

Thursday, 13 October 2011
13 October! Has nobody reported the problem with time yet? Who do you report that type of thing to, anyway? Greenwich? Big Ben? A policeman? Are the people who are spinning the world around its axis working too fast, or what?

I wonder if there is anybody writing a blog who is saying that time seems to be moving very slowly? I wouldn't read that blog. They must be nuts! No, you're far better off here, with me.

I had to estimate last night's drinking again. At least, I think I did. I'm now also addicted to coffee. And of course, you can't drink coffee without a couple of chocolate bars, at least. I'm now also addicted to coffee and chocolate bars. For some crazy reason, that I can't figure out I'm still not eating properly. I'm eating like a kid left on their own. It's not that I don't want to eat properly, I just don't. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about something that would take hours to make. I'm talking about something that would take five minutes in the microwave. What the hell could be stopping me? I wonder if it's got anything to do with time moving so quickly. I wish one of you would report that.

I got a letter from the tribunal telling me when the hearing is to take place. I only glanced through it, but I think it's planned for November, December and January. I'll check that later and let you know. With a bit of luck I could be back at my desk by February! With a bit of bad luck, I could be sitting outside the uni with a begging cup. Does anybody know if you need a license to beg in Stirling?

That's another thing I'm terrible with; letters. I hate having to open letters. It's not so bad if I know it's from the tribunal, but if I don't know what it is, I put it on one of the piles that are lying around. I've become the opposite of who I was.

I was talking to a sort of medical expert a few weeks ago, and she was asking me a lot of questions about my illness. It was amazing; it was as if she could read my mind. All of these weird things that I do and don't do must be 'normal', because she asked about them before I even told her about them. For example, she actually asked about how I coped with receiving letters. So I assume that that is a common problem among us depressed folk. I think that's quite comforting to know. I'm not sure why though.

There was one answer I gave her that I don't think she was expecting, though. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what that is. You wouldn't want to know anyway; believe me!

I think I've been sleeping better recently, but there may be negative reasons behind that; increased alcohol intake for one.

I reported here a couple of days ago that I had entered another bad period. I'm no longer sure about that. I may just have been feeling down, just like how normal people sometimes feel down. My depression is very different from how it was a year ago. But I can never tell if it's better or worse. I'd guess it's better, but it's still very bad, and different. The tribunal case helps immensely. The weird thing is that I almost didn't make a claim to the tribunal. I left it until the very last day that I was allowed to make a claim. There's a three month time limit from the day you're sacked. I was lucky I did; very lucky indeed!

If you're interested, there is a viewing gallery at the tribunal for the public to hear the case. A journalist attended the hearing when it began in June. If you come along, please don't munch crisps or do anything too noisy. I think it will be a fascinating case.

There are waiting rooms for witnesses. It will be funny to think of Mark Toole sharing a waiting room with the liars that he pretended to believe, and who thought he genuinely believed them. They are all going to have to continue to pretend that nobody knows they lied. How weird is that? Kathy will be in a unique position, because as well as being a liar, she has also got to pretend that she is unaware that the others are liars, and they've to pretend that she doesn't know they are liars too. They really should make a movie about this. I estimate that it will take five minutes for the tribunal to see that each of them is a liar. Who knows, they may actually admit to lying, which would blow the entire case wide open. And frankly, that is their best option. I would love to hear what Eric is advising them all to do. Also in the waiting room will be the investigators who will have to pretend that they don't know anybody lied, and that they had investigated to the best of their ability. And David tries to keep up the pretence that he's a grown man with a backbone.

Thank God I don't have to rely on Eric for my advice. I'd be in one helluva mess. Maybe he should turn up as a witness to convince the tribunal that I'm just a bit paranoid. "He thinks everybody is lying and is out to get him." "He blames everybody except himself." "Have you noticed he's got a problem with women? Divorce has that effect on some men.", etc, etc, etc. All good stuff. It's bound to be worth a try, Eric.
I confirm that the tribunal hearing will be held in November, December and January. That gives plenty of time for the witnesses to get their stories straight. If they intend to lie, then they had better do their research and make it sound very convincing, otherwise they are going to make Mark Toole look extremely foolish for having believed them. They have to be every bit as convincing as they were when they answered Graham Millar's probing questions, or they'll make him and Gail Miller look foolish too.

Witnesses will find it very different at this hearing. On the table where the witness sits, there will be documents that they will be asked to refer to. Almost certainly, they will be asked to refer to the statements they gave for the disciplinary investigation; the statements that gave Mr Toole the ammunition with which to dismiss me. Almost certainly, they will also be asked to refer to a number of other documents which contain information that would appear to cast considerable doubt over the veracity of their statements. The witnesses will be invited to explain to the three members of the tribunal, how their statements differ so wildly from the facts. The tribunal members may also ask questions, and the university's lawyer may also ask questions. It's possible that he may not wish to ask them any questions, because I gather from what he says, that he would much prefer they did not attend. That is why it is necessary for me to ask for their attendance. It's almost as though their lawyer does not think their evidence will convince the tribunal as easily as Mr Toole said it convinced him.

The tribunal will then have to consider whether it was reasonable for Mr Toole to believe, on the balance of probability, that the statements were true and that the allegations, if true, were sufficient reason to dismiss. If the tribunal does not believe that it was reasonable for Mr Toole to believe these statements, or that even if he did, that it was sufficient reason to dismiss me, then the tribunal will have to decide why Mr Toole did dismiss me. Mr Toole has not offered any other reason for my dismissal. So the tribunal would then consider any other possible reason for him to have dismissed me. As Mr Toole has not offered any other fair reason for my dismissal; they would be looking for an unfair reason. I stated in my claim that I was dismissed because I made a protected disclosure. I offered no other possible reason. It is automatically unfair to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure. It is reasonable to expect an employer the size of Stirling University to be aware of that; but it makes no difference if they didn't.

Making a protected disclosure also protects its author from acts that may cause them detriment. I will be arguing that I was subjected to considerable detriment which still continues and may continue for some considerable time to come. Most damaging for the university is that my protected disclosure informed the Principal, Christine Hallett, that Mrs McCabe's bullying behaviour, and senior management's failure to protect me from her behaviour, was seriously damaging my health. The university was legally obliged to care for my health, and to remove any hazards to my health. I will argue, with considerable evidence to support my argument, that Stirling University deliberately acted in a manner which they knew would be hazardous to my health. My protected disclosure also informed the Principal that Mrs McCabe had discriminated on the grounds of gender. The university is legally obliged to ensure that staff are not discriminated against on grounds of gender.I will argue, with considerable evidence to support my argument, that in response to my protected disclosure, the university sought, by use of a sham grievance process, to cover up that sex discrimination. I will also argue, with considerable evidence to support my argument, that the university continued to discriminate against me on the grounds of my gender. For example, Mr Toole criticised me for having lodged a grievance against a colleague who was pregnant. The fact that she was pregnant had no bearing on my grievance, and the grievance procedure does not restrict grievances to only non pregnant employees. Mr Toole's criticism is blatantly discrimination on the grounds of gender, and was intended to hurt my feelings. My grievance was in response to an offensive and false report that Eileen MacDonald made about me to our manager. The fact that she was pregnant at the time she decided to do that is neither here nor there. Mr Toole never actioned that grievance, and it seems likely that his only reason was that she is a woman, and he does not like to action grievances against women. But he wasted little time in actioning complaints that four women, including Eileen MacDonald, made against me, even though he knew they were malicious, and that my mental health was already damaged. At the time that Mr Toole received these false allegations, he was supposed to have been dealing with the matter of Jackie O'Neil screaming at me. Instead, he decided to suspend me while dealing with Jackie's false allegations about me. The tribunal will note, of course, that Mrs O'Neil is also a woman. I had also just informed him that I was being ostracised by Una Forsyth, and possibly by Karen Eccleson too. That is also considered to be an act of bullying. But he instantly took action on receipt of Una's false complaints against me. The tribunal will again note that Mrs Forsyth is also a woman. They will obviously recognise a pattern of behaviour by Mr Toole. At the same time, Ms Stark received strong evidence that Jackie O'Neil had lied more than once at the grievance investigation, but appears to have taken no action, except cover it up. Ms Stark will also be invited to explain her reason for asking Mrs McCabe an extremely odd and offensive question at her grievance hearing.

I will also argue, with considerable evidence to support my argument, that the university orchestrated a hate campaign against me, involving a very large number of employees, and that they did this knowing that it was likely to damage my health further. Part of the very damning evidence, which the tribunal is already aware of, is a set of emails I sent to Mr Toole that I copied to the Occupational Health doctor, and in which I pleaded with Mr Toole to carry out a proper investigation, as it was very clear that the investigation had been a farce. On numerous occasions, I informed him of the damage that his actions were causing my health. Mr Toole will be required to show the tribunal that a reasonable investigation was carried out and that it was reasonable to dismiss me. Almost certainly, he will be asked to explain his negative response to my emails pleading for a fair investigation. I will argue that this is clear evidence that Mr Toole was only interested in arranging a sham investigation and to sack me for no good reason, but because I had dared to make a protected disclosure. Ms Stark will also be asked to explain their determination to have an unfair investigation. I will argue, with strong evidence to support my argument, that Mr Toole could not have believed that the statements, on the balance of probability, were true. If he insists, then he will have to describe to the tribunal the circumstances under which every allegation could probably be true. If he fails to do that for any allegation, then his position is unsupportable, and his defense of my claim will fail. Failure to carry out sufficient investigation would not be considered a valid reason for assuming a false allegation to be true. It is however, justification for the tribunal to increase the compensation awarded. Similarly, failure to carry out a proper grievance process also allows the tribunal to increase the compensation. Large employers are normally aware of this, and therefore tend to ensure that grievance and disciplinary processes are carried out properly. Large employers are also aware that there is no upper limit for awards made by tribunals in relation to complaints of sex discrimination or victimisation in response to making a protected disclosure. As well as reinstating me, the tribunal may award staggering amounts of compensation in this case, given the severe damage caused to my health which was done deliberately and despite me pleading for it to stop. I will also draw the tribunal's attention to the large number of employees that were involved in mistreating me to the point that I felt suicide was inevitable. The torture was relentless, and I feel as if they attempted to murder me. Often, I wished they had succeeded!

My letter to the Principal was not the first protected disclosure I made to the university. I made a protected disclosure to Mrs McCabe in December 2006, and I made a protected disclosure to Mr Kemp in May 2008. I will argue that I was subjected to detriment as a result of making those protected disclosures as well. I will also argue, with considerable evidence to support my argument, that Stirling University has committed fraud in an attempt to cover up their failure to comply with their legal requirements, and to illegally deny me the legal redress and compensation that a successful claim would bring.

An Employment Tribunal has the power to order that an employee be reinstated. This is what I have asked to happen. When I return, I will seek to ensure that grievance and disciplinary procedures are carried out in the manner described in the university's policies. I would then expect the dismissal of several members of staff who are guilty of gross misconduct.

It may be wise, for anyone who may have made defamatory statements in order to end my career, to take legal advice regarding their position should they choose to repeat those defamatory and false statements under oath at the tribunal. Those people should be fully aware of the seriousness of this matter and of the requirements of witnesses at a tribunal. All witnesses are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Regardless of what they may have said in the past, they are still required to tell the truth. To either lie or withhold evidence is a serious offence. If anyone is placed under any pressure to give false evidence or to withhold evidence, they should raise this with the tribunal staff as soon as possible.

Witnesses who are honest and cooperative are likely to spend less time being cross examined. If they insist on lying, it will be my job to ask as many questions as possible to demonstrate to the tribunal that they are being dishonest; questions that I would not otherwise need to ask; questions that the investigators and Mr Toole could easily have asked if they had genuinely wanted to learn the truth. I expect the tribunal members will also want proceedings to move along without unnecessary delays, and that they may become irritated by any witness who insists on lying or withholding evidence. Unlike a lawyer or a representative, I know the truth, and if necessary, I will exploit that knowledge to obtain the truth from each witness.

Witnesses should be aware that the tribunal makes no distinction in relation to the seniority of witnesses. All witnesses are expected to tell the truth; from Office Junior to Principal.

Does gossiping still seem like a good idea to them now, I wonder?

Wednesday, 12 October 2011
I've had to estimate how much I drank last night because I stopped measuring at one point. Luckily I fell asleep after about half a bottle. It's 3:30 am now, and I have no desire to drink after having slept.

I wonder if Kathy, Eileen, Selina and Jackie wake up in the middle of the night with a desperate need to spread malicious gossip. That's a weird addiction, isn't it? Maybe they should produce graphs of how many times they've gossiped each day. They could publish blog diaries recording all the juicy pieces of gossip they've made up in order to out-gossip each other.

