I thought it might be interesting to show an example of how Stirling University conducts its sham grievance and disciplinary processes. Just days before I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, the Principal wrote to all staff to tell us that the university is “strongly committed to equality and diversity”. In my grievance against Kathy McCabe I gave a cast iron example of Kathy's sex discrimination.
"Kathy has applied considerable gender bias when promoting and recruiting staff, as well as generally managing the team. The role of DBA had been a grade 3 role before I was appointed to it, but I occupied the role for two years and remained on grade 2. During that time, the role’s responsibility had increased significantly, and I was fully competent (confirmed by Kathy) and also working a lot of extra hours. I met with Kathy and requested grade 3, and she refused. I said that I’d need to look around because I knew that my skills and experience would easily attract a higher salary elsewhere. She threatened to have me dismissed. Then during the same meeting, she suddenly agreed to award me grade 3. Since then, I have helped recruit and trained two part time DBAs and effectively taken on the responsibility of Senior DBA, but Kathy has not recognised this by changing my job title accordingly, despite my request. While we were compiling the DBA role description for role evaluation, I included duties that I have been carrying out for roughly seven years. My DBA colleague was very happy to have them included, but Kathy told me to remove them.
In contrast, Kathy has created numerous new posts and awarded them to women she knew personally, and in some cases their competence and attitude have been highly questionable. For example, the System Assistants role description states that five years Oracle experience is required, but that is simply not true. A new position was created about five years ago. It was highly questionable if the new position was required at all, as the existing two System Assistants appeared not to have sufficient work. Restrictions were made to who could apply, and the post was awarded to Selina Gibb who had no Oracle experience, and has only very recently begun to receive some Oracle training after I gave her a SQL course."
On the face of it, this is a very simple example to investigate. You compare the job advertisement with the role description. You ask for evidence of Selina's Oracle experience. You then ask Kathy to explain the fraud. You ask her why a woman with no Oracle experience has occupied this role for six years when she says it requires five years Oracle experience. You include your findings in your report.
However, Stirling University does it differently. The grievance process is concluded with a report by Eileen Schofield that makes no mention of my allegation. It states "At the hearing meeting, KM presented her case rationally and succinctly, and referred to specific examples in the submitted documentary evidence to support her allegations and to refute those made by AG."
It goes on to say "I do not believe AG's grievance claim to be vexatious on the grounds that he and others think he genuinely believes the allegations made are true. However, by reasonable normal standards in light of the evidence submitted, I do not believe the allegations can be substantiated. Therefore I do not uphold AG's grievance claim.
And that's basically it. That's what you get. So, for the Employment Tribunal, I asked the university to provide details of how they arrived at a decision for each of my allegations. Their responses are included in the 'fraudulent document', but this allegation does not appear.
I asked the university to disclose the job advertisement to which Selina applied. It confirms that no Oracle experience was required. I also asked them to disclose the role description for this role, but they have refused to provide it, and said that it is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not. It relates to a role, not a person. So I've had to ask the tribunal to order them to disclose the role description which will clearly demonstrate fraud. I also asked them to explain why this allegation wasn't investigated. They said that it was considered under the heading 'Recruitment Issues' in the fraudulent document, but that section makes no reference to this allegation.
The conclusion for that section is "Allegation not upheld ‐ considered that University processes were in the main adhered to ‐ considered that there were pragmatic reasons for slight deviation from standard process which had been discussed and agreed with HR Services.
That, readers, is how to conduct a sham grievance process. This is typical of the way they have handled all of my allegations. University Secretary, Kevin Clarke says he saw no flaws in the process when he dismissed my appeal. I look forward to cross examining Mr Clarke at the Tribunal. From what I hear, I don't think he is looking forward to it.
This was an allegation which demonstrated sex discrimination when, if you remember, the university was "strongly committed to equality". It also demonstrates Kathy's abuse of the role evaluation process. It also shows that the university is failing to comply with their legal obligation to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. This formed part of another protected disclosure I made to Peter Kemp who was Director of IS at the time. When I cross examine him at the tribunal, I will ask him what he did with all the information I gave him. In my protected disclosure to him in May 2008, I said:
"I voiced my concerns to a senior colleague. Apparently all of the other seniors had no doubt from the moment Kathy had presented her proposals that it was a plan to give Suzie a job in ISD. This colleague was also aware of another post, which very likely had been created specifically for Selina Gibb. My colleague went on to say that in Selina's case, strict rules were applied that prevented people who wanted to apply from doing so, and that it had caused upset with staff in other departments. Interestingly, the framework role outline for Selina's role states that 5 years Oracle experience is required. But Selina didn't have any Oracle experience when she got the job, and as far as I am aware, she still doesn't."
The university has objected to me calling Kevin Clarke, Peter Kemp, Christine Hallett and Gerry McCormac for cross examination.
The university has broken the law several times over. I have informed the MP for Stirling, Anne McGuire, who intends to investigate this matter.
Principal and Vice Chancellor, Professor Gerry McCormac says he knows how to get the best out of people. I lodged formal grievances with him against Kathy McCabe, Eileen Schofield and Kevin Clarke. Contrary to the university grievance procedure, and when the doctor had informed the university that he had considerable concerns about my well being, Gerry refused to action my grievances.
Who the fuck told this clown that he knows how to get the best out of people?
Showing posts with label Kathy McCabe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathy McCabe. Show all posts
Sunday
Thursday
University of Stirling - Callous Bastards
On 24 June 2010, I attended the Occupational Health Department at the university, and met with the doctor for about an hour. The university referred me to him when I told them that my health was suffering due to my manager's bullying behaviour. I had seen him a few times and we had discussed the situation, and that I had lodged a formal grievance against Kathy because the stress I'd suffered for five years had become unbearable. Something had to be done because not only was it damaging my health, but under those circumstances and for that length of time, there becomes a risk that a target of bullying's mind can snap, and they could end up seriously harming the bully, or possibly even killing them. Anybody thinking of becoming a bully should seriously keep that in mind. I have been there, and I often had thoughts of causing Kathy McCabe some serious injury, although they tended to happen when I was away from work. The ironic thing is that my work was the thing that kept me sane. That's what was most damaging when Mark Toole suspended me from work. I had all of the stress, but magnified a thousand times, and in addition I didn't have my work to help counter the stress.
By the time I spoke to the doctor that day, I had long lost the will to live. I had given up on life. In the previous two weeks I had lost £33,000 gambling. That was triggered by David Black changing his account of the Jackie O'Neil incident. It was more than I earned in a year, and I knew I was about to lose my job, but I didn't care. I had no plans to live. Suicide was inevitable. I had also begun self harming earlier that month. I still don't fully understand self harm. It wasn't an attempt to kill myself, but it helped distract me from the pain I was suffering in my head. Not pain like a headache; much worse. The university has seen the evidence of me having lost that money. I had also lost another £10,000 on a single day. That was the day I had a meeting with Mark Toole, and he wouldn't confirm that Kathy was bullying me. That is sheer mental torture! All in all, since the bullying began, I lost over £140,000. Gambling was also a distraction. And sometimes it required a lot to distract me.
On that day in June, I told the doctor that I intended to kill myself. Naturally, he was concerned. The odd thing is, at the time, he was probably more concerned than I was. I'm not even sure why I told him. I told him that I expected that I would be dismissed, and that I could see no future for me. There was no future as far as I was concerned. I had reached the end. I suppose he tried to say the right things, by talking about the possibilities for the future, but I had made my mind up. He advised me to see my GP. But I told him that that was very unlikely. I didn't want to be cured. I wanted to die. He suggested I take my case to the Employment Tribunal, but I'd already thought of that. I thought it was unlikely that I'd make a claim, because I didn't think I'd be around by the time it came to court, but I also knew that it is rare for tribunals to order reinstatement, and I felt that if I didn't have my job, I didn't want to live. My confidence had been completely drained. If I couldn't keep a job after working as hard as I had at the uni, then there was no point.
He knew I had a strong sense of justice, and I think he used that to try to persuade me that I could get justice, and also clear my name. In an earlier meeting with him, I had told him about my idea of creating a web site and making all of the facts public. He thought that that was a good idea too. He strongly urged me to make the claim anyway. I asked him not to tell the university that I planned to kill myself. I also told him that I didn't think there was any point in us meeting again, and we didn't.
That same day, he wrote to the uni, saying:
"It is evident that he feels a very strong sense of injustice about the process to which he has been subject. He also feels that the experience to date has undermined his self-confidence to the extent that he feels he would have considerable difficulty pursuing alternative employment options if his current employment at the University is terminated."
"I have to say that I have considerable concerns about his current state of well-being".
The very next day, Mark Toole dismissed me. Not only did the university know that I was completely innocent, but a doctor had told them of his "considerable concerns" about my well-being. A little thing like my well-being wasn't going to stand in Mark Toole's way though. Even now, when they know that I planned to kill myself, the university is continuing with their completely unbelievable case that the grievance and disciplinary processes were genuine.
I recently asked the doctor a number of questions. Here are his answers which the university has seen.
Would you agree that if, as I described, the university was carrying out sham processes against me while being aware that I was already suffering from stress, it was likely to cause further damage to my health, and that they were likely to have known that?
I agree that were an employer knowingly and deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes it could well prove detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the employee. I would expect most people to be able to appreciate that such a risk would exist.
Can you please confirm that you did not encourage the university to treat me dishonestly, and you did not advise them that it was safe to treat me dishonestly or unjustly and that as a doctor, when you give advice to the university, you must assume that it conducts its procedures in an honest and fair manner, and not in a manner likely to be hazardous to an employee's health. If the university had asked you if it would have been detrimental to my health for me to be subjected to a sham grievance or sham disciplinary process, what would your response have been?
I confirm that I did not encourage the university to deal with you in a dishonest manner, or advise that it would be safe to do so and can assure you that the advice I gave to your employer is exactly as set out in my reports of 13/03/08, 27/05/10 and 24/06/10, copies of which I believe you have received. You are correct that in advising the university I do indeed assume that it behaves honestly and fairly in its dealings with its employees. In the unlikely event that I were asked to advise regarding the likely consequences of subjecting an employee to 'sham' processes I would be bound to advise that to do so could well prove harmful to the employee's health and wellbeing.
If the university is found to have deliberately subjected me to sham processes in order to force me out of the university and I do decide to take my own life, and leave a note specifying that as the sole reason, would you agree that the university and the individuals concerned would share responsibility for my death?
I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do. However I am concerned to hear that you may still be thinking in these terms and if you have not done so I strongly recommend that you arrange to see your GP without delay to discuss these thoughts with them. They may well be able to offer further help and support and even if you consider this to be unlikely I am bound to advise you to make your GP aware of this state of affairs and to seek their professional advice.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to subject me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes while knowing that I was suffering from stress?
In my view there is no legitimate reason for an employer deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes of this kind.
In addition to the sham grievance and sham disciplinary processes I described, I also believe that the university attempted to cover up the sham grievance process by creating and sending a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal giving false details relating to the grievance process. In your opinion, would it be more likely than not that an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process would also be hazardous to my health?
In my opinion had 'sham' processes been applied further falsification, if it occurred, could compound any harm arising from the original processes.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to produce and send a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process while knowing that I was in ill health?
Were it to do so, I cannot personally think of a legitimate reason for an employer to engage in deliberate falsification in such circumstances.
If it is found that the university was deliberately subjecting me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes, what, in your opinion, would have been the purpose of them referring me to the Occupational Health Department without informing you that I was being subjected to sham grievance and disciplinary processes? Do you think it is possible that the university, in those circumstances, may have been attempting to give the appearance that they were fulfilling their duty of care for me?
Again I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do.
In February 2010, I wrote to Professor Christine Hallett who was then Principal of Stirling University. I informed her that my manager's behaviour was damaging my health, and that senior management and the Human Resources department were not taking the issue seriously. It was my hope that Professor Hallett would ensure that my grievance against my manager would be handled fairly. If it is found that I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance process and then a sham disciplinary process, would you agree that Professor Hallett and Stirling University had failed to comply with their legal obligation to care for my health?
See my previous answers; this would however in my view be a matter of legal opinion.
I recently wrote to the university describing the considerable financial hardship I'm now facing. I've had to sell my car, and may soon be faced with the need to sell my house and become homeless, which would undoubtedly worsen my health which they know is poor. I asked them to provide me with a loan of £5,000 to avoid this, but they refused.
I used to work extraordinarily long hours (estimated 4,500 hours) for free because I loved my job, saving the university tens of thousands of pounds, but they wouldn't even loan me £5,000 to help me keep hold of my house, when they know that I'm suffering from depression caused by the torturous treatment I received from them.
Callous bastards!
By the time I spoke to the doctor that day, I had long lost the will to live. I had given up on life. In the previous two weeks I had lost £33,000 gambling. That was triggered by David Black changing his account of the Jackie O'Neil incident. It was more than I earned in a year, and I knew I was about to lose my job, but I didn't care. I had no plans to live. Suicide was inevitable. I had also begun self harming earlier that month. I still don't fully understand self harm. It wasn't an attempt to kill myself, but it helped distract me from the pain I was suffering in my head. Not pain like a headache; much worse. The university has seen the evidence of me having lost that money. I had also lost another £10,000 on a single day. That was the day I had a meeting with Mark Toole, and he wouldn't confirm that Kathy was bullying me. That is sheer mental torture! All in all, since the bullying began, I lost over £140,000. Gambling was also a distraction. And sometimes it required a lot to distract me.
On that day in June, I told the doctor that I intended to kill myself. Naturally, he was concerned. The odd thing is, at the time, he was probably more concerned than I was. I'm not even sure why I told him. I told him that I expected that I would be dismissed, and that I could see no future for me. There was no future as far as I was concerned. I had reached the end. I suppose he tried to say the right things, by talking about the possibilities for the future, but I had made my mind up. He advised me to see my GP. But I told him that that was very unlikely. I didn't want to be cured. I wanted to die. He suggested I take my case to the Employment Tribunal, but I'd already thought of that. I thought it was unlikely that I'd make a claim, because I didn't think I'd be around by the time it came to court, but I also knew that it is rare for tribunals to order reinstatement, and I felt that if I didn't have my job, I didn't want to live. My confidence had been completely drained. If I couldn't keep a job after working as hard as I had at the uni, then there was no point.