What I don't understand about the liars is how they felt when their lies went public, and their colleagues who had witnessed the events they falsely described, were able to read the lies they had told. Does the excitement you get from lying increase or decrease when people realise you are a liar? I would have thought it would decrease dramatically. I would have thought the excitement would be replaced by shame. I have assumed that these people will dread appearing at the tribunal, and there's stuff that the uni's lawyer has said that supports that assumption; but I might be wrong. Maybe a liar will welcome the challenge of trying to persuade people that they are telling the truth, and that lying under oath in court is the ultimate challenge. The liars have seen some of the evidence that shows they lied, but not all of it. How are they going to cope when they are faced with the facts that prove they are liars? Surely the thrill about lying is that people don't know you are lying? When gossipers exchange lies, do they realise that they are receiving as well as giving false information? People gossip because of jealousy, don't they? But surely the pleasure they receive is lost once it is known that they are just liars? Or is there still some pleasure to be gained even when people know they are lying? Wouldn't the pleasure of lying be restricted to people who share the same jealousy, or to people who wish to please you by pretending to believe and enjoy your lie? While I'm writing this, it is making some sense to me. It may not to the reader, or to me later.

What I think I'm trying to say is that I cannot imagine that the liars will receive any thrill from lying at the tribunal. Lying is generally seen to be a bad thing, and the more serious the result of lying, the worse it is to be outed as a liar. The tribunal members are not going to enjoy a lie in the way that a gossiping colleague might, regardless of how entertaining the lie may sound. I feel sure that public opinion would not favour liars who have colluded to remove an innocent man from his job. But, in the dysfunctional team, do the normal people, like Paul and Lynn, still provide support for the liars? Support is what liars feed on isn't it? When Eileen went to Lynn and Eric for support, didn't she just want some sympathy and affirmation that she was a good person and that I was a bad man? I know why Eric would gladly give that support, but not Lynn. I would have expected Lynn to tell Eileen that if she had done nothing wrong, then she would have nothing to fear from my grievance against her. I would have expected Lynn to tell Eileen that it is wrong to spread lies about people, and maybe try to find out why she does it. I'm not saying that was Lynn's job. It was Kathy's job to deal with liars. But Kathy is a liar too, and I expect that she recruited Eileen because they share a love of gossip. Nobody; not Peter Kemp, not Mark Toole, not HR, and nobody from the dysfunctional team discouraged the lying.

So if Lynn (Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on Lynn. It's just that I saw Lynn as a more normal, unaffected team member), so if Lynn hadn't provided Eileen with support, wouldn't Eileen now be in a better position? The tribunal will not just see that Eileen lied, but that she had lied and lied and lied for years, and that nobody did anything about it. My grievance about her lies was completely ignored, and colleagues were offering her support. And the tribunal will no doubt wonder how I could possibly have been dismissed on the word of such a long term, compulsive liar, especially when I have proven that she has lied. Bizarrely, one of the reasons Mark gave for dismissing me was for having raised a grievance against Eileen for her lying. I look forward to cross examining him about that too. He also seemed to get mixed up as to what was a lie and what wasn't. He criticised an act because he thought it was me that did it. He will quickly have to change his story once he understands that it was Eileen who did it.

If I was a compulsive liar, I would probably wake up in the middle of the night remembering that there is another piece of evidence that disproves another one of my lies. And I'd either have to invent another lie in order to cover for that evidence, or find a way to get rid of that evidence. It would be a living nightmare. People who live their life in this way must be demented. You must have an exceptionally good memory to be a credible liar. Either that, or you must only surround yourself with idiots who will believe anything you tell them.

What does Paul think about Una's statement? Doesn't he, as a friend, wish he could have stopped her from making it? Doesn't she, as a friend, wish he had stopped her from making it? Without the influence of one Eileen MacDonald, Una would never have considered behaving in that way in a million years. Unfortunately, Una got in with a bad crowd. There is something almost funny about the way Una lies; it is far from subtle. I may be wrong, but I think she probably has very little experience of lying. Someone convinced her that she should make a false statement, and she went for it, big style. She must have had a huge rush of adrenalin. She didn't bother messing about with little, subtle, half truths or anything like that. She gave it everything she had. She put her whole heart and soul into it, and then she put some more heart and soul into it. There could have been red lights flashing the letters S T O P, but Una didn't see them. Loudspeakers could have yelled at her to STOP, but she didn't hear them. The one person she could have trusted to tell her this was a bad idea was the very person she was lying about. How the hell did Una Forsyth ever get herself into this mess? She must wonder that herself. Maybe she'll tell us all at the tribunal, or maybe she will put her whole heart and soul into supporting her incredible story again. Either way, it should be fascinating, and I wouldn't miss it for the world. What would Paul advise her to do, I wonder? Who can she actually turn to for proper advice? Well, I think she sits very close to someone who might give her good advice, and I don't mean Selina or Eileen MacDonald. Certainly not anyone with a vested interest. She could maybe ask her non work friends, or maybe William or Harry? Someone who actually cares about Una, and wants the best for her. Unfortunately, that was probably me, but she allowed herself to be persuaded otherwise. What on earth was Karen Eccleson thinking about? I would have expected her to have far too much sense than to allow Una to do this. I've obviously overestimated Karen. For some reason that I'm yet to understand, she has helped put Una into deep shit. The weird thing about Karen,is that just days before this, she was supporting me in my grievance against Kathy. What on earth got into her? I would have liked for Karen to appear as a witness too, but I think the tribunal may think the numbers are excessive. But there is nothing to stop Karen from volunteering to attend as a witness in support of her friend. If she thinks that by appearing as a witness, she would be helping Una, then she should contact the uni's lawyer, Alun Thomas. Karen Stark will be able to provide contact details. However, I would be utterly amazed if Mr Thomas thought Mrs Eccleson would be a useful witness. For all I know, Paul might have been encouraging Una to lie too. For all I know, he might have been making up stuff about me too. So could Lynn, for that matter. I really don't know, because the total number of colleagues who have contacted me since I was sacked is zero. For 13 years I contributed to colleagues' leaving presents; but I got nothing except serious health problems. Thanks!

Tuesday, 11 October 2011
I feel I'm in the midst of another bad period. It's only 4pm, and I'm already on my first drink. I expect I might get tipsy tonight for the first time in a while. To make matters worse, my keyboard is playing up. That's very frustrating because when I hit the keys, some of the letters don't come up on screen. Some come up twice. So I have to go back and clean up. That's the disadvantage of battery powered keyboards. I stopped using a battery powered mouse long ago for the same reason. And it was costing a fortune to keep in batteries. I digress!

So what's caused this latest dip in mood? Who knows? A chemical change in my brain, maybe? I've not had my medication for over two weeks now. Getting my new prescription wasn't as easy as I was led to believe. I've been to the doctor's as instructed, but the prescription and medical certificate were not there to meet me. I've lost a whole lot more gambling. That doesn't help my mood I suppose. I've been thinking a lot about my work and how I've been mistreated; including by people who I thought were my friends. That doesn't help my mood either, but my spirits are lifted when I look forward to the employment tribunal. It's been such a long time since I worked at the uni. It's actually 18 months since I was suspended. I was suspended because several colleagues made false allegations about me. And because I'd blown the whistle on Mark Toole and Karen Stark, they were falling over themselves to pretend to believe their lies. Surely you would have to be sick in the head to do that. Even sicker to do it as part of a group of malicious complainers! I think of the 'normal' people who were aware that I was a constant target of gossip by Eileen MacDonald. What the hell were they doing listening to her shit? Why didn't they just straight off tell her to fuck off with her shit? The 'normal' people I'm referring to are Paul Scott and Lynn McDonald. Lynn, it turns out, was a major source of support for Eileen when she was upset that I had dared to lodge a grievance against her. Some of the odd things that Lynn and Paul said to me make sense to me now that I've seen the crap that Eileen was spouting behind my back. Why on earth would Paul believe Eileen rather than me? He's not as bright as I thought he was. It's like he wanted to believe her. He had been brainwashed for years, but it also meant he was allowed entry into the Eileen believers clique. I'm very disappointed in Paul. He was also present the night that Una assaulted me, but has he come forward and confirmed that she did it? We had a long conversation about the assault when some other gossiper, possibly David, wrongly informed him and Una that I had made a complaint about the assault. I assured him I had not complained and had no intention of complaining. Maybe that's where I went wrong, I probably should have complained and had her sacked, but I'm too nice a bloke. Paul seems to prefer people who make up malicious complaints. That's not normal. Whoever told Una that I had complained was up to no good. So the question I have for Paul and Lynn is what was the point of showing support for Eileen the liar? How is that going to help her during the employment tribunal when she makes an absolute fool of herself? This should have been nipped in the bud years ago, but now partly thanks to you, Una is also going to have to face a very difficult situation at the tribunal. I doubt if that's what you would have wanted for her. It's definitely not what I would have wanted for her. And how long had Selina been making up stories about me behind my back? One thing's for sure, when they are in court, they won't find the audience so eager to believe the nonsense they spouted in the tea room.

And then there's the David Black story. What a fucking wimp! This was the big guy who had so many strongly held big opinions, but when push came to shove, he thought he'd better hide behind Jackie's apron. "No, nobody treats Allan disrespectfully", "Yes, Jackie screamed at Allan angrily", "No wait, she didn't. I was just confused because I was tired and because I was under stress", "I don't remember if I was asked about this". His parents must be very proud of him! What on earth is he going to say at the tribunal? Will he have to check with Eric what he should say? I might have to cross examine him several times, because his story changes so often and so quickly. Basically, he preferred to see an innocent man sacked than tell the truth. And he knew that my health was near rock bottom because of the bullying. He decided that he'd become a bully too. Hopefully, I will never have to listen to any more of his hypocritical shit. He's an embarrassment to mankind! But then, he must know that. Surely you must know that, David.

I think I'm going to get pissed tonight. But even after drinking infinite amounts of whisky, I'd still have infinitely more integrity than David Black will ever have.

Sunday, 9 October 2011
I've just read a Press Association article by Gary Barlow from Take That. He tells of how he suffered from depression for three years after the band broke up. Then he felt 'valid again' when they reformed in 2006.

The most interesting thing from the article is that he said that he was glad he went through his dark period, because it made him the person he is today.

I wish he had expanded on that, but it has got me thinking. I'm going through my own dark period, and he has made me wonder if I'll ever be saying that I'm glad I went through it. Somehow I doubt it. If I ever manage to get through it, then I could imagine myself saying that I'm glad I got through it. If I do get through it, what will I be like at the other end?

Like Gary, my hope is to get back into the job that I once did in order to be 'valid again'. That won't be easy, but it has to be the target. That would be justice. What would be the point of making protected disclosures if they offered no protection? They would have to rename them to 'victimised disclosures'. Whistleblowers deserve protection; in fact there is a good argument for saying that it is everybody's duty to blow the whistle, and that if they fail to do so, then they leave themselves open to misconduct charges.

Many of my colleagues would be shitting themselves at the prospect of my return. But that's down to their own stupidity. Many of them will have ample opportunity to explain their behaviour at the forthcoming tribunal. I'm sure it will be fascinating, and it will hopefully bring some relief to finally hear the answers to all of the questions that have been going over and over my mind for years. I wonder if even now they are still trying to come up with some credible story, and if they are still asking Eric for his advice. My strong advice would be to ignore any advice Eric offers, and tell the truth. For one thing, it may save them from prison. Tribunals are skilled at seeing through even the most clever of liars. These ones are far from clever, and are about to make complete fools of themselves. There is already no return for Karen Stark, and I had only just begun to ask her a few questions. She appears to be determined to continue with her lies, no matter how obvious they are. And I will enjoy seeing her attempt to untie the knots she has already got herself into.

I think the tribunal and justice may be the start of me getting through my dark period. I wish to squash any rumours that I intend to join Take That.

Saturday, 8 October 2011
The graph doesn't currently seem to reflect that I'm drinking a lot again. The past seven days I've drunk 15, 15, 5, 20, 25, 20, 15.

Thursday, 6 October 2011
I don't like to be late for appointments, but I also don't like to wait too long in the doctor's waiting room. Apart from the 'thoughts', you can get a lot of sick people in there, you know. So yesterday, I employed military precision to reach the doctor's receptionist at precisely the optimum time. I was feeling pretty pleased with myself, actually. Then she told me that I was precisely 48 hours late for my appointment. That's two appointments in a row I've missed.

Shocked by the news that I had missed my appointment, I was then given instructions on how to see my doctor; to renew my prescription; and renew my medical certificate.

Before the bullying began, I hadn't needed to have contact with a doctor for about a hundred years. I may be wrong, but when I was a boy, people didn't make appointments to see a doctor; they went to the doctor when they were ill. To be honest, I've never fully understood how it works in practice. I just go along with it, assuming it must be correct.

When I had to take sick leave in 2008, I didn't have a doctor, so I had to find one to register with. That in itself wasn't easy. I had to find out where they were, and then when I found them, I was turned away because they already had their full quota of sick people. Eventually I found one that was willing to take me on.