He knew I had a strong sense of justice, and I think he used that to try to persuade me that I could get justice, and also clear my name. In an earlier meeting with him, I had told him about my idea of creating a web site and making all of the facts public. He thought that that was a good idea too. He strongly urged me to make the claim anyway. I asked him not to tell the university that I planned to kill myself. I also told him that I didn't think there was any point in us meeting again, and we didn't.
That same day, he wrote to the uni, saying:
"It is evident that he feels a very strong sense of injustice about the process to which he has been subject. He also feels that the experience to date has undermined his self-confidence to the extent that he feels he would have considerable difficulty pursuing alternative employment options if his current employment at the University is terminated."
"I have to say that I have considerable concerns about his current state of well-being".
The very next day, Mark Toole dismissed me. Not only did the university know that I was completely innocent, but a doctor had told them of his "considerable concerns" about my well-being. A little thing like my well-being wasn't going to stand in Mark Toole's way though. Even now, when they know that I planned to kill myself, the university is continuing with their completely unbelievable case that the grievance and disciplinary processes were genuine.
I recently asked the doctor a number of questions. Here are his answers which the university has seen.
Would you agree that if, as I described, the university was carrying out sham processes against me while being aware that I was already suffering from stress, it was likely to cause further damage to my health, and that they were likely to have known that?
I agree that were an employer knowingly and deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes it could well prove detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the employee. I would expect most people to be able to appreciate that such a risk would exist.
Can you please confirm that you did not encourage the university to treat me dishonestly, and you did not advise them that it was safe to treat me dishonestly or unjustly and that as a doctor, when you give advice to the university, you must assume that it conducts its procedures in an honest and fair manner, and not in a manner likely to be hazardous to an employee's health. If the university had asked you if it would have been detrimental to my health for me to be subjected to a sham grievance or sham disciplinary process, what would your response have been?
I confirm that I did not encourage the university to deal with you in a dishonest manner, or advise that it would be safe to do so and can assure you that the advice I gave to your employer is exactly as set out in my reports of 13/03/08, 27/05/10 and 24/06/10, copies of which I believe you have received. You are correct that in advising the university I do indeed assume that it behaves honestly and fairly in its dealings with its employees. In the unlikely event that I were asked to advise regarding the likely consequences of subjecting an employee to 'sham' processes I would be bound to advise that to do so could well prove harmful to the employee's health and wellbeing.
If the university is found to have deliberately subjected me to sham processes in order to force me out of the university and I do decide to take my own life, and leave a note specifying that as the sole reason, would you agree that the university and the individuals concerned would share responsibility for my death?
I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do. However I am concerned to hear that you may still be thinking in these terms and if you have not done so I strongly recommend that you arrange to see your GP without delay to discuss these thoughts with them. They may well be able to offer further help and support and even if you consider this to be unlikely I am bound to advise you to make your GP aware of this state of affairs and to seek their professional advice.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to subject me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes while knowing that I was suffering from stress?
In my view there is no legitimate reason for an employer deliberately to subject an employee to 'sham' processes of this kind.
In addition to the sham grievance and sham disciplinary processes I described, I also believe that the university attempted to cover up the sham grievance process by creating and sending a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal giving false details relating to the grievance process. In your opinion, would it be more likely than not that an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process would also be hazardous to my health?
In my opinion had 'sham' processes been applied further falsification, if it occurred, could compound any harm arising from the original processes.
Do you know of any legitimate reason for the university to produce and send a fraudulent document to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to cover up a sham grievance process while knowing that I was in ill health?
Were it to do so, I cannot personally think of a legitimate reason for an employer to engage in deliberate falsification in such circumstances.
If it is found that the university was deliberately subjecting me to sham grievance and disciplinary processes, what, in your opinion, would have been the purpose of them referring me to the Occupational Health Department without informing you that I was being subjected to sham grievance and disciplinary processes? Do you think it is possible that the university, in those circumstances, may have been attempting to give the appearance that they were fulfilling their duty of care for me?
Again I'm afraid that I feel that in posing this question you are asking me to engage in a degree of speculation which I feel I cannot legitimately do.
In February 2010, I wrote to Professor Christine Hallett who was then Principal of Stirling University. I informed her that my manager's behaviour was damaging my health, and that senior management and the Human Resources department were not taking the issue seriously. It was my hope that Professor Hallett would ensure that my grievance against my manager would be handled fairly. If it is found that I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance process and then a sham disciplinary process, would you agree that Professor Hallett and Stirling University had failed to comply with their legal obligation to care for my health?
See my previous answers; this would however in my view be a matter of legal opinion.
I recently wrote to the university describing the considerable financial hardship I'm now facing. I've had to sell my car, and may soon be faced with the need to sell my house and become homeless, which would undoubtedly worsen my health which they know is poor. I asked them to provide me with a loan of £5,000 to avoid this, but they refused.
I used to work extraordinarily long hours (estimated 4,500 hours) for free because I loved my job, saving the university tens of thousands of pounds, but they wouldn't even loan me £5,000 to help me keep hold of my house, when they know that I'm suffering from depression caused by the torturous treatment I received from them.
Callous bastards!
Saturday
Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
Friday
Kathy McCabe - Sex Discriminator Extraordinaire
In the period between the years 2000 and 2006, Kathy McCabe made 13 merit awards to team members. Each award was for a value up to £500.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Thursday
What protection does the union offer against a corrupt management?
The short answer to that question, is not much.
I had been a member of the Universities and Colleges (UCU) union for several years. I paid around £15 per month. I always assumed that the union would protect you against unfair practices by your employer, but sadly I found to my cost that that just isn't the case.
The UCU provided a representative to accompany me to grievance and disciplinary hearings, and the representatives did that very well, and they knew without a shadow of doubt that I was being victimised by management. However, at the end of the day, they didn't stop it. If a corrupt management decides to victimise you and get rid of you for any bogus reason, they'll do it, and there's nothing that the union will do to stop it.
Even worse than that, my union was in fact working against me. When I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, she was accompanied at her hearing by a union representative who announced during the hearing that my written grievance was disturbing and riddled with misrepresentations and used inflammatory language. She said that my submission made extremely serious allegations relating to gender and equality, and that there appeared to be a worrying trend of unprofessional behaviour from me, most of which related to female colleagues. She said she was surprised that I was allowed to continue to be like this and that my behaviour should not be tolerated.
She had never met me, and was only going by what Kathy had told her. It's sickening to read this from a representative from a union that you are paying towards each month.
One of the women who had abused me over the years, and who Kathy refused to manage properly was Jackie O'Neil. About two weeks before I was suspended, Jackie had screamed at me in front of about twelve witnesses, and she slammed her hand on her desk in anger at me because she thought I had made a mistake. I complained to Mark Toole who said he would arrange a meeting for us to discuss the issues. However, Jackie said she wouldn't attend a meeting with me. Along with three other women, she made malicious complaints against me.
Jackie is a member of the UCU committee at Stirling. I recently complained to the UCU about Jackie's inclusion in the committee and asked that she be removed. I even suggested that they could have a brief investigation that would show conclusive proof that Jackie had lied in order to have me unfairly dismissed. However, the UCU plans to take no action.
I think the UCU has damaged its reputation by allowing Jackie O'Neil, who may well become the subject of a defamation claim, to continue as a committee member knowing that she lied and conspired with others in order to end a colleague's career.
Shame on you, UCU!
I had been a member of the Universities and Colleges (UCU) union for several years. I paid around £15 per month. I always assumed that the union would protect you against unfair practices by your employer, but sadly I found to my cost that that just isn't the case.
The UCU provided a representative to accompany me to grievance and disciplinary hearings, and the representatives did that very well, and they knew without a shadow of doubt that I was being victimised by management. However, at the end of the day, they didn't stop it. If a corrupt management decides to victimise you and get rid of you for any bogus reason, they'll do it, and there's nothing that the union will do to stop it.
Even worse than that, my union was in fact working against me. When I lodged my grievance against Kathy McCabe, she was accompanied at her hearing by a union representative who announced during the hearing that my written grievance was disturbing and riddled with misrepresentations and used inflammatory language. She said that my submission made extremely serious allegations relating to gender and equality, and that there appeared to be a worrying trend of unprofessional behaviour from me, most of which related to female colleagues. She said she was surprised that I was allowed to continue to be like this and that my behaviour should not be tolerated.
She had never met me, and was only going by what Kathy had told her. It's sickening to read this from a representative from a union that you are paying towards each month.
One of the women who had abused me over the years, and who Kathy refused to manage properly was Jackie O'Neil. About two weeks before I was suspended, Jackie had screamed at me in front of about twelve witnesses, and she slammed her hand on her desk in anger at me because she thought I had made a mistake. I complained to Mark Toole who said he would arrange a meeting for us to discuss the issues. However, Jackie said she wouldn't attend a meeting with me. Along with three other women, she made malicious complaints against me.
Jackie is a member of the UCU committee at Stirling. I recently complained to the UCU about Jackie's inclusion in the committee and asked that she be removed. I even suggested that they could have a brief investigation that would show conclusive proof that Jackie had lied in order to have me unfairly dismissed. However, the UCU plans to take no action.
I think the UCU has damaged its reputation by allowing Jackie O'Neil, who may well become the subject of a defamation claim, to continue as a committee member knowing that she lied and conspired with others in order to end a colleague's career.
Shame on you, UCU!
Tuesday
Kathy McCabe - "Honesty Goes to the Core of my Very Being"
"Honesty goes to the core of my very being."
Kathy McCabe 6 June 2008
During mediation with Kathy, she came out with this line about three times. Kathy must think that the more times you repeat something, the truer it becomes.
The mediator informed Kathy and me in advance of the meeting, that we were to prepare and read out a statement to each other, and then we were to begin asking questions of each other.
Kathy read out her statement. It was full of nonsense about me. I read out my statement. Kathy didn't like it because I had mentioned that she had been dishonest with me. Kathy flipped her lid. She made one almighty fuss. She demanded that I withdraw my accusation of dishonesty. I couldn't. The best I could say was to change it to "Sometimes you have been dishonest with me." She still didn't like it.
Then when it came time for me to ask questions, Kathy said she wasn't going to answer any of my questions, and that if I even asked her a question, she would walk out of the mediation. I offered to wait until we were alone to ask questions, because I thought she was maybe embarrassed to answer my questions in the presence of her friend, Colin Sinclair, who she had brought along for support. But she wasn't going to answer my questions any time or anywhere.
At his interview for the grievance process, Colin said Kathy did answer my questions. Well, in that case, she won't mind answering them again at the tribunal.
I intend to show you at least one example of Kathy's dishonesty on here. It is a very special example, because it also shows Kathy's disrespect for me, even though I was one of the oldest and most senior members of the team. She wanted to show off to the team just how disrespectful she was of me. I was too stupid to deserve respect. That was the image she wanted the team to have of me. She was encouraging them to be disrespectful too. Is it any wonder that Eileen MacDonald would then ignore any advice I gave her? Eileen was at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. Kathy respected her when she didn't even have the basic knowledge for her job. Yet Eileen would arrogantly complain about my performance and integrity. Not only had I explained to Eileen that she was wrong, but I had explained to Kathy that Eileen was wrong. But two years later, Eileen was still making the same mistakes. Mistakes that even a student programmer would think were absurd.
In her grievance document, Kathy talks about the mediation process: "Fundamental problem is that Allan said I was dishonest. I stated that questioning my honesty and integrity was a serious personal attack and that if this was the basis from which he was working then I could not see how we could establish a proper working relationship and that we would have to recognise that mediation had failed. Allan's interpretation of this was that I was breaking the mediation process. He had to be told several times by Liz, and I had to repeat my words, but he did not accept the premise. I stated that he needed to moderate the statement. He moderated it to a statement that I was sometimes dishonest. After a 5 min timeout I stated that I acknowledged that he had made a slight moderation but that this still wasn't enough. This was ignored.
It's interesting that this particular document was a document she wrote for herself originally two days after the mediation. Yet she couldn't even bring herself to tell the truth to herself. Fascinating!
She then says "On reflection this was the most difficult and deeply unpleasant experience of my working life. I am not convinced that Allan is prepared to move forward, but rather he will still want to go through every detail of the grievance point by point. I could do this but am not convinced that Allan would accept my explanations. I believe that his views are so deeply entrenched that this is the only view he will accept. I believe that the mediator found his doggedness rather frustrating and she had to pull him up on more than one occasion because his interjections were pejorative and unhelpful, or both."
Basically, she is admitting that she refused to answer my questions. But she puts her own spin on the actual events.
In May 2009, I had my appraisal with Kathy. I told her that I wanted to attend the Oracle conference which is held annually at the end of the year. It's a conference that is attended predominately by Database Administrators (DBAs) like myself. When I first became DBA, Kathy said I would attend the conference every year. But she changed her mind. Instead she used the staff development fund mainly for her friends who were mostly all women. So, for about six years on the trot, she wouldn't let me go. That is bullying as well as sex discrimination. At my appraisal she was very dismissive of my request. She abruptly said "Noted." I reminded her that I hadn't attended for several years. Again, she abruptly said "Noted." In fact she put exactly that on the appraisal form. "Noted."
I talked to several colleagues about his later on. Everybody knew that Kathy had been bullying me by preventing me from attending that conference. They all said that she was bound to let me attend that year. I said I got the feeling she wasn't going to let me go just from her attitude at my appraisal.
Sure enough, I wasn't selected to attend the conference. Kathy had again chosen others to attend conferences, though. Eric and Jackie wrote to the team to inform us that they would be out of the office to attend a conference. I emailed Jackie and copied to the team. I said I wouldn't be out of the office because I hadn't been chosen again. I jokingly asked her what the secret was to making a successful request because each year my request was rejected.
Kathy replied to me and the team pointing out that she is not a mind reader, and that if I wanted to attend a conference, I should have asked. Then she added that I hadn't asked to attend that year or any previous year.
That's what I mean when I say that Kathy is likely to come out with any stupid lie on the spur of the moment. Honesty wasn't at the core of her very being when she sent that email. Kathy had shown her true colours. And this was less than a year after Mark Toole told her that criticism was to be delivered privately and should be evidence based.
I calmly replied to Kathy's email saying that it was not appropriate language and that it was an attempt to publicly humiliate me. I told her that I still had copies of some of my written requests.