My doctor's appointment system may be perfectly normal, but it appears a bit odd to me. It seems like they've added an element of competitiveness to spice up the process of actually seeing a doctor. Having just accepted that it was normal, in a modern world, to make an appointment to see a doctor when you are ill, I was then faced with a brand new concept; I can't just make an appointment to see my doctor at the next mutually convenient time; that would be far too simple! I have to find out when it would be convenient for my doctor, then exactly seven days before then (not six, and not eight), I have to phone as early as possible that day to increase my chances of getting that appointment seven days later. As I say, this appears to be a little strange to me, but those sick people in the waiting room don't appear to be surprised by this, so I assume it must just be me, and that this is the normal practise all over the world.

So, I found out when I can next see him, but I couldn't just make an appointment for that time. I, Mr Memory, have to remember to phone a week before then. That's as early as possible that day. As late as possible that same day, I'm to visit the practise when I will hopefully receive my medical certificate and my prescription. Having written the details here, I hopefully won't forget.

All of this made me anxious, so when I got home I had a few drinks to recover. In the end, I had 25 cl. It doesn't look too bad on the graph because luckily last week was bad too! Lost a whole lot more money gambling too.

Had the best night's sleep in ages. Didn't even wake up until about 9:30 am. My apologies to those of you who have been waiting since midnight to read my latest diary entry.

I think it's worth mentioning, because there might be some misunderstanding about this diary page and how it works. Although I have created daily sections, the diary doesn't automatically update at midnight. It only updates when I make a change to it or add something to it. I say this because there are a lot of people who log on to read this page at midnight, and I think that may be the reason.

I can't believe it's the 6th of October already. Just the other day, I remarked how time was flying by. Surely I can't be the only one who has noticed this. But there hasn't been anything on the news about it. Maybe everybody is waiting for someone else to report it! I'm certainly not going to be the one to report it; I've enough on my plate!

Talking of plates, don't ask!

Tuesday, 4 October 2011
I did find something to motivate me to cut back on my drinking. I see my doctor this week, and I will look a bit of a mug if my consumption is twice what it should be, and what it was when I last saw him. I have an excellent chance to have a very pretty graph after tonight, because I had 25 cl to drink last Tuesday. I only had 5 cl last night, so I might try for the same tonight.

It might be worth explaining, since it may not be obvious, that my graph basically compares one day's drinking with the same day a week before. So if I drink less than 25 cl tonight, the graph line drops.

I wonder if my recent loss of energy may be due to my poor diet. I really should wash those dishes. The lack of clean dishes may be part of the reason I'm not eating properly. I must sound like a nutter! I have even asked myself, just as I'm about to make a snack, why I don't make a proper meal instead, and I genuinely don't know. Aim for today is to wash those bloody dishes and make a proper meal for myself. If I don't, I'm a bloody woose.

I should really mention my chest problem to the doctor. The hot side is the right hand side, and I'm pretty sure that's where I keep my liver. There's no pain, but it's so weird that, just inches away, the other side of my chest is cold. I can't find anything on Google about it. I'll get my liver test results this week. I might mention it then.

Does anybody know where I put my metal step ladders? I can't find them anywhere.

Monday, 3 October 2011
Excellent news from the Employment Tribunal! They have confirmed their decision to hold a hearing that will allow them to determine all three of my complaints, rather than just to determine the reason for my dismissal, and then have further separate hearings.

The preferred method of the uni would have meant witnesses would have been required to appear multiple times about different complaints. One thing that I hadn't thought about is that the tribunal could have heard evidence from a particular witness about a particular complaint, and based on the quality of that evidence, made a decision. Then they could have heard evidence from that same witness on a different complaint, only to realise that this was a most unreliable witness who had misled the tribunal with their previous evidence. Luckily the tribunal spotted that possibility.

This closes a loophole that the uni was hoping to exploit, and they are going to have to defend my claims, armed solely with the evidence, such as it is.

Officially, the uni should be calling the witnesses that I will be calling because officially the uni believes the witnesses have all told the truth, and therefore it should be as easy to convince the tribunal of their honesty as it was to convince Mark Toole and his "experienced" investigative team. Officially, they must think I am off my head to want these witnesses to appear and give their convincing accounts of the truth. Officially, they must be rubbing their hands in delight that I am playing right into their hands. Officially!

Saturday, 1 October 2011
October already! I'm surprised how quickly time seems to be flying by. That usually suggests you're having a good time, doesn't it? Certainly not in my case.

I'm trying to think how I might get this alcohol problem sorted. The problem is that all of my motivation has drained away. Even keeping this page alive is taking a lot of effort. And I know I'm mostly talking bollocks.

I don't think the medication can be responsible, because I ran out of pills at the beginning of the week. That will probably annoy my doctor. I should probably have arranged to get more, but it's as if I couldn't be bothered. I'm seeing him again next week, so it's a chance to get back into a regular cycle without having to think about it much. Thinking doesn't come easy at the moment.

I should record here what happened with my sleep, and my sleeping tablets. It's too difficult to explain just now, but I'll try later.

My drinking is almost completely out of control again. In fact, if I wasn't measuring my drinks, I think it would be totally out of control. At least I feel a measure of guilt about it. The problem is that the benefits of alcohol outweigh the reasons not to drink at the moment. Whatever those reasons were! I should really try to stay below 1.5 litres.

I seem to be low on energy, and I keep having naps during the day.

I have this weird thing where one side of my chest is a lot hotter and sweatier than the other. What's that all about?

In case you were wondering, Jennifer Aniston hasn't got in touch yet. It's a women's prerogative to play hard to get.

Message for today is that I'm determined to stay below 1.5 litres. If I don't, I'm a woose!

Wednesday, 28 September 2011
I think my 5:30 am readers from the UK were back on this morning. Welcome back, we all missed you!

One of my most regular readers comes from the west of Scotland. They logged on three times yesterday, and I can tell that they are upset either by me or my blog. I'd really like for them to get in touch with me by email so that we can discuss the problem. I promise that I won't repeat our discussion on my blog without your permission. If you are an innocent person caught up in the crossfire, then I am sorry. (Please note that initially I thought I knew who you were!!!)

I had another skinful last night, but despite that, my graph continues in its recent downward direction. Isn't life sweet! I missed a great opportunity to get that line down a lot further. I had the best night's sleep in ages though.

Recently, a lot of my dreams have been of me back working at the uni. And it's as if all of my colleagues and I are not allowed to discuss what happened. We are all pretending that nothing happened. Kathy was even in the front seat of a car, a green mini I owned when I was 17. I was in the back with other colleagues. Your own dreams are fascinating, but others' less so; so I won't bore you with them.

As you can see, I'm still alive, so I might have some more of those eggs today.

Tuesday, 27 September 2011
The graph looks better than it did a couple of days ago, eh. It should look even better after tonight because of last Tuesday's almost half bottle.

I've started falling asleep for brief spells in the afternoons and evenings. I'll take any sleep I can get, thanks. If I'm sleeping, I can't be drinking or thinking. It's the best. I said I'd say some more about my sleep, but I can't be bothered just now. I get tired looking at the PC screen. I really ought to look out the window at distant objects.

I'm actually really looking forward to the Employment Tribunal. The evidence is so overwhelming that I really don't see the point in the uni defending my claims. Sure, they should probably argue about the amount of compensation, but that is separate from the evidence itself. But, in a way, I'm glad I'll have the opportunity to clear my name and to demonstrate all of the lies my colleagues have made up. The tribunal won't be able to complain that it's taking too long, because I have strongly suggested we have a Pre Hearing Review that would deal with most matters in a few hours. I am confident that my health will improve as each one of the liars is outed. Part of the mental damage is caused by the isolation, and being ganged up on by so many people, while the 'normal' people were unwilling to help.

That's another thing I wonder about; what is it like at the team meetings with Kathy? What about the elephant in the room? The fact that a large proportion of the team are bullies and liars that got an innocent man the sack. Do they discuss the contents of my blog? Do the liars still try to deny their crimes? Do they discuss it with the new team members? Do they still make up stories about me? Has Kathy been told to stop the sex discrimination? Is she bullying someone else now? The likely targets would be Dave and David, or anybody who dared to show any support for me.

I use the word 'normal', but I think the team will have lost the meaning of the word. Firstly, they had been brainwashed by gossip about me for years. They simply had no idea as to what was real and what wasn't. Allegiances had formed too, and some would apply mental gymnastics to try to come up with an explanation to justify their friend's absurd behaviour. Eric, who privately hated Kathy, would try to find ways to excuse her bizarre behaviour. Is Kathy actually so stupid that she thinks that people will believe she isn't a bully, and that I bullied her? Surely it would have been better for her to simply and quietly step down from her role as a manager than to go through a sham process that will have to be discussed at a public tribunal?

I have to wonder why Kathy still sticks by Eileen. She must now realise that Eileen had been filling her head with nonsense about me for years, and that's what's got her in this mess in the first place. Does Eileen have some dodgy photos of her in a compromising position or something? Maybe I'll find out what's been behind it all very soon.

I washed a plate, a fork and a knife today, and made an omelette. It's been weeks since I made anything. The eggs were best before 14th, so they were 13 days out of date. If I survive, I better have some more tomorrow. I love eggs, so I don't understand why I haven't been eating them. I'm sure a lot of people reading this will be thinking I'm just lazy. And I don't have a good argument. I should really try to wash my dishes. I should really try to do the stuff for the tribunal too. I don't understand why I don't. I should probably hire a lawyer; one that washes dishes.

I get tired very quickly, and I do nothing. I should probably go out and get exercise and fresh air, but there are reasons why I don't. It's all a vicious circle. I do remember to water my plant sometimes. Ruth would give me a helluva row if I didn't.

I sometimes think about drinking alcohol on weekday afternoons. This is one of those days. When I see people drinking on TV, it makes me want to drink too. For years I went without drinking coffee. Now I'm drinking gallons of the stuff. I got decaf this time in case it was interfering with my sleep. I've also started buying crazy amounts of biscuits. For about a week I lived on toast, biscuits, cheese, crisps, coffee and whisky.

I'm going to have that whisky, and maybe lie down for a nap. Football on telly later.

Monday, 26 September 2011
A mini success yesterday takes me below 1.5 litres for the week. The success was due mainly to falling asleep. Sleep is all over the place at the moment. I'm referring to timing rather than location!

I'm writing this at 5:20 am. I have readers from the UK who like to check this page around 5:30 am, and lots of readers who check for updates on Monday morning because they probably don't have access to the internet over the weekend. Good morning to you all!

I'm guessing, or imagining that the 5:30 am readers may be people with similar drink and / or sleep problems. For a while, I was even imagining that my success would inspire such people. Now I'm imagining that I've let them down. I could be responsible for lots of people falling off the wagon. What a responsibility!

It's now 6:00 am, and my 5:30 diary readers haven't been on yet. Just an Australian reading about Peter Kemp. Can you imagine what's going through my head now? Should I be phoning the police?

6:15 now, and there's still no sign of them. I'm beginning to imagine that they've found a better alcohol diary page somewhere else on the internet. People can be so fickle. I think I will phone the police!

6:30. Nobody on; not even an Australian. I'm trying to provide a service here, but you can't even be bothered logging on at your usual time. Why do I bother?

My disloyal readers may have gone here.

Sunday, 25 September 2011
I think I may have given up. That's disappointing because I was never the type of person who gave up. I was extremely determined. But this is different. Alcohol has become part of my survival again. The reality of life needs to be dulled, and alcohol is the perfect solution, and I've got it in my fridge. Why wouldn't I use it?

Alcohol and the search for justice are what keep me going. I'm glad I've created this blog, because even if I'm found dead, it may help bring a level of justice. It won't be of any use to me then, but it gives me hope now, and it will be my legacy.

There is an assumption I've made all of my life that everybody wants good justice. I've never really questioned that assumption. It's like it was learned from an early age that you were supposed to be a good boy or girl. All of the movies end with the baddies losing and the goodies winning. That's a legal requirement for films. But the reality is that people are less concerned about justice. They only want what's best for themselves. The trouble with replacing justice with selfishness is that you could end up with someone's view of what you deserve. And you might not like it.

I think my alcohol drinking is probably more than what my graph shows. I think I may be miscounting the number of drinks I have each night. I really don't remember. I should write it down as I pour them. The blackouts are returning as well.

It's Groundhog Day again!

Saturday, 24 September 2011
I'm losing the battle against the intrusive thoughts. After several weeks when they had reduced, they have increased again. I think it was due to the tribunal hearing earlier in the week. It has brought it all back.

I was very badly prepared for the hearing, and that was because I avoided preparing for it because I knew that it would encourage the thoughts to come. In fact, I have stuff that I have to do for the tribunal that I keep putting off. Yet I really want it done. Up until about three months ago, I would have had no problem doing it, but around that time I began to notice that I was having serious problems with my motivation. It's not just avoiding stuff that encourages the fantasies. It's just about everything.

My concentration is the worst it has been. Even watching television has become more difficult recently. I watch it, then when the adverts come on, I can't even remember what it was that I was watching. Often I will decide that there is something I need to do. And before I've even stood up to go and do it, I've forgotten what it was. I frequently find myself looking in cupboards, not knowing why I'm doing it. These things are happening all the time.

And this was what I was thinking about on Wednesday. I wondered if it was maybe a side effect of the medication I'm taking for the depression. I looked up the internet on it, but although anti depressants have lots of side effects, lack of concentration and motivation don't seem to be among them. But it was around the time I started taking the pills that my motivation started to drop. I'll check with my doctor. You would expect your concentration to improve when you drink less alcohol, but it's the opposite with me.

My drinking and gambling and self harming have all increased again this week. I should say something about my sleep as well, but it's complicated and embarrassing, so I'll try to describe it another time.

On a positive note, I feel that the tribunal should bring justice which should boost my health. Cross examination will easily show that several colleagues have lied, and they will have to give their reasons for lying. Mark Toole will have to explain why he went to extraordinary lengths to avoid a proper disciplinary investigation. He hasn't a snowball in Hell's chance. It seems a waste of time that they are even defending the case. I suggested that we have a Pre Hearing Review for the tribunal to consider whether the university's case has any prospect of success, and I listed numerous facts that would suggest they have no reasonable prospect of success. But the uni wants to continue with a full hearing to consider the evidence in detail and to have all the witnesses attend. The legal costs will be very significant, because lawyers don't come cheap. The uni seems to have money to burn.

On Wednesday, their lawyer pointed out that there are 59 allegations of sex discrimination to which the uni will be required to answer. They still have to do the impossible by demonstrating that the grievance procedure wasn't just a sham, and that they thoroughly investigated every allegation. It will be obvious that it was an entire sham, and then they'll have to explain why they did that immediately after I'd made a protected disclosure to the Principal.

The disciplinary procedure was plain madness too. Mark knew that all of the women were lying; that's why he couldn't have a proper investigation. So he has to explain why the investigation was conducted so absurdly, and how he could possibly arrive at his conclusion that all of the women were telling the truth, or that he was at least 50% sure that they were telling the truth, despite solid evidence that proved they had lied. There are allegations they made that are completely impossible, but he will have to explain why he believed the same allegations were probably true. There's no way round it. He can't possibly do it. He is going to look stupid, and he's going to have to lie outrageously. And by the time he takes the witness stand, the women may already have admitted that they lied and told the tribunal who put them up to it.

On Wednesday we talked about the matter of my reinstatement which the uni intends to challenge. In order for them to do that, they will have to give good reason. On my return to the uni, I would seek to have all of the corrupt employees subjected to independent disciplinary procedures. I would not consider this a valid reason to challenge my reinstatement. The UCU recently campaigned for an independent investigation into the management of Stirling University, so I would hope I could count on their support. I think it would be particularly desirable for all right minded employees to see a quick departure by Kevin Clarke.

Several colleagues have made very serious defamatory statements about me which have resulted in damage to my health, damage to my professional reputation, and loss of earnings and career prospects. Unless they can prove that they were instructed by the university to make those false defamatory statements, which I doubt very much, they are personally responsible for them.

Friday, 23 September 2011
On the subject of lying colleagues, you may be interested in a post I've created about the dangers of gossip.

Thursday, 22 September 2011
First things first... the alcohol situation ain't good. My willpower has dwindled. Something is drawing me to the alcohol for security, but it's not like the very strong urges I felt before. Thank God they don't happen any more, at least not every day. They were terrible. The best way I can think to describe them is 'industrial strength butterflies'. And I think because I expected it to happen, it did happen. And the anticipation of it happening was all part of the anxiety.

I really felt I had the alcohol problem sorted two weeks ago. I think I just needed a spell with no stress. Now I'm back to not caring, although I'm not sure I ever really cared. I did like not having to keep going to the supermarket so often though.

For me, the world is difficult to face sober. It's not the world, I suppose, but the people who live in it. I would love to understand people, and why they behave the way they do. That's what I finally hope to learn from the tribunal. Once we have established that so many of my colleagues have lied, I will need to ask each of them why. Why? And why me?

Of course, they don't need to wait for the tribunal. They can tell me any time. They can even tell me while they make me macaroni cheese.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011
In case you hadn't noticed, my life's in a bit of a mess at the moment. The question is: Is it a better or worse mess than it was a year ago? I was thinking it was better, but is that because my thinking is getting worse? My thinking is definitely getting worse. I now have a terrible memory, which is odd because I used to hold the world record for memory. I could possibly now have the worst memory in the world; but how would the Guinness Book test for that?

I had to cancel my doctor's appointment for today. That's because I just realised it clashes with the Employment Tribunal hearing. That's right, in a few hours I'm to be at the tribunal.

It's exactly a year since I made my claim to the Employment Tribunal. Today's hearing isn't to hear evidence about the fairness of my dismissal, but to decide how that evidence should be heard. Basically, Stirling University would prefer that only evidence that they believe supports their position should be heard. I fully understand why they would not want the tribunal to hear why they really dismissed me, but I am more than a little surprised that they think they can persuade the tribunal not to hear that evidence. I realise this may not sound very clear, but basically the Uni wants bad justice, or injustice, and they are determined to argue that the playing field should be as unlevel as they would like it. And the public gets to pay for all of this; including the cost of the Uni's lawyer.

Meanwhile, my health is deteriorating. But from the Uni's point of view, that's a good thing. It increases the chances that by the time the tribunal decides what they should and shouldn't hear, and if I was or wasn't dismissed fairly, it won't matter; because I'll be dead. That's British justice in 2011.

Again meanwhile, the public pays to support my living costs while I can't work due to ill health caused by the Uni. Yet I was desperate to work. My work was everything to me. Joe Public gets a raw deal in every possible way, while the Fat Cats at the Stirling University just get fatter and fatter at poor Joe's expense.

Poor Joe also has to fund the cost of restoring my health. I used to be obscenely healthy. I think I worked for about ten years without a day off sick until the bullying began.

Yesterday was a very bad day in more ways than one. I had to cancel my doctor's appointment. That means I've lost the luxury of regularity. It means I've got to think and rearrange and plan; and these are all skills that I've lost. It's stupid for someone who writes a blog to say this, but I need to write things down, but I don't. It seems so obvious. So why isn't it? I'm just not coping well at all.

Possibly because of the doctor thing; possibly because of the tribunal thing; I overdrank. I would probably have drunk more if it hadn't been for the fact that I had no more whisky to drink. I couldn't drive to the supermarket to get more whisky because I had already drunk too much. That seems to be a law that I just wouldn't consider breaking, even if I was desperate. What sort of an alcoholic am I? I would get banned from AA! I also didn't walk to the supermarket because I just don't do that these days. I would have a head full of fantasies about killing loads of people. The fear is that the more I fantasise about these things, it increases the possibility of me actually carrying them out. That's a stupid fear, I know. For years I have fantasised about having sex with Jennifer Aniston, but I'm no closer to actually carrying that out in real life than I was before I heard of her. If you are reading this, Jennifer, and you're interested, please get in touch.

Possibly because of the doctor thing, the tribunal thing or the over drinking thing; I over gambled. I would probably have gambled more, but I had no more money to lose. I lost £1475.15. Now for anybody reading this, that is going to seem like a large amount of money to lose in one day. That's because it is. I realise that. I'm not stupid, you know! You might think that I possibly have loads of money, so losing £1500 is not significant. Wrong! I live on benefits. All it means is that I'm significantly closer to killing myself.

With the tribunal today, I should probably try to have a shower. That's a pity because I was thinking about contacting the Guinness Book of Records about my armpits; especially my left armpit. I should also shave and wash my face. Who knows if these things help produce better justice, but I think it's only fair that I try to make an effort. It requires a LOT of effort. Now, you might read this and think; how much effort does it need to have a shave and shower? What do you think I'll be doing with my mind while I'm in that shower? Do you think I'll be thinking about soap and water? No, I'll be thinking about killing people and killing myself. I should maybe try to think about having sex with Jennifer Aniston.

I realise that today's diary entry is a bit of a mess. It's just a record of random thoughts really. I wonder what will happen to this blog once I'm dead.

Today's tribunal thing... It's a special hearing about the purpose of the main hearing. The university wants the tribunal to determine only the reason for my dismissal, and the judge had agreed to that. However, when the hearing began in June, a different judge appeared, and the tribunal unanimously felt that it was inappropriate to have the hearing only to determine the reason for my dismissal. That meant that the remaining three days that had been scheduled for the hearing were cancelled. The university has asked for the tribunal to review its decision to have a hearing which is to determine all of my complaints; unfair dismissal and detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and sex discrimination. Today's hearing is to consider that review. The university will argue that the tribunal should manage the case in a way which all three members of the tribunal already said unanimously, was inappropriate.

The reason the Uni wants this, is because they want the tribunal to hear as little as possible. The more evidence it hears, the worse it is for the Uni, because the evidence is all bad for them, and has got a whole lot worse after the fraudulent document incident. The evidence is so bad for them that I have to wonder why they are even defending the case. And I think it's because they were hoping that the tribunal wouldn't hear the evidence.

Ignoring the evidence is the strategy that allowed the Uni to let Kathy McCabe off with bullying, and to dismiss me for gross misconduct based on a pack of lies. They knew it was a pack of lies, and that's why they chose to ignore the evidence that showed it was all lies. And now they want the tribunal to also ignore the evidence.

It would have been far simpler for the Uni to have dealt with Kathy's bullying properly. The Uni publishes lots of documents saying how bullying and sex discrimination is to be taken extremely seriously, and how grievance and disciplinary procedures are to be fair and thorough; but they are just cosmetic.

I better go and have that shower. Wish me luck...

End of Part One

Part Two

Bloody typical! I went to all the trouble of showering and shaving, and nobody even mentioned it.

Tribunal days have lots of 'thinking time'. Shower, train journey, walk to tribunal, wait in waiting room, walk to train station, and another train journey. Apart from the usual thoughts. I had a couple of interesting thoughts.

I started to wonder about my former colleagues, and what they make of all this. Do they know I've been sacked or do they think I'm in the toilet? How do they feel working beside the liars who made false allegations about me. Many of them knew they were false because they had witnessed the incidents. Doesn't it strike them as odd that Jackie O'Neil could scream at me like a banshee, then I get sacked when she complains about me? Doesn't it strike them as odd that Selina Gibb claimed that she was frightened and anxious to be with me, when they had all seen her laughing and joking with me? Isn't it strange that, at a time when she was supposed to be frightened and anxious to be with me, she interrupted a work conversation I was having with a colleague, to joke with me. Selina will be able to explain herself at the tribunal where she will learn that I have a recording of her making that joke while not sounding in the least bit frightened of me during our conversation. Maybe she will be able to explain how her own lies have a similar theme to the lies told by Jackie, Una Forsyth and Eileen MacDonald. There is clear evidence that they all lied, but what will they give as their reasons for lying when asked at the tribunal? Will it be that each of them independently decided to lie about me, and on a similar theme? If I was any one of them, I would be absolutely shitting myself. Perhaps whoever gave them the idea of making the complaints will also provide them with the answers to some very difficult questions that they will have to face. Sadly, they will also have to be sacked. You can't go about making false allegations to try to get someone fired. I could see why Eileen would do it; she is a mental case. But I'm very surprised and disappointed by the others. They would never have done it if it hadn't been for Eileen. I actually feel sorry for Una to some extent. She has been misled by Eileen for years. It's particularly sad because Una was just beginning to realise that Eileen was a bad egg. However, I'm also grateful to Una because she has made it so obvious that she was lying. What on earth will she be like at the tribunal? God, even I get nervous at the tribunal, and I'm telling the truth! At least five pairs of eyes will be on her while she attempts to make some sense of the statement she gave for the disciplinary investigation. Perhaps Eileen or Eric Hall will help prepare her for the cross examination. I think it will be a little different from the interview she attended for the disciplinary procedure. It's easy to lie when the person you are lying to wants you to lie, but pretends he doesn't know you're lying. It will be very different to persuade the tribunal that she is telling the truth. Very different! And she will be under oath. If only she had listened to me; she wouldn't have got in this mess. She probably thought that Eileen and Eric were helping her; and not just themselves. Eileen was concerned because I still had a grievance against her. Eric was concerned because Kathy's position was at risk; and that in turn would have meant his own position would have been at risk. And you don't see many jobs advertised for a £44,000 a year coffee drinker. Una must have thought she had died and gone to heaven when all these people seemed to want to help her when she thought she was in trouble for assaulting me. She was never in trouble for that at all, but some people were happy to let her think otherwise. She was set up. Quite a long paragraph this, isn't it!

What's more interesting, however, is that, officially Mark Toole believed these four women were telling the truth. So if he was to discover at the tribunal that they had lied, officially he should be surprised. He might even say that they would have to be sacked if they had lied. He might even say that I should be reinstated if they lied. Also officially, he is supposed to think that these women really thought that they had convinced him that they were telling the truth, and that they still think that. Officially the women still don't know that he knew they were lying. But of course, they've all read my blog, and their lawyer has as well. He even sends highlights from it to the tribunal! Officially, Mark would have to show a desire to discover the reason for them all lying, because officially he sees no reason why they should lie.