She had nowhere to go. She had basically called me a liar publicly. She had tried to publicly humiliate me by suggesting that I was stupid to think that she could read minds. And to top it off, she was lying to the whole team, and I could prove it.
It didn't end there though. It was still simmering away in her head. She came up with a plan to clear her from her own stupidity. Days later, I received an email from her inviting me to meet with her to talk about the appropriate way to request attendance at a conference. At first I didn't understand what she was meaning. It didn't make sense. Then it suddenly hit me. The reason she was inviting me to meet with her was because it made her email visible to team members who regularly looked at her calendar. It was devious bullying. She wanted to give the impression to colleagues, that although I had requested attendance, I had used an inappropriate method. She was trying to get herself off the hook.
I wrote to her and asked her to remove the email from public display. I quoted part of the university's bullying policy to her. She briefly made it private, and then she made it public again.
Eventually, Mark Toole had to tell her to remove the email from public display. He also told her to rephrase her email to make the meeting sound as though it had a more positive purpose. She wrote again and said that the meeting was to find a better procedure for requesting attendance at conferences.
There was no changing Kathy. And now she has got herself in knots.
And, of course, Eileen Schofield didn't consider any of this to be bullying behaviour. Apparently every allegation I made was rejected, yet most of Kathy's vexatious allegations were upheld. Funny that! Is it any wonder that Eileen Schofield receives death threats?
Then that muppet, Kevin Clarke said he saw no flaw in the process.
Thursday
The Transcripts
As part of my claim at the Employment Tribunal, I have submitted two audio recordings. Here are the transcripts of the recordings.
The first one is a brief conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth shortly after my grievance hearing on 26 February 2010.
In April 2010, Selina made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claims that a few weeks before this conversation, I had a private conversation with her in which I went wild with anger, my face went red with rage, and I was spitting on her desk in anger. Selina said that I had frightened her, and it meant that from then on she was nervous and anxious around me. Apart from this conversation there is other documentary evidence that Selina had lied.
Also in April 2010, Una made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claimed that, out of the twelve women in the team, I only got on well with two of them, neither of them being herself or Selina. Apart from this conversation, there is other documentary evidence that Una had lied.
Note that, even though we are discussing my grievance with Kathy, there is no display of anger. Note also that Una and Selina begin the conversation, just as Selina had begun the previous conversation as I was leaving the room.
Una: Are you away home?
Allan: Yes
Selina: How come?
Una: Because of the snow?
Allan: The snow? No.
Selina: What are you going home for?
Allan: I had my hearing with Kathy just now, and it just lasted two minutes. We were told we could go home if we wanted, because I'm a bit stressed out.
Selina: It's not long term?
Allan: What's not long term?
Selina: You going home.
Allan: No, I'll be back on Monday. It's just because it's a stressful thing.
Selina: Yeah. Did it go okay?
Allan: From my point of view it went okay, and the guy that was with me, the union guy, he said it went okay. It's up to management now to make a decision on dealing with this properly, or what to do.
Una: Is she going home as well?
Allan: Well she's got permission to go home, so she might.
Una: It's a carry on.
Allan: It IS a carry on.
Una then talks to Allan about a work problem. Allan begins to respond, and Selina interrupts.
Selina: You never had your dancing shoes on.
Allan: This IS my dancing shoes.
Selina jokes some more about Allan's shoes. Una laughs.
Allan returns to the work issue, and says he'll resolve it on Monday.
Una: That's fine; I'll sit on it till Monday.
Allan: Okey cokey!
Una and Selina together: Have a nice weekend!
Allan: You too. Bye!
-----------------------------------------------------------
The second one is during a meeting with Kathy McCabe and David Black on 18 March 2010. I inform Kathy of an incident on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand and pen on her desk in anger. David was standing right beside us, and there were about 12 colleagues in the room. Jackie had wrongly thought that I'd made a mistake, when in fact, the mistake was her own. Note how Kathy is not surprised, but tries to justify Jackie's behaviour. Jackie had misinformed Kathy about this incident, just as I expect she had misinformed her about many things concerning me. And Kathy was eager to believe her.
Kathy: Unicode upgrade.
Allan: Yes, that's next week.
Kathy: Yes. Right, and are we all geared up for that?
Allan: Yes, I think so. We did QA last week, and I've got to tell you there was an incident last week where Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.
Kathy: Right, have you come to inform me about that?
Allan: I'm just letting you be aware of it, that's all.
Kathy: Ok. Cos I know that she ended up working till 10 o'clock on Wednesday night.
Allan: I don't know what she's working at 10 o'clock at night for.
Kathy: Because she had to kick the QA upgrade off again at lunchtime. Is that not.....?
David: I'm not sure, but I think the upgrade only took two hours. I don't know what she’d be doing at night.
Allan: I don't think that would cause her to work till 10 o'clock at night.
Kathy: Ok.... Right. We're all geared up for production on Thursday?
Allan: I hope so, yes.
The first one is a brief conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth shortly after my grievance hearing on 26 February 2010.
In April 2010, Selina made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claims that a few weeks before this conversation, I had a private conversation with her in which I went wild with anger, my face went red with rage, and I was spitting on her desk in anger. Selina said that I had frightened her, and it meant that from then on she was nervous and anxious around me. Apart from this conversation there is other documentary evidence that Selina had lied.
Also in April 2010, Una made a formal complaint against me in which she falsely claimed that, out of the twelve women in the team, I only got on well with two of them, neither of them being herself or Selina. Apart from this conversation, there is other documentary evidence that Una had lied.
Note that, even though we are discussing my grievance with Kathy, there is no display of anger. Note also that Una and Selina begin the conversation, just as Selina had begun the previous conversation as I was leaving the room.
Una: Are you away home?
Allan: Yes
Selina: How come?
Una: Because of the snow?
Allan: The snow? No.
Selina: What are you going home for?
Allan: I had my hearing with Kathy just now, and it just lasted two minutes. We were told we could go home if we wanted, because I'm a bit stressed out.
Selina: It's not long term?
Allan: What's not long term?
Selina: You going home.
Allan: No, I'll be back on Monday. It's just because it's a stressful thing.
Selina: Yeah. Did it go okay?
Allan: From my point of view it went okay, and the guy that was with me, the union guy, he said it went okay. It's up to management now to make a decision on dealing with this properly, or what to do.
Una: Is she going home as well?
Allan: Well she's got permission to go home, so she might.
Una: It's a carry on.
Allan: It IS a carry on.
Una then talks to Allan about a work problem. Allan begins to respond, and Selina interrupts.
Selina: You never had your dancing shoes on.
Allan: This IS my dancing shoes.
Selina jokes some more about Allan's shoes. Una laughs.
Allan returns to the work issue, and says he'll resolve it on Monday.
Una: That's fine; I'll sit on it till Monday.
Allan: Okey cokey!
Una and Selina together: Have a nice weekend!
Allan: You too. Bye!
-----------------------------------------------------------
The second one is during a meeting with Kathy McCabe and David Black on 18 March 2010. I inform Kathy of an incident on 10 March 2010 when Jackie O'Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand and pen on her desk in anger. David was standing right beside us, and there were about 12 colleagues in the room. Jackie had wrongly thought that I'd made a mistake, when in fact, the mistake was her own. Note how Kathy is not surprised, but tries to justify Jackie's behaviour. Jackie had misinformed Kathy about this incident, just as I expect she had misinformed her about many things concerning me. And Kathy was eager to believe her.
Kathy: Unicode upgrade.
Allan: Yes, that's next week.
Kathy: Yes. Right, and are we all geared up for that?
Allan: Yes, I think so. We did QA last week, and I've got to tell you there was an incident last week where Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.
Kathy: Right, have you come to inform me about that?
Allan: I'm just letting you be aware of it, that's all.
Kathy: Ok. Cos I know that she ended up working till 10 o'clock on Wednesday night.
Allan: I don't know what she's working at 10 o'clock at night for.
Kathy: Because she had to kick the QA upgrade off again at lunchtime. Is that not.....?
David: I'm not sure, but I think the upgrade only took two hours. I don't know what she’d be doing at night.
Allan: I don't think that would cause her to work till 10 o'clock at night.
Kathy: Ok.... Right. We're all geared up for production on Thursday?
Allan: I hope so, yes.
Tuesday
The Questions
After 48 days, the Stirling University finally provided answers to my questions; or at least some of them.
UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?
On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.
If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.
I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.
Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.
6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.
Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.
Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?
5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.
Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
David Black - Database Administrator
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?
8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?
11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?
12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?
13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.
2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?
4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me? Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?
5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?
8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.
11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?
Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.
3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.
4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?
5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that it was just a coincidence?
6 Document C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement. But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?
Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?
6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?
9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?
10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke, Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.
11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?
12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller
1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
5 If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
8 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
11 On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
12 In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?
2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.
3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.
Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.
Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.
2 I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?
UPDATE: 48 days and counting... It's now 11:50 on 20 December 2011, and I still don't have answers. Come on Stirling University. I know that my readers want to see your answers. What are you hiding from us?
On Wednesday 2 November 2011, I requested additional information from Stirling University in the form of answers to simple questions to a number of employees. I require this information ahead of the forthcoming employment tribunal. I've not had any response to my questions, so I'm publishing them here to let the public see what they are hiding.
If the university loses this tribunal case, it will be the third in a row that the corrupt management has lost since 2009. I believe the general ruling for three in a row is that I am allowed to keep Stirling University Management for my trophy cabinet.
I'm particularly keen to see how Eileen Schofield responds to my questions about the fraudulent document. Maybe that's what's causing the delay. Come on Eileen! How did you manage to see into the future? I'm desperate to find out how you do it.
Kevin Clarke - University Secretary
1 Is it your assertion that the conjoined grievances between Mrs McCabe and me were handled honestly?
2 Is it your assertion that you handled my appeal honestly?
Selina Gibb - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described yourself as being nervous around me, and in which I made you anxious.
6 Do you believe that you sound nervous and anxious in this recording? If so, please explain why you interrupted my work conversation with Mrs Forsyth to joke about my shoes while you were nervous and anxious.
7 If not, then please explain how this appears to be inconsistent with your statement.
8 Isn’t it true, that the last time we were together; we were laughing and joking about your skiing lessons?
9 Please explain how, from laughing and joking with me, you then made a formal statement in which you said that you were nervous around me and that I made you anxious, without there being any contact between us.
Una Forsyth - System Assistant
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 13 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Selina Gibb, Jackie O’Neil, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 1). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
5 If your statement is true, would you please confirm that this recording took place during a period in which you described me as someone who only got on well with two of the women in the team, neither of whom were yourself or Mrs Gibb.
6 Please give approximate dates when you:
Separated from your husband, Harry.
Moved out of the marital home in Bannockburn.
Began your relationship with a man called Ricky from Edinburgh.
Relocated to Bo’ness
Ended your relationship with Ricky
Married for any second time.
Jackie O'Neil - Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 21 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
4 In your statement, section 4, you refer to an incident that took place on 10 March 2010 which was witnessed by Mr David Black. Mr Toole was arranging a meeting for you and me to discuss this incident. He said that you declined that meeting. Is that true, and if so why?
5 Has any university employee asked you to show them the upgrade instructions that Tribal supplied for the upgrade you performed on 10 March 2010? If so please state their names.
Eileen MacDonald - Senior Programmer Analyst
1 Was the statement you gave to Investigating Officers Gail Miller and Graham Millar on 19 April 2010 true or false?
2 If false, would you please state the names of all members of staff who encouraged you to make a false statement. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that false statement: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Jackie O’Neil, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Graham Millar, Gail Miller, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Karen Eccleson, David Black.
3 Did you conspire in any way with anyone else that made statements in April 2010? If so, who were they?
David Black - Database Administrator
1 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
2 The transcript states that I described an incident to Mrs McCabe that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil, and that this was an incident which you witnessed from just a few feet away?
3 Were you interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller about this incident, as part of the disciplinary procedure?
4 Have you ever been asked by any member of staff about this incident? If so, by whom, and approximately when?
5 Do you accept that you confirmed to Mrs Ruth W during a telephone conversation, that Mrs O’Neil had shouted angrily at me?
6 Were you aware that Mrs O’Neil gave a different version of this incident? If so, what, if anything, did you do about it?
7 When you were interviewed by Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield on 12 March, you were asked if you had ever witnessed any of the ISD staff being disrespectful to me. Why did you not mention the incident you had witnessed at close quarters just two days earlier on 10 March 2010, involving Mrs O’Neil?
8 Did anyone discourage you from mentioning that incident and other similar incidents that you had witnessed? If so, who? Specifically, did Eric Hall coach or advise you on what you should and should not say at that interview?
9 Were you frightened that if you told the truth, Mrs McCabe would have victimised you?
10 Are you afraid that Mrs McCabe will victimise you if you answer these questions or any questions you are asked at the tribunal hearing honestly?
11 On 25 March 2010, when you checked and signed your statement, did you not then remember the incident with Mrs O’Neil on 10 March 2010, having discussed it again on 18 March with me and Mrs McCabe (as well as with me privately)?
12 How many colleagues would you estimate were in the room when Mrs O’Neil screamed at me and slammed her hand on her desk in anger?
13 The outcome of my formal grievance against Mrs McCabe was that every allegation of bullying and sex discrimination I made was rejected. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
14 The outcome of Mrs McCabe’s formal grievance against me was that I was found to have bullied Mrs McCabe over a number of years. From your own knowledge, do you believe that a genuine grievance procedure could have produced that outcome?
Kathy McCabe - Team Manager
1 I refer to the grievance you lodged against me, dated 5 February 2010. Was this a genuine grievance or a vexatious grievance? If vexatious, did anyone encourage you to lodge it? Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to make that vexatious grievance: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, Karen Stark, Eric Hall, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair, David Gardiner.
2 I refer to the audio recording referred to in Document C2 (Transcript of File 2). Do you accept that the transcript is accurate and that the voices on the recording belong to those named in the transcript?
3 The transcript states that I described an incident to you that occurred the previous week, in which “Jackie got angry and started shouting again and slamming down her pen on her desk.” Do you accept that I was referring to Mrs Jackie O’Neil?
4 Do you accept that you did not sound particularly surprised to hear that one of your senior members of staff, whom you had managed since 1998, had behaved in this manner towards me? Do you accept that my use of the word “again” infers that this was not the first time Mrs O’Neil had behaved in this manner towards me, and that you had been aware of similar bullying incidents involving Mrs O’Neil?