At some point, and it could be sooner than they think, this house of cards is about to collapse, and it will be interesting to see how they all react when the pressure increases. Some shaky friendships might also collapse as people learn who their real friends were. What may have seemed like a good idea at the time may now seem foolhardy. Mark must be shitting himself that Una or someone else will admit that they lied, but that they were told to, and that it would be okay. A massive can of worms then opens up. Who told them to lie? Who is the originator of the lie? If, when Una takes the stand, she insists she didn't lie, despite all of the evidence showing she did, the tribunal may lose patience with her. I just don't think Una has the mental dexterity to pull it off. If I was in her position, and I doubt if I ever would be in such a position, I would have to tell the truth, including the names of those who had put me in this awkward position.

I've not even got to my second interesting thought yet. More later...

Saturday, 17 September 2011
Lets look at this positively; I'm drinking far less than I was a few months ago; I don't have those very strong urges to drink any more; When I see my doctor next week, my drinking will hopefully be back to where it was when I last saw him, so he will be none the wiser and will still think I'm a model patient; he'll have the result of my Liver Function Test which is bound to show that my liver is in a much healthier condition; he will hopefully refer me to a psychologist soon.

When I have a drink now, it's mainly because I fancy a drink, and not because I'm feeling anxious. At least that's what I think. I'm still drinking more than before the bullying started, but that might partly be because I'm stuck at home all day and night. I'm not living the life that I had then.

Around the same time that the bullying began, my gambling habit gradually went out of control too. I would estimate that I've lost about £200,000 in the past six years. I think it's fair to say I'm not very good at it. But it does take my mind off stuff. Alcohol and gambling is a bad combination. Your judgement goes out the window when you drink a litre of whisky a day.

I believe the reason I turned to alcohol and gambling to distract me from the bullying is due to the nature of the work I did. A large part of my job was solving problems connected with computer systems. Problems with computers are resolved by troubleshooting. It's a systematic process whereby you find the cause of the problem, and then remove it. Computers are largely predictable because they work within a set of rules. People, however are are far less predictable, especially when they are allowed to break the rules, as was the case of Kathy and a number of colleagues. The problem people were there for everybody to see, but there was nobody prepared to sort them out. Kathy wouldn't try to control her problem staff, because that would be seen as admitting that she recruited problem staff. Yet she would gladly have a go at me for the most absurd reasons. That was because she didn't recruit me; and I was male. And there was nobody willing to control Kathy. I gave her several opportunities to change her behaviour; but she took none of them. She will never learn!

Thanks for reading; I couldn't have managed this without you.

Wednesday, 14 September 2011
It's a lot easier going back up the graph than it was getting down. I feel slightly guilty that I'd told my GP and my SMW that I'd reached the required level of alcohol, and now I'm at double that level.

A week ago I felt I had it cracked. It was just so unfortunate that I had to meet that person on Friday. But I always knew that I was going to have to deal with difficult situations. I didn't deal with that one particularly well.

I've now had four days when I've been over drinking, not because of anxiety, but as a reaction to having screwed up on Friday. I might even be using it as an excuse to drink more. How would I know?

There's been a big drop in my motivation, even though it was artificial motivation in the first place. Right now, I'm thinking about how my graph line should start to drop this Friday because last Friday was so bad, and how that may give me a boost. Basically, I'm struggling to find a genuine reason to care. And the best I can come up with is that I'm letting my SMW down, and my graph looks bad. I also liked not having to buy so much whisky.

That reminds me, I need to get more whisky today. Does anybody need anything from the supermarket?

Tuesday, 13 September 2011
I hope you all had a good weekend.

It was all going so well...

Anyhoo, there's no point in giving up. But it will get worse before it gets better. Friday's anxiety was caused by me having to leave home to meet with someone. My over drinking since then wasn't due to anxiety, but I was half thinking of giving up and half thinking of having a break. So I've decided to get back on the wagon. I hope the recent increase in alcohol won't cause the urges to strengthen again.

The increase in alcohol was matched with an increase in all of my other addictions. In fact there's hardly anything I do that's not part of an addiction of some sort.

My eating has got worse in recent weeks due to an almost complete lack of motivation to make anything to eat. I mainly eat snacks now, especially toast. There's a benefit to eating toast all the time; I can use the same plate repeatedly without having to wash it. I just wipe the crumbs off with my hand, and hey presto! Washing dishes, along with any other type of washing has become a huge problem. I'm a real catch for any women reading this! Please form an orderly queue.

Saturday, 10 September 2011
I fell asleep during my 6th drink. That's probably for the best, because I would have kept on drinking until I fell asleep anyway. I woke up at 1:20 am, and as usual, I have no desire to drink after I have slept.

As soon as I awoke, I realised that I had over gambled, and I had still to find out if I had won or lost. I have often woke up dreading to find out how much I've lost the previous night. Sometimes it was thousands of pounds. This time I was lucky and won at tennis, but lost at horses. However, I am fully aware that, in the long run, I lose lots of money. But that doesn't seem to matter to me. Losing thousands of pounds might be depressing, but it doesn't cause me to suffer from depression. It might cause other people depression though. Having my job and my livelihood stolen from me causes me depression. I suppose it might not cause other people to suffer from depression. But my job was everything to me. Everything!

The people who did this to me didn't just steal my job; they stole my life. Although I'm still alive, they have virtually murdered me. At times it's worse than being dead. And for that, they must be punished.

I also over drank last night, although it could have been much more if I hadn't fallen asleep. Part of me is disappointed that I've slipped back. Part of me is disappointed that I'm not more disappointed, and that I will possibly go back to drinking more. I don't feel anxious just now, but I never do at 4:45 am.

There will be football on the telly today, and I fully intend to drink and gamble as I watch it. Then we'll see what happens.

At 6:26 yesterday, I said "Murray is now winning. Later I will discuss this." There was something that I thought I should explain. I'll try to remember what it was, and report it.

Last week, I said I'd report on my progress of trying to control my self harming. It hasn't gone particularly well, and I'm not sure if it's helpful to report it here. However, I would not wish to give the impression that my self harming is out of control to a point that it is putting my life in danger. Far from it! That's not the reason for me doing it. I think some people might do it for completely different reasons, and injure themselves far more seriously than I do. I don't even particularly enjoy the short term pain as I do it. Others might. For me, it's a distraction, or a reaction to anxiety. Some people might bite their nails when they are anxious. My self harming is similar to that. Other people self harm because of suicidal urges. I don't. Some people may do it as a form of self punishment. I don't.

Friday, 9 September 2011
I'm sure there will be some people who read this each day hoping that I will fail. That's just how some people are. Well, those people might be cheered up by learning that I am having a BAD day. It's not even 4 pm, and I'm already on my second drink. I feel engulfed by anxiety.

It's now 5:18 pm, and I'm now on my fourth drink. I thought about stopping measuring, but decided I should stick with it. I'm hoping that I can get back on track tomorrow, and that this will just be a temporary blip. My main fear is that it will cause me to lose a lot of money gambling. Self harming is also bad. I trust my spelling and grammar are okay. Drink is having more effect on me than previously because I've reduced so much.

Nadal to beat Roddick
Murray to beat Isner

We'll see.

6:19 pm 5th drink and Isner is winning, and I'm big on Murray. Far bigger than I should be, even if Murray was winning!

6:26 pm Murray is now winning. Later I will discuss this. I'm now considering measuring two drinks at the same time. Currently, I stand to lose £717 if Murray loses this match. Alcohol influences your judgement significantly. I cannot afford to lose £700.

6:53 pm Luckily Murray is still winning, but due to my lack of sleep and the whisky I've drunk, I'm feeling very tired. I would probably have fallen asleep if not for my blog.

7:30 pm 6th drink. I've increased my stakes and stand to lose £923 if Murray loses. Confidence caused me to increase my stake again. Isner is now fighting back. This is a common pattern for my betting.

Wednesday, 7 September 2011
I think I might know why I had a 'bad spell' a couple of weeks ago, because I could be on the verge of another one, even though I was feeling quite good just a few hours ago. I was feeling pleased last night because it was another night when I had managed to distract myself from thinking about alcohol. It wasn't a huge issue. I had one drink, and that was mainly because there was football on the TV. I'm okay with that because that is what I would have done before the problems of bullying began. And that's how I hope to be again. I had no great desire to have a second drink, even though that would have been okay too.

I was starting to think that my drinking was becoming easier to control. It felt as though I was experiencing another sudden drop in my need for alcohol. Then I woke up in the middle of the night again, and I started thinking that even though I may be conquering the alcohol problem, my life is still shit. But now it's just shit without alcohol to make it feel less like shit, or to take my focus off how shit my life is.

On top of that, there are other aspects of my life that are getting worse. Things that are arguably more serious than my alcohol problem ever was. I've put every ounce of my motivation into the alcohol problem, and that's heightening other problems, and other addictions.

My priority has to be the Employment Tribunal case, even though when I concentrate on it, it encourages the intrusive thoughts to return. And now there's no alcohol to drown them out. Justice is essential, and the guilty need to be punished!

Tuesday, 6 September 2011
I have no doubt in my mind that creating this page and updating my graph each day has helped me to reduce my alcohol intake far more quickly than any other way possible for me. In fact, I may not have been able to have done it at all otherwise. That's why the medical professionals encourage you to tell people once you have made the decision to cut back. It's more difficult to do it on your own. It helps to receive encouragement from others. Although no readers have actually contacted me about this alcohol diary page, I am aware that there are a lot of people following it; and that is encouragement enough. It feels like I'm not doing it on my own.

However, last night there was an example of where this page was unhelpful. I had a drink that I would not have had were it not for this page. I realise that that may sound stupid. That's because it is.

Last night, I had managed to distract myself from thinking about alcohol. Then at 10:45 pm, I realised that I hadn't drunk any, and that I didn't have any notion to drink. It should have been an alcohol free day. But, because my graph plots my drinking in a rolling seven day period, I was concerned about how my graph would appear next week. There would have been a pressure on me not to drink next Monday, otherwise my graph line would have gone up, and it would have given the appearance that I was failing. I decided to have 5 cl of whisky that I didn't particularly want, especially as it was so late.

In future, if I don't want a drink, I will not have a drink; regardless of what effect it may have on my graph. If I ever drink again for fear of how my graph may look, then I will have to stop producing my graph on this page.

Monday, 5 September 2011
I have a fairly stable strategy for drinking now. While it is not perfect, it shows a measure of control. Basically, I drink 10 cl on weekdays, and 15 cl on Saturday and Sunday. That makes 80 cl, which is just 10 over the limit. Hardly any at all! But the big problem is going to be the two days per week I'm not supposed to drink at all. I've been thinking about how I might tackle this, although I'm not really sure how important it is. I might begin with two weekdays when I only drink 5 cl.

I can't help feeling that I've reached the stage where I'm splitting hairs. I think I'll try to stick with the 10/15 plan for a while.

I'm pretty sure that if I was to stop recording my daily drinking, I would drink more. There would be no need to measure it, so I'd pour more into my glass, and I'd have more glasses. If it was left to my brain and my body to tell me when I had had enough to drink, I would eventually be back at a bottle a day.

The alcohol and depression problems are like the chicken and egg. The medics say that I need to fix the alcohol problem before they can fix the depression. I'm thinking that if I wasn't suffering from depression, and if my lifestyle was back to normal, I wouldn't be tempted to drink so much.

Sunday, 4 September 2011
I'm having another Liver Function Test (LFT) this week. The test provides numerical results for three parameters. As you might expect, my tests have shown 'abnormal' results due to over drinking for several years. One parameter which has a normal range of 0 to 42, showed 167 in my test in May. Although it is bad, it's not as bad as it might have been. Once again, I've been lucky.

I would like to see a significant improvement in my results. I would see that as another reward for my efforts. I think it also shows an improvement in my depression that I actually care.

Another tip for doctors: Pills shouldn't be round; they should be triangular. Then when they fall on the floor, they won't roll under the washing machine. I would estimate that every household in the UK has a small pharmacy under the washing machine and other difficult to move white goods. By using triangular pills, the NHS could soon make enough savings to pay off the national debt.

Saturday, 3 September 2011
It sounds daft, but I regret not having drunk more last week. Sure, it may have benefited my body slightly, but it is messing with my mind and my attempts to reduce my drinking long term. I had three consecutive days without alcohol last week. That took a super human effort. How on earth did I manage to do that? I can't compete with the likes of that. I'm just a mere mortal.

I'm having a bad period with regard to alcohol. At least that's what I keep thinking. Instead, what I should be thinking is that I'm doing well. Last week was just a blip.

I've now developed a fear of alcohol free days. I'm supposed to have two each week. That's unnatural, surely? How many smokers do you know of who take two days off each week? And the recommended weekly level for smoking is zero!

Now, if they were to raise the recommended level for alcohol, it would immediately mean that lots of us with a problem, would no longer have the problem. That's another one of my tips for doctors. I've got more where that came from.

I think my alcohol has bottomed out. I'm not over drinking on any day. It's just that I drink too many days.