5 Do you accept that you never took any disciplinary action in response to this type of behaviour by Mrs O’Neil or any other female team members who abused me? If you have, please supply all documentary evidence of this.
6 Do you accept that I had previously informed you of such behaviour, and that your response to me was “I’m not interested”?
7 Do you accept that you later confirmed, in the presence of several witnesses, including Mr Toole and Mr David Edgar, that you were not interested in such matters?
8 Do you now accept that, in accordance with university policy, you should have been interested, and that you should have taken action to protect me from such bullying behaviour?
9 Please state the reason why you did not protect me from such behaviour.
10 Please give the name of any woman whom you did not protect from bullying behaviour by colleagues. Please provide all documentary evidence of this.
11 Would you confirm that you were aware that I had been physically assaulted by a female colleague, yet you took no action? And that the reason you gave for taking no action was that you were not present at the time of the incident?
Eileen Schofield - Deputy Secretary
1 Were the grievances from me and Mrs McCabe handled completely and genuinely, or were they handled dishonestly?
2 If they were handled dishonestly, please state who encouraged you to do that. Specifically, please state whether or not each of the following people encouraged you to act in that way: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Christine Hallett, Martin McCrindle, Liam McCabe.
3 If you handled the grievances honestly, then I refer you to the document C3, and in particular to item [1] our useless DBA. It states that to investigate this item, you referred to Mr Flockhart’s statement. Please explain why you referred to that statement which appears to bear no relationship to the item in question.
4 Is it your assertion that it is simply a coincidence that Mr Flockhart contacted Miss Stark in April 2010, and provided information about this allegation long after your investigation ended?
5 Miss Stark gave evidence stating that she mistakenly recorded in document C3 that Mr Flockhart’s statement included information that did not exist at the time of your decision. Is it your assertion that it was just a coincidence?
6 Document C3 states that the facts that led to the decision on this allegation were the contents of Mr Fockhart’s statement. But the contents of his statement do not include those stated. Miss Stark gave evidence that this was recorded in error. Is it your assertion that that was simply a clerical error on the part of Miss Stark?
7 When Mr Flockhart was asked questions as part of your investigation, why was he not asked about this allegation?
8 Why did you decide to ask nobody else about this allegation, other than Mrs O’Neil?
9 Why did you not ask Mrs McCabe about this allegation?
10 Did you not understand that my allegation was made against Mrs McCabe?
11 Do you consider that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out on this allegation?
12 On the basis of what facts did you decide that my allegation should be rejected?
13 Your report on the grievance hearing states in section 5. “the intention was to enable both parties to present their cases”. Section 7 states “AG was asked to present his case”. Document C3, which was produced in response to my questions, states that only a summary was requested. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
14 It is my firm belief that document C3 is a fraudulently created document intended to fool the tribunal that a proper investigation took place. How do you respond to my suggestion?
Eric Hall - Project Manager
1 Please state the names of the members of the interview panel that interviewed you for your job at Stirling University.
2 Isn’t it true that Mrs Law was at that time married to Mr David Gardiner who had been a very close friend of yours since childhood?
3 Do you not think that it would have been appropriate for an alternative panel member to have replaced Mrs Law?
4 Isn’t Mrs McCabe also a very close friend of Mrs Law and Mr Gardiner?
5 Would you agree that your friendships with these parties meant that you received favourable treatment from Mrs McCabe? For example, wouldn’t you agree that you were allocated substantially more from the staff development fund than I was?
6 In the statement you gave for the grievance interview, you stated that Mrs McCabe had an excellent way of managing the team. How do you reconcile this with other statements you made? For example didn’t you tell me that feedback that Mrs McCabe received from four team members was the worst that any manager had ever received from the training course she was attending at the time? Didn’t you say that while other managers received scores of 7s and 8s, Mrs McCabe received 2s and 3s?
7 Isn’t it also true that you were one of those four team members?
8 Isn’t it true that when Mrs McCabe was informed of her scores, she spoke to all four team members and told them that they hadn’t understood the questions properly and that some felt intimidated by this?
9 Isn’t it true that when the team members were asked to provide further feedback, you openly admitted that you had lied and that you had awarded Mrs McCabe better feedback than she had deserved, and that you said you did this “for a quiet life”?
10 Isn’t it true that you also lied at your grievance interview? If true, please give the names of all employees who encouraged you to lie. Specifically please state whether each of the following employees encouraged you to lie: Kathy McCabe, Karen Stark, Kevin Clarke, Christine Hallett, Mark Toole, Eileen MacDonald, David Gardiner, Liam McCabe, Colin Sinclair.
11 Also in your statement you said that you felt I had a “problem with women” and that I had trouble with most of the women in the ISD team. Isn’t it true that you made these comments knowing them to be false and in order to support Mrs McCabe from whom you received favourable treatment?
12 Isn’t it true that you stated openly that your Framework score had been produced fraudulently and that you often used abusive language to describe the process?
13 Isn’t it true that when referring to Mrs McCabe you openly stated “I hate the fucking bitch”?
Mr Graham Millar and Mrs Gail Miller
1 Was the disciplinary investigation you carried out in April 2010 genuine, or was it a sham?
2 If it was a sham:
Who instructed you to carry out a sham investigation?
Please give names of all employees who were aware that it was a sham. Specifically, please state whether or not these people were aware: Kevin Clarke, Mark Toole, Graham Millar/Gail Miller, Karen Stark, Martin McCrindle, Eileen Schofield, Christine Hallett, Kathy McCabe, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Jackie O’Neil, Selina Gibb.
3 Did you object to being asked to carry out a sham investigation? If so, please provide any written evidence.
4 Please give the date that you first became aware that it was a sham. Please describe how you became aware.
5 If it was genuine:
Didn’t it occur to you that it wasn’t being carried out very professionally, and that it could easily be suspected of being a sham?
6 Wasn’t it obvious that the interviewees were lying?
7 Did you at no point suspect that there had been any conspiracy by the interviewees?
8 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are to gather facts. Can you please state three examples from the investigators’ report that you believe are facts.
9 The disciplinary procedure states that the investigators are not to come to conclusions. Please state why you included conclusions in your report.
10 Before beginning your investigation, did you read the disciplinary procedure?
11 On 21 April 2010, you interviewed Mrs Jackie O’Neil. In section 4, she describes an incident, which I also described in section 10. The two versions are significantly different, but the glaringly common ground is that we both said that Mr David Black was involved and witnessed the incident. I suggest to you that any investigator genuinely seeking the facts could not possibly have considered it to be thorough to avoid interviewing Mr Black. How would you respond to that suggestion?
12 In section 9 of your report, you describe, in your findings, an alleged conversation between me and Mrs Selina Gibb. Do you not think it would have been useful to have asked me if any such conversation took place before you referred to it in your conclusions?
Professor Christine Hallett - Former Principal
1 I refer to the email I sent you on 9 February 2010. Is it your assertion that you handled my email to you properly?
2 Please describe the actions you took to ensure that my grievance would be handled properly, and that matters relating to bullying, sex discrimination and behaviour likely to be hazardous to employee health were taken seriously.
3 Did you suggest to any other employee that it would be best to carry out a sham grievance procedure to cover up Mrs McCabe’s behaviour? If so, please state their names.