Maybe I should just have a fag to calm my nerves.

Note: In the UK, a fag is a cigarette!

Friday, 2 September 2011
Some of you would have noticed last weekend that I wrote a piece about depression, and later deleted it. I actually did it twice, and removed it both times. I wasn't sure that I was putting my point across clearly, or that I even understood what I was saying. Not that that normally worries me!

To summarise, what I was trying to say was that depression comes in waves. You can have a bad day followed by three good days followed by ten bad days, etc. On top of that, your own assessment of what's good and bad may change too.

I experienced a year of depression that I would describe as 'black'. That is how I thought of it at the time. I was in a very dark place where I had continuous and very detailed thoughts of killing people and myself. I received a form of relief from doing that. It was as if I was acting out a form of justice in my head to relieve myself from the outrageous injustice I had been subjected to by Stirling University and its employees. Justice has always been extremely important to me.

It might be going too far to say that I enjoyed having the thoughts, but they at least filled the time as I lay awake every night, and I received a feeling of what it might be like to accomplish revenge and to punish the wrongdoers. And that offered me a sense of relief until I needed to have my next thought. It was another addiction.

Originally the thoughts were solely about suicide and all of the possible ways I could do it, and the pros and cons of each method; and I would visualise me using each method and try to imagine how I would feel with it. Then I realised that suicide alone didn't address the issue of justice; it just increased the injustice. That's why my thoughts began to include me first killing others.

For several months, I was in control of these fantasies in the same sense that I was in control of my drinking. What I mean is that it was me having the thoughts, and I was choosing to have them. I was the source of the content of the thoughts. Then I lost control of the thoughts. I was having the same thoughts, but I was not choosing to have them. At first that probably wasn't much of a problem. Then it became a real problem because I felt as though they were beginning to burn a hole in my brain, and they kept popping into my head when I was trying to get to sleep or concentrate on something else. These are the 'intrusive thoughts' that I referred to earlier in my diary.

I said earlier that I didn't know if the anti-depressant pills are having any effect on me; and in a way that's not all that important. What's important is that I'm not feeling as bad or worse. Since my dosage was increased in July, I have had a relatively good period. However, that coincides with my period of reduced drinking and of focusing on the challenge of reducing my drinking.

Last Thursday, I felt my mood drop for the first time in two months. I don't know why. I had just been given sleeping tablets; I had enjoyed a good night's sleep; I was told I'd be referred to a psychologist; and I'd successfully reduced my alcohol intake to the required level; yet I was feeling more gloom than I had for ages.

My doctor said that when I enter a 'bad spell', I should remember that it is temporary and remind myself of a 'good spell'. As he was telling me that, I thought it made sense. I don't know how long the bad spell lasted, but I think the worst of the gloom had lifted by Wednesday. I think what the doctor said makes more sense during a good spell.

What's important though, is that I am now able to say that it was a bad spell that was nowhere near as bad as last year. So as well as the good spells improving, the bad spells are improving too.

On the subject of alcohol; I feel I would benefit by having a holiday from the pressure of thinking about it. But that's the 'devil's talk'. Although I was trying not to create a target for myself, I may have done it anyway by reaching 70 cl. And I may have done that before I was really ready to. But that may be more 'devil's talk'.

I have no intention of allowing my drinking to increase to silly levels again, but I think I may have to live with having to see it increase a bit, at least temporarily. I don't envisage me going above a litre per week, but I feel I may have to give myself that leeway, and remove the target. The main problem is that I've told the doctor that I've reached the required level. It would be embarrassing to have to tell him I've increased it again.

Thursday, 1 September 2011
Although I still feel my graph makes my current drinking look worse than it really is, I must admit there is a problem. I have had drinks in each of the past two nights that I wouldn't have had last week, and it's not because the urge was stronger this week, but my willpower has diminished. That's something I obviously have to deal with. However, the two drinks I'm referring to were, as you might expect, the last drinks each night. So obviously I had drunk alcohol before I decided to take those additional drinks. My point is that alcohol weakens your resolve not to over drink. And that weakening of resolve increases after you have reduced your alcohol intake over a period, because it takes less alcohol to make you tipsy and to influence the quality of your decisions.

All of what I said above supports what my SMW said when she advised me to try to cut my alcohol to zero. However, I am not prepared to consider that yet. I'm going to continue to try to control my drinking around my current levels. Being aware of the problem may help. We'll see.

On a more positive note, my graph should fall tonight due to me having drunk 20 cl last Thursday. It would be disappointing if I was to drink any more than 10 tonight.

I wonder if the lack of sleep yesterday also influenced my anxiety and the early urge to drink. I also over gambled and self harmed yesterday. It's all a vicious circle!

Because I live with it every day, it's hard for me to gauge how bad my self harming has become. Ruth saw my injuries yesterday, and by her reaction I could tell that it has got a lot worse recently. On the other hand, I think it would be natural for anyone who doesn't understand self harming to over react. It's a bit like being the passenger in a car that you feel is being driven too close to the car in front; you push your feet down on imaginary brakes. You don't have control, and you have doubts that the driver is in control. Having said all that, I am aware that I am doing it more often. There's an immediate general relief from anxiety as I do it, but there is also a local pleasant calmness that follows some time later. It's like a 'buzz'. However, I recognise that it is wrong, just as over drinking and over gambling is wrong.

There was a joke that did the rounds when I was at school. A man was repeatedly banging his head against a wall. His friend asked him why he did it. He said that it felt good when he stopped. Somehow the joke doesn't seem as funny now.

Wednesday, 31 August 2011
I'm writing this at 4:30am having had no sleep. So what went wrong? The only thing I remember doing differently was I switched the TV off. That was me trying to be normal. A touch of over confidence after a good sleep week maybe. I usually fall asleep as I watch TV, and then it goes into standby mode after a while. By switching it off, I was inviting my mind to fill up with thoughts. But I can't even remember what I was thinking about. I should probably ask my GP if watching TV to get to sleep is bad for you long term. I should maybe count sheep jumping over a fence backwards; 1000, 999, 998, 997, zzzzzzzzz......

Maybe I was thinking about my graph line going up, and how disappointed my readers will be with me? Can I ask you all to please not panic. I think this is just a temporary issue due to me overshooting last week. So it's not that I'm doing badly this week, it's just that I did too well last week. At least I hope that's what it is. My daily drinking amounts from last Wednesday are: 0, 20, 10, 15, 15, 10, 10. Those are not the type of numbers that should cause panic or sleeplessness. Not yet.

I'm sort of getting used to the 5 cl glass of whisky.

As well as this page helping with my alcohol problem, I feel it is also helping my depression. In fact, creating the blog last year was probably a big factor in keeping me alive. It has given me something to concentrate on, and that's very important. My concentration has generally been awful since March 2010. And sometimes it's even worse than awful!

I'm off to watch telly and try to get some sleep...

I think I managed to get about thirty minutes sleep. The idea I had about sleeping in my bed is back on hold.

My Substance Misuse Worker is very impressed with my progress. She didn't think I'd reach this level so soon either. It is possible that I am very special. I've always thought I was special. I'm so special that she doesn't need to see me any more. But I have her phone number if I feel I need help. She recognises that my mental health should improve, and I would receive some relief once my Employment Tribunal case brings justice. She thinks I will also benefit from seeing the psychologist.

I've noticed that my level of anxiety increases whenever I return home from seeing any of the medical professionals. My meetings with them are not stressful, so I don't know what the cause of that is. I wonder if it happens when I get home from the supermarket too. I will need to take note. What I mean by this is that it is only 2:30pm, yet I am already craving alcohol about five hours before the urge would normally have reached this strength.

I think I have been very lucky to have dealt with the alcohol problem when I did. I think it would only have been a matter of time before I would have had the uncontrollable urges all day long, or have died simply due to alcohol alone.

If I die as a result of the mental damage caused by University of Stirling, I believe that someone would have to face charges of manslaughter or some other criminal charge; particularly since the mental torture they put me through came about as a result of me blowing the whistle on their neglect in their duty of care. The evidence is overwhelming.

Tuesday, 30 August 2011
If I have a drink either today or tomorrow, I will go above the 70 cl line. I must admit that I feel uneasy about the prospect of alcohol free days, even though I had three in a row last week. Last week I was highly motivated to get below 70 cl. I'm not sure if this week I'm as motivated to stay below. There's a feeling that I've achieved what I set out to achieve; I got to 70 cl. I wasn't really thinking that that has to be the limit forever. I mean, lets be realistic!

In my favour, I don't get much of an urge to drink now before 5pm on weekdays. Also the urge begins to lessen after 11pm. So, the 'urge' period now only usually lasts for about four or five hours. And even when the urge is at its strongest, it is not nearly as strong as it was three weeks ago. I can pinpoint when the urge became more controllable; Friday 12 August, but I still don't know what caused that. Although the urge became stronger after that, it has never returned to the previous strength. Maybe I'll have another eureka day when my current urges weaken again.

I had my first unbroken night's sleep in ages last night. That makes such a difference. Tonight I have to try without a sleeping pill again. Gradually I'm to take the pills less frequently until hopefully I don't need them. I was given 14 pills, and I'll need to make them last at least four weeks. I'm not sure if I would be given any more, because they are very addictive. This morning I even considered the possibility of going to bed in a couple of weeks on a night I take a pill. I have developed a mild phobia about my bed because of the memories of lying awake in it every night thinking. I even avoid going into my bedroom because I feel a slight discomfort when I look at my bed. But, in the long run, it would surely help my sleep if I got back into bed.

To anybody reading this, it probably doesn't seem like much, but it is actually a big step for me to even consider the possibility of using my bed again. I will probably try and break myself in by lying on my bed for a short spell during the day. I mean, for God's sake; it's just a bed!

If it doesn't work, it's not as if it's irreversible. I can still go back to my couch. At least I will have tried.

Self harming
I'm pretty sure that this page has helped me reduce my alcohol intake. For that reason, I'm going to try to use it to limit the damage of another of my addictions; my self harming. I won't get into specifics, but I aim to restrict my self harming to specific parts of my body. 80 percent of it is on those parts anyway, but I would like to stop doing it on other areas. There is no way I could stop it completely any time soon, but I think if I can apply a measure of control with it, it might encourage more control. Once a week, I'll briefly report my progress on this. If I feel it's not helping, then I'll stop reporting.

Monday, 29 August 2011
In Scotland, we have a saying "Painting the Forth Bridge". It describes a task which, as soon as it is complete, has to start again. That's how I feel just now with the task of reducing my alcohol intake. I get through one day of trying to keep a lid on it, and then I have to deal with the next one. There are no holidays, and no time off for good behaviour.

I've mentioned a few times that I think I have a fairly mild alcohol problem because I don't have the urge to drink in the morning that most alcoholics have. And now the urges I have are not as strong as they were up to a couple of weeks ago. It must be extremely difficult for those people who have those strong urges during every waking moment. I take my hat off to those who have managed somehow to deal with them.

I had a fairly good night's sleep last night without a pill, and I get to take another sleeping pill tonight. Isn't life good!

I'll have to go to the supermarket today. Does anybody need anything?

Sunday, 28 August 2011
I mentioned earlier about my problem with remembering to eat. The problem is worse at the weekend. During weekdays there are triggers that 'remind' me to eat. These are usually TV programmes that come on at the same time each day. A large part of my day is structured by TV. I associate programmes with 'time to eat'. But at weekends the TV scheduling is different, and so there are no triggers to remind me to eat. Eating food is completely different to drinking alcohol. I don't need to be reminded to drink alcohol.

Doctors should work out what it is that causes me to forget to eat, and apply that same principle to my memory for drinking alcohol. Simples!

On the other hand, I could do with losing a few stones. I don't look anorexic yet.

Tonight I'm not to take a sleeping pill. Here's another one of my tips to doctors. I'm going to probably have difficulty sleeping tonight, not just because I'll be without the drug that has put me to sleep over the past four nights, but also because I won't have gone through the ritual of taking the pill which I thought was going to give me sleep. It would have been useful for my prescription to have contained a 'fifth pill' which, unknown to me, was fake.

Saturday, 27 August 2011
I enjoyed another good night's sleep that lasted almost six hours. My GP told me that any sleep that is alcohol induced is poor quality sleep. I don't know if it's the same for sleep that is induced by pills. But if you've been deprived of sleep for a long time, you will take whatever sleep you can get. It was also six hours when I didn't have to battle with intrusive thoughts, and six hours when I couldn't take part in any of my addictions.

However, it's not that simple. Sleeping pills are addictive, and I can't keep taking them every night. I think they've to be used in a way that trains the body to sleep naturally. So tonight I'll take my fourth pill, then I need to reduce to alternate nights.

I drank 10 cl last night. That means I borrowed 2 cl from today's drink 'allowance'. That leaves 20 that I could drink and still be within limits. This gives me a dilemma; should I use all 20, or should I only use some of it, and spread my drinking more evenly over the week. Add to the equation that it is Saturday with early afternoon football on the telly.

You might sense that I am using the 70 cl weekly limit as a minimum as well as a maximum. In other words, you might think that my intention is to drink all of my allowance instead of reducing my drinking further. You are a very tough audience; please give me a break! I'm trying to have a period of consolidation. There are probably loads of people going around who unknowingly drink above the recommended limit every week. They might not even know about any such limit. Why don't you have a go at them instead? Sheesh!

Friday, 26 August 2011
I had 20 cl last night. Just four weeks ago, I would have been proud to have drunk so little. But now, 20 cl is a lot for one night; too much.

If I drink five days a week, that gives me an average of 14 cl for each day. If I use 20 in one day, then that leaves only 50 for the other four days, or an average of 12.5. No matter how you look at the numbers, it's hard to stay below 70 cl in a week.

Tonight, I have 8 cl to drink. If I drink any more than that, I will go back above the 70 cl mark. I'd prefer to stay below the line, but I think I could make it up tomorrow.

I regret having drunk so much last night. Excuses: I had gone three days without, and there was lots of football on the telly.

Ruth is very supportive of me cutting back on alcohol, but when I told her that I was keeping a record of how much I was drinking each day for my SMW, she called it 'cheating'. I knew exactly what she meant, and she didn't mean I was 'cooking the books' in any way. What she meant was that I was doing it for the wrong reasons. She had asked me repeatedly to cut back, but I wouldn't. Then my doctor asked me to cut back. I said I would try, but didn't; well at least not very hard.

My psychiatrist asked me how I had managed to cut down to a bottle a day from more than a litre a day. It was a question that I'd asked myself before, and I couldn't answer her. But I knew it had taken no conscious effort on my part. When I thought about it later, I realised that I had just been drinking what my body thought it needed, and it had gradually needed less, and then stuck at a bottle a day.

There was also a spell when the stress was at its peak, when I have no idea how much I was drinking, but I do remember being drunk fairly early in the afternoon. When you drink as much as I was drinking, it takes much more than a normal amount of alcohol to get you drunk. That's why the amount you drink keeps increasing in order to attain the same level of woosieness. So it's possible that I was drinking even more at that time.

So I have somehow managed to go from over a litre a day, and possibly more, to a bottle a week. But Ruth is right; I have not consciously done it for the right reasons. I care far more about the effect the whisky I drink tonight will have on my graph, than it will have on me. So when you see yourself as less significant than a graph line, is it any surprise that you want to immerse yourself in alcohol?

What has happened to me is happening to people all over the world who are targets for bullies and their sycophants.

Thursday, 25 August 2011
Three days in a row without alcohol takes me below the 70 cl barrier. I decided not to have a drink because of the risk that I'd have a second one.

If I didn't have a good reason to drink sensibly before, I certainly feel that I do now. I would hate to think that I'd made all that effort for nowt.

I mentioned before that my SMW advises me to stop drinking altogether, but I'm not sure that's necessary for me. People have drink problems for different reasons. Some people are genetically inclined. Mine came about due to bullying that initially caused sleeplessness, and just didn't get dealt with properly by my employers.

I might be in denial, but I think it could be easier for people in my position. I didn't have an alcohol problem for 49 years of my life. Anyway, time will tell.

I had my first proper night's sleep in a very long time. The sleeping pill worked wonders. It's amazing how a little pill like that can make such a difference. The effect of the anti-depressant pills isn't quite so obvious. I'm not even sure if they have any effect at all. The medical staff say that is likely due to the high level of alcohol I was consuming. I'm not even sure what effect they are supposed to have. I've been taking them for ages, but Stirling University still hasn't given me my job back and compensated me for the damage they caused my health, and the bullies and corrupt individuals have still to receive their punishment.

Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Yesterday was my second consecutive day without alcohol. I'm just showing off now!

I can't remember when the last time was that I had two days in a row with no alcohol.

In the last six days I've drunk 63 cl. That means I can have up to 7 cl today, and be within the weekly limit set by my doctor, and I will have had the two days off that are also required.

I've had no withdrawal symptoms since I last drank on Sunday; no shakes, no hallucinations, and no DTs. And the increasing urge to drink alcohol from the afternoon onwards was no different to any other day.

My doctor is mighty impressed by my efforts. Although he didn't actually say the words model patient, we both knew that was what he was thinking! I too am very surprised that I've managed to reduce my intake so much and so quickly. I didn't expect to reach this level before the end of the year.

As a reward, my doctor is referring me to a psychologist, and he has prescribed me some sleeping tablets. He also reassured me about the worrying news I received last Wednesday that briefly effected my drinking.

I have to make sure it hasn't been a waste of effort by allowing it to creep back up again.

Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Yesterday was another day free from alcohol (0 cl). It wasn't as easy as the last one though.

I don't think I ever suffer from withdrawal symptoms, but I'll look out for any today. It's a question that comes up with the medical staff. I described 'shaky hands' I had after a day without alcohol to one of them, and they thought it was a withdrawal symptom, while I was pretty sure it wasn't. I firmly believe it was just nervousness caused by a very stressful situation. The fact that I hadn't drunk the previous day was just a red herring. The reason I didn't drink was because I was aware that the following day was going to be very stressful.

Some people do get the shakes and hallucinations after a brief period without alcohol, but my gut feeling is that I don't. It's now 9:30 am, and I feel no different to how I feel at the same time any other day following a night when I have had alcohol. It would feel completely alien for me to drink alcohol at this time in the morning. Unlike most alcoholics who wake up with a tendency to want to drink, my need or desire for alcohol reverts to zero when I wake up (even at 1 am), and builds up gradually from the afternoon. I will note if the build up differs today.

It's strange, but up until about ten weeks ago, I occasionally forced myself to drink when I didn't want or need any. It was causing me heartburn, and it was also causing an unpleasant taste or feeling in my throat. But I was concerned about how I would feel if I didn't drink enough, to such an extent that I would describe it as panic drinking.

My weight is continuing to fall. The recommended daily calorie intake for a man is 2500. When my drinking was at its peak, I was consuming that number of calories from alcohol alone. Now my daily calorie intake from alcohol is only about 300. I don't eat much at times, and there are three reasons for that. Sometimes I completely forget to eat for a day or more. Sometimes I don't have the motivation to make anything to eat, and sometimes I have no appetite. I also caught myself preparing to make something to eat, and then realised that I had just eaten. It's as though my stomach and my brain have stopped talking to each other.

Monday, 22 August 2011
It's 3 in the morning again and I've been awake for over an hour. I read through my alcohol diary. Who would have thought that there would be so much to say about my circumstances? The weird thing is that I'm generally a very private person; and yet here I am making all of my innermost thoughts available for the world to see. Well, not actually ALL of them. There are certain things I have to hold back on, but I never imagined I'd be so open. You would never get me on the likes of Big Brother, for example.

As promised, I've thought about why I am still drinking, even though I no longer have the same uncontrollable urge to drink. It didn't seem logical. Firstly, it's possible that it is logical, but that I just don't have sufficient knowledge to allow me to determine what is logical and what's not. Secondly, although the urge isn't so strong just now, there is still an urge; and the strength of that urge must still be greater than the urges that a normal person experiences. Thirdly, I drank alcohol before I had an alcohol problem, and sometimes there is an urge to drink in situations when I would normally have drunk. Fourthly, I'm bored, and drinking helps reduce the boredom. Fifthly, I'm still not convinced that all of these explanations aren't simply excuses, because logically I know that alcohol is damaging me. Sixthly, when I set out to reduce my alcohol intake, I never expected to have reduced it to this level so soon, and maybe I'm taking my foot off the brake a little, as some form of reward. At times I feel that my other addictions may be more serious. Also, I still feel it is inevitable that at some point I will choose to die, and that all of this is for nothing. I'm trying to be as honest as possible, because there really is no point in bullshitting.

I still don't fully understand for sure why I no longer have the uncontrollable urges. Might they come back? What caused them to stop? Am I just imagining they stopped? Did I just imagine that I ever had them?

I've reduced my drink measurements from 7cl to 5cl. I hoped I wouldn't notice the difference, but I do. It's huge. It's not fooling me at all. I'll stick with it for a while, but it sort of defeats the purpose if instead of drinking two glasses of 7cl, I drink three glasses of 5cl.

It's really difficult to see how I'm going to reduce my drinking this week compared with last week. I think I'm going to have to seriously think about having a drink free day. I think it would have to be a weekday. Which one? Should I just wait and see which day I feel least anxious?

It's strange that I've not even considered the possibility that my drinking might even increase. Is that arrogance?

Sunday, 21 August 2011
I found a website containing The Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionairre. My dependence was mild to moderate (20). I scored low because many of the questions ask about how you feel in the morning when you wake up, and luckily I never have issues with alcohol in the morning. Having reduced my intake, my dependence is now mild (14).

Another way to gauge dependency is to ask yourself "If I was low on money, which would I buy; food or alcohol?" A couple of weeks ago, I would definitely have said alcohol. I think I would still say alcohol, but it's not so definite. If I was to run out of milk or bread, I wouldn't make a special journey to the supermarket, but I would if I ran out of alcohol. I would feel extremely anxious if I didn't have alcohol in my home. I must still be anxious because I'm self harming worse than ever, and my gambling is still excessive, and I'm still drinking too much. And I still have other addictive behaviours that I think I use to delay the onset of anxiety, and to prevent the intrusive thoughts.

As I said, the mere knowledge that alcohol is available in my home helps to prevent anxiety. Even though it's in a bottle with a lid, and in my fridge where I can't see it, smell it or taste it, it is still doing me some good. Also, when I do start to feel anxious, by pouring the alcohol into a glass, the anxiety reduces again. By having my whisky sitting in front of me ready to drink, the anxiety reduces again. When I take my first sip, I delay swallowing, and the anxiety reduces again. It hasn't reached my bloodstream or my brain, yet it has already provided a measure of security and comfort merely by anticipation. It's all in the mind.

I'm writing this at 3am. I had about 90 minutes sleep. My doctor can't give me sleeping pills because you can't mix them with alcohol. I think doctors avoid prescribing them for depressed patients because of the risk of overdosing. I wouldn't overdose on pills to attempt suicide because there is far too high a survival rate, and it can make you extremely ill and cause permanent damage. But under the influence of alcohol, your ability to make good decisions may deteriorate. At certain times of the month, I have a stock of anti-depressant pills that could possibly kill me, but I've never been tempted. Well actually, I did once give it a very fleeting thought after a few drinks, but I quickly dismissed it, and I have promised myself that I will never attempt that. It would be an act of utter stupidity, and I like to think that I'm not stupid.

The other thing about sleeping pills is that they can become addictive very quickly. So I have to make do with Horlicks.

I spoke earlier about how financial constraints may force an alcoholic to choose between food and alcohol. It might be considered fairly serious if an individual were to choose alcohol. It would be far more serious if that individual chose alcohol instead of food for their children.

Saturday, 20 August 2011
I had a 7cl glass of whisky at 9:20pm last night. I'm going through a period where the need to drink in the afternoon isn't so strong. That may be because I'm distracting myself with other addictive behaviours. I'm also drinking a lot more slowly. Last night's drink lasted well over an hour; but again I was doing other things to distract me from the drink. Around 11pm, I poured my second 7cl glass of whisky. As usual I added the ice, and allowed time for some of the ice to melt and to lower the temperature of the drink. Eventually, I decided I didn't need the drink, so I put it in the fridge for today. What control!

On the subject of ice, I'm still putting roughly the same amount of ice into my glass, even though I'm pouring only about a third of the amount of whisky into the glass that I used to. So that may also make the drink last longer.

As I said, I don't seem to have the same uncrontrollable urge to drink alcohol at the moment. So you might be wondering why I drink it at all. That is a very sensible and logical question which I can't really answer with logic. All logic tells me that I shouldn't, and I am a very logical person; so why am I still doing it? I think I will have to ask myself this each time I think of having another drink.

I once heard a story about a car passenger who was seriously injured when they got out of a moving car. The car had been driven at over 120 mph, and when it slowed down to 20 mph, the passenger got out because he felt as though it had stopped. Maybe that's what's happening with my drinking. I was used to drinking so much that by comparison it now feels as though I'm cured.

I'm beginning to struggle to see ways of reducing my intake further. I've still a half bottle of whisky to drop per week. I probably used to drink a half bottle in an hour, and thought nothing of it.

I will give further consideration to reducing my glass measurement from 7cl, either to 5 or 6. If I drank five sevenths of my current intake, I would just about reach my goal. I would need to work out how to measure that new amount.

Another thing I may consider is to drink lager instead of spirits. That would mean I'd have to convert all of my figures from centilitres to alcohol units. I'd be allowed 28 units per week. A pint of normal lager is 2.3 units. My 7cl of whisky is 2.8 units. A normal pub measure (2.5cl) of whisky is one unit.

By creating this page, I realise I have put some added pressure on myself. Until now I think it has been a positive pressure. In the two weeks since I created it, it has built up a considerable following each day, and I sense there may be other people with alcohol problems, or friends of such people, who are following it with interest. Although I don't want to let my followers down, I don't want to make it appear that it is any more or less difficult to cut back on alcohol than it really is. And it may be completely different for each individual. I feel that creating this page has helped me to focus on the problem. While I have decided that detox and AA meetings are not for me, I recognise that they can be very helpful to others. I offer my best wishes to readers who, like me, have an alcohol problem.

Friday, 19 August 2011
I'm proud to say that in the last week, I drank less than a litre (98 cl). That is less than one fifth of the amount I was drinking just eight weeks ago, and about one eighth of my intake 18 months ago.

Thursday, 18 August 2011
I had hoped to have drunk only 7 cl last night, but I learned of some disappointing news that knocked my confidence, and I ended up drinking 21. Hopefully I can put it to the back of my mind for a while, and deal with it later.

There's a chance my weekly intake will go below 1 litre tonight, but if it doesn't happen, I won't be too disappointed, because it would likely increase again tomorrow anyway.

Another side benefit to drinking less, that I didn't mention yesterday, is that I have lost about 10 lbs in the past few weeks. Not bad considering I get no exercise at all. I'm still very fat though, and part of that is due to the alcohol inceasing the size of my liver. Eventually, with normal alcohol intake, the liver can repair most of the damage that it has suffered, as long as you stop abusing it in time.

My SMW has invited me to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but I think that would make me want to drink more; both before I went, and after I returned home. I'm assuming they don't allow you to drink while you're there.

Some people don't attend AA because of the stigma attached to over-drinking. Some will attend, but only in a different area from where they live and work. It's sad that society attaches such a stigma to over-drinkers. Alcoholism is a disease, not a crime. Society also chooses to attach stigma to people like me who make claims to Employment Tribunals, and Whistleblowers. We are seen as troublemakers. In my opinion, it would be far more appropriate for society to attach stigma to bullies and to those people who cover up for them, and deliberately damage the victim's health.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Anyone looking at the graph as it is today could be forgiven for assuming that I'll reach 70 cl in just a few days. However, it's not quite as simple as that. Tomorrow night, I expect the graph to show another low point, but from then on it will be very difficult to reduce further. For example, it will be impossible for my weekly consumption to reduce this Friday. That's because I had nothing to drink last Friday, and obviously you can't drink less than nothing.

All is not lost though. There may be a chance that my doctor will consider my drinking level, although still high, is low enough to begin treatment for depression. The reason they need less alcohol to be in my body is because alcohol is a depressant, and it counters the attempts to treat the depression.

I could lie, of course, and tell them I'm drinking less than 70 cl a week. How would they know if they don't read my blog? They take blood tests. These are not like the blood tests that the police would take to see how much alcohol is in a car driver's blood at the time of the test. They are to gauge how well the organs in your body are coping with the alcohol that you have already taken. Some drugs for treating depression can put more stress on these organs, so they have to be sure the organs can cope.

There are side benefits to drinking less. Firstly it is a lot cheaper to drink 1.5 litres than 8 litres per week, and it's a lot easier to get it from the supermarket to your home. It also takes much longer for my kitchen to fill up with empty bottles.

Did you know that people with alcohol dependency do not receive alcohol on the NHS?

Tuesday, 16 August 2011
I realise why my GP said it was best not to set targets for reducing the amount I drink. If you fail to meet a target, you may become despondent and seek comfort from the very thing you are trying to cut back on.

A few days ago I was disappointed that I'd only dropped 3 cl in eight days. Now I can see that in the last 20 days, I have dropped 79 cl. That's more than a bottle of whisky a week. I didn't expect to achieve that in such a short time. It means that I have 'only' 75 cl to drop before I arrive at the required 70 cl maximum per week. I feel there is a real chance that I can do it, but I'm still not going to set any targets of when I'll be able to do it. My instincts tell me that the closer I get, the more difficult it will become.

70 cl is the level that my doctor has said I need to achieve. However, my SMW thinks I should really aim for zero. She doubts that I would be able to stick at 70, and it would creep back up. I'm ignoring that just now because it makes me feel anxious. There are times when I've felt so stressed that I absolutely needed alcohol to calm me. I cannot envisage any time in the future how that will not happen again. The Employment Tribunal case, for example, is very stressful, and there is no end in sight.

Unless something bizarre happens, I fully expect my graph line to drop further tonight. I am making it a rule to never drink more than 35 cl in any weekday. That is providing that nothing especially stressful has happened.

Monday, 15 August 2011
I feel as though I'm beginning to understand what's going on. The medical staff have asked me to focus on reducing my alcohol intake, and I'm doing that and recording my progress obsessively. However, alcohol is just one of many addictions that I've developed in order to cope with my anxiety. And while I'm concentrating on drinking less, the others are getting worse as a direct result. My gambling has been paricularly bad this week, after it had calmed down for a few months.

Around a year ago, I began using non suicidal self harm as a coping mechanism. It's a fairly mild form of self harm, and certainly not life threatening. My doctor is aware of it, and was not unduly concerned as long as the cuts don't become infected. Apparently, it's quite common, but before all the bullying began, I'm pretty sure I would have thought you would have to be mad to harm yourself in this way. But it's another addiction that has worsened this week. It's not something I recommend to anyone else who may be reading this. But if you are, then please be very careful, and please see your doctor.

Apart from self harming, all of my other addictions were things that I did before, but not addictively or excessively. One of the least harmful (I think), is watching TV. It's a distraction. At times it's difficult for me to concentrate, but I can usually watch half hour programmes, or programmes that I can dip in and out of. I rarely attempt to watch a film because I know that my mind will drift off at some point. I used to love reading books, but now even the thought of reading a book literally makes me anxious, because I just know that I would be inviting a whole load of intrusive thoughts to come into my head. Where possible, I avoid all situations that encourage these intrusive thoughts and memories. Ironically, one of the worst situations for me is being in a doctor's waiting room. I can easily envisage that becoming a phobia. I think it would be difficult to treat a phobia of doctors.

The first activity that I had to avoid due to having these intrusive thoughts was running on a treadmill. That was soon followed by any type of running. Then it became any type of exercise that had gaps, such as the gaps between playing points at squash. Then it became just about everything that didn't force me to think about something else. Ironically, the best thing was doing my work at the Uni. And, of course, Mark Toole knew this when he sacked me. This was soon after he told me he knew how he could reduce my stress. Maybe he should have been a doctor!

I think it would be useful to explain a bit about 'intrusive thoughts'. I talked to Ruth about it, and she got the impression that I meant that I was hearing voices or was developing a split personality. That's not the case at all. It's just that I have thoughts that I would prefer not to have, but I can't control them. So I try to avoid situations where they most frequently occur. It is similar to replaying over and over in your head, a song that you heard on the radio. A song that you hate maybe, like "Shuddupa Ya Face" or "Agado". Or if I said to you, "Try not to think of a zebra". What would you think about? The thoughts I have are often violent or suicidal or both. Or they can be memories related to the bullying at Stirling University. They can last anything from a split second to possibly minutes, and are usually accompanied by imagery. For example, I frequently visualise me killing someone and then myself. At times it can be fairly detailed, and other times it can be just a flash. The 'thought' ends as soon as I've killed myself, oddly enough.

If I only get one hour of sleep a day, that leaves another 23 in which I have to try to prevent these thoughts. I stopped going to bed about 15 months ago. I sleep on my couch because there's less space to toss and turn, and because I need the TV to be on. About a month ago, when I was taking a new anti-depressant pill, I enjoyed about ten days when I was sleeping about five hours a night, but that stopped, and I think it's because I'm drinking less alcohol. The intrusive thoughts had reduced too. And while they are still less frequent, there is more time available for them.

There are loads of things that I no longer do because of these thoughts. I just realised recently that I rarely listen to music, because it doesn't engage my mind. I rarely leave my home. I avoid most things related to hygiene too, but I think that is partly due to another problem that has developed. I have very little motivation. That is particularly odd because I used to be extremely motivated. However, this may be gradually improving. For example, a year ago I would never have made an appointment with a doctor or made any type of arrangement a week in advance because, in my mind, there was no next week. Now I make doctor's appointments four weeks in advance, and when I do, there are no doubts in my mind that I will be around to attend them.

Saturday, 13 August 2011
I was right, it was a bad day! I drank 42cl; the most I've drunk in one day since I started my daily diary. I began drinking my first whisky at 4:05pm. I force myself to start drinking only when the minutes are divisible by 5. If I miss it, I need to wait for the next five minutes to come along. Don't ask why; it makes no sense, but I'm pretending I'm in control of my drinking, and if I start drinking at times as random as 4:06, then it shows I've no control. It might sound as though I'm being obsessive, but it's really because I'm trying to avoid being obsessive. It was my Substance Misuse Worker (SMW) who asked me to keep a drink diary, and I think it would appear obsessive to record my drink time as 4:03, so I wait the two minutes. It hasn't killed me yet! On the other hand, my SMW might wonder why I always record my drink times as divisible by 5. She might think it's too much of a coincidence, and that I'm making it up. She might also wonder why most days I drink an amount that is divisible by 7. That's because I know how to measure 7cl. Before I began my diary, I didn't measure, but I would probably have poured about 20cl into my glass. The mere fact that I am putting less in my glass is probably a big factor in my reduction so far. I might try to reduce my drink measurement to 5cl, because I'm sure that would help to reduce my overall intake. The problem with that, however, is that my SMW might think it's too much of a coincidence that my daily start times and my daily drink amounts are both divisible by 5. She might think I'm casually rounding them down, and not taking it seriously enough. She probably has clients who would round 39 down to 30 every day. Alcoholics are prone to lying, you know; even to themselves. Some sign themselves into hospital for ten days for detoxification, and then they get their relatives to smuggle alcohol in for them. I couldn't do the hospital thing. Apart from the detox, the fact that I was locked in a confined space with nothing to do all day but think would drive me crazy. Why can't they detox you under general anaesthetic?

Yesterday was a very good day, at least alcohol wise. I had nothing (0 cl) to drink. Now, you might think that that is a sign of strong self control to resist all of the temptation. But there was no temptation, and no cravings. There was none of the usual build up of anxiety in the afternoon. I had no reason to drink. It was almost as though I was normal. I didn't need a drink, and I didn't even want a drink. Am I cured? Have I invented a cure? Will it make me rich and famous? Will that be stressful?

My SMW might ask me why it is that I can't do that every day. What am I going to tell her? Maybe I should lie and tell her I had 7cl. What time should I tell her I drank it? What's the most believable time? Or maybe the second most believable time? I expect most alcoholics use the most believable time.

I'm predicting that tonight my graph line should drop to a new low. That's because last Saturday I drank a lot (40cl), and that figure will be replaced by the amount I drink today (Saturday). The only possible problem I can see is that generally every day that I drink very little is followed by a day when I drink a lot. But hey, I was a normal drinker yesterday. Maybe it will happen today again...

Thursday, 11 August 2011
Yesterday was a relatively good day, having drunk only 14cl of whisky. I felt a special effort was needed in order to prevent my weekly consumption going back above 2 litres. Two litres per week is one of many milestones I'll have to pass to reach an acceptable level. While I feel a positive sense of achievement as I pass each milestone, I fear there would be an equal or greater sense of disappointment to pass them again in the wrong direction. Even though I have managed to avoid that so far, I can't help but be disappointed that in the past 8 days, my weekly intake has only dropped by 3 cl. It feels like a drop in the ocean compared with the 105cl I've still to lose.

For different reasons, yesterday was a bad day; possibly because I had drunk so little. I'm reminded why I began over-drinking in the first place.

People who are alcohol dependent face different challenges when reducing their intake. Most have to fight the cravings from the moment they wake in the morning. I feel like it's an 'advantage' that I don't have to deal with that problem, especially since I often get as little as one hour sleep each night. I generally don't begin to crave alcohol until late afternoon. Most days I try to delay taking my first drink as long as possible, but I'm not even sure if that helps in the long run. The first sip of the day offers the most benefit. My level of stress and anxiety seems to decrease as soon as I take that first sip.

Some alcohol dependents have an 'advantage' of motivation. They have a genuine reason for wanting to reduce or give up their drinking. My motivation is less clear. Why do I want to drink less? Well, my doctors, my psychiatrist and my substance misuse worker all say it's necessary before they can treat my depression. So why do I want my depression treated? I'm still not even sure I want to live. It's almost as though I'm trying to drink less to please other people. I don't want to disappoint the medical staff who seem to genuinely want to help me. And I think that's why I've created this graph. It's a form of artificial motivation. It's like I've turned alcohol reduction into a competition. The underlying reason for my depression and alcohol dependence hasn't changed. I'm still the victim of injustice by staff at Stirling University who all knew that I was suffering from stress. It's not me who needs treatment; it's them. My depression will be far easier to treat once justice is seen to be done. And it would help if the wrongdoers would come forward and admit to their wrongdoing. I wonder if they have had to turn to alcohol due to feelings of guilt.

I have a strong feeling that today may be a bad day.
Testing, testing, one, two, three...