Dr Peter Kemp - Former Director of Information Services
1 When you were interviewed by Mrs Schofield and Karen Stark as part of the grievance process, was your statement true or false?
2 If false, please state why you made that false statement and give the names of the people who recommended you to make a false statement.
Professor Gerry McCormac - Principal and Vice Chancellor
1 I refer you to the university grievance procedure which states that an employee may raise grievances within three months of leaving. I lodged a number of grievances with you in September 2010. Please state why you did not action those grievances, and the names of all employees who encouraged you not to action them.
2 I have alleged that the University of Stirling has committed fraud in defending the claim I lodged with the Employment Tribunal. Have you investigated that allegation? If so, what were your findings? If not, do you intend to investigate my allegation?
Monday
Eileen MacDonald - The Power of Gossip
Eileen MacDonald, 53 Castle Rd, Stirling, FK9 5JE
The person I fear most at the forthcoming Employment Tribunal hearing is Eileen MacDonald. Eileen seems to have some magical or hypnotic ability to persuade people that she is somehow the victim, when in fact she is the perpetrator. That alone would be an extraordinary ability, but she somehow manages to do it, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. It's almost as though she is able to manipulate the part of the brain that normally processes facts, so that it can only process and consider emotion. And she has managed to do this with so many people, that I fear that she could do it with the members of the tribunal. I'm the only person I know of that her special powers don't work on. It's as though my fact processor refuses to be sidetracked my emotion. No amount of emotion will make my brain think that two plus two is anything other than four. I'm hard wired to think logically, and I can only hope that the tribunal members are too.
Here are the facts; Eileen is a compulsive liar who was jealous of me. She used her powers of gossip to persuade others to think badly of me. It appears that people believed whatever she said, including our manager, Kathy McCabe. Eileen told Kathy another whopper, and although Kathy believed it, she asked Eileen to put it in writing, so that she could hit me right between the eyes with it. I replied to Kathy with the facts. Kathy didn't like the facts, so she cancelled the meeting she had arranged with Eileen and me. I thought it was well overdue for Eileen to face the facts, so I lodged a grievance against her. At the same time, I lodged a grievance against Kathy, because she should not have cancelled that meeting. Instead she should have done what she was paid to do, and manage a very difficult team member that she had recruited. That is a fact too.
Kathy refused to handle my grievance against Eileen, so she passed it on to Peter Kemp. Peter didn't handle my grievance either. Apparently, Eileen emailed Peter because she was finding her situation very stressful.
What seems to have happened is that the university's responsibility to handle my grievance within a reasonable time, was put to one side while all and sundry provided emotional support for Eileen. As a result, the facts of the matter were all ignored, and everybody's energy was used to paint me as the baddie who had upset a pregnant colleague. The fact that Eileen had got herself in this mess by gossiping about me, seems to have got lost somewhere among the emotional camouflage.
Below is an email Eileen sent to Kathy about her situation. This was about seven months after I lodged my grievance. While all the King's horses and all the King's men were running around providing more and more support for Eileen, nobody was giving a damn about the fact that I was Eileen's victim. I lodged those grievances just a few weeks after a five week period of sick leave due to stress.
In an extraordinary set of circumstances, my manager whom I had a grievance against, went to visit Eileen, whom I also had a grievance against, at her home to discuss those grievances I had against them. You couldn't make this stuff up!
In the end, Eileen tells another pack lies, Mark Toole who also ignored my grievance against Eileen says he believes Eileen's malicious complaint because he cannot think of any reason why she should lie. He doesn't bother looking at the evidence, or try to explain how it could possibly be true. He will have to explain to the tribunal how it could be more likely to be true than false. That will be impossible!
I find it quite extraordinary that so many people should wish to provide support for someone who would make up malicious lies in an attempt to deprive someone of their career. One of the strangest things is that I had shown Lynn McDonald evidence that Eileen had lied. So why on earth would she then provide support to her to get her through the summer? Lynn was one of the people I thought I could trust.
At the tribunal, I intend to show Eileen her statement, and then I will show her the evidence that proves that she lied. Following the hearing, I will publish the proof here.
If Eileen was feeling vulnerable and exposed two and a half year ago, it is possible that she will feel even more vulnerable and exposed at the tribunal. It's almost three and a half years since I lodged my grievance. The grievance procedure says it should have been handled within three weeks. I think that soon it will finally be heard. That's unless Eileen 'Houdini' MacDonald can somehow wriggle out of it again.
Theoretically, of course, she has nothing to fear at the tribunal. According to Mr Toole, there was no reason for her to lie, and no evidence that she did lie. And also according to Mr Toole, there is just no way she could have made up such a convincing story by colluding with others, because he said it just wasn't possible in the time they had available.
For years Eileen had been making up lies about me because she was jealous of me being good at my job, and because colleagues recognised me as being good at my job. Eileen would frequently ask me to do her work for her, because she couldn't do it. And like the mug I am, I did it. And while I did it, she was off gossiping about me behind my back. Of course, when she was cowardly lying about me behind my back, I couldn't defend myself. Then when I saw her email to Kathy, I was prevented from defending myself. Then when she made her false statements, I was prevented from defending myself again. Finally, I'm going to have my chance to defend myself and to confront her with the indisputable facts. Justice has been a long time coming, but it will sure taste sweet.
Eileen MacDonald declared war on me. She is going to wish she hadn't bothered.
Karen Stark - An Addiction to Fraud
I an earlier post, I spoke of the fraudulent document that Stirling Univesity gave to the Employment Tribunal to try to mislead them into thinking that all of my grievances against Kathy McCabe were thoroughly investigated. It would have been useful if Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield had produced this document at the time the alleged investigations took place. Not only would it have been useful; it would surely have been natural. Eileen is the university's Deputy Secretary on grade 10. She probably earns around £80,000 per year. Karen is on Grade 8, earning £44,000. This is not a pair of inexperienced juniors fresh from school. Any investigation would surely have been carefully planned and executed, and the findings would have been meticulously recorded BEFORE the outcome was decided. That's how I think most people would expect a proper investigation of their concerns to be carried out. Many of my complaints were of being bullied over several years, and the university promises that such complaints will be taken 'extremely seriously', so you would imagine there would be considerable evidence of this. Some of my complaints were of sex discrimination, and just days before I lodged my grievance, the Principal had written to every member of staff, including Eileen and Karen, emphasising how Stirling University was committed to diversity, and ensuring staff could work free from discrimination and victimisation. Karen even saw and acknowledged the protected disclosure I made to the Principal, in which I describe how senior management and HR had failed in its duty of care by allowing Kathy to continue bullying me to the serious detriment of my health.
In theory, my protected disclosure to the Principal should have raised alarm bells. The Principal should have been concerned that the university's committment, that she had just told us all about, didn't really exist, and that possibly HR and senior management had fooled her into thinking that there ever was such a committment. The question I feel the Principal should answer under oath is "Was she just innocently incompetent, or was she lying when she wrote to every single member of her staff?" I don't know if there is a third option, but she should have the opportunity to explain. I have asked for Christine Hallett to appear at the tribunal for cross examination, but the uni has objected to this. I feel that Christine should have the opportunity to clear her name, if she wants to. Christine is well known for claiming expenses, and I'm pretty sure the tribunal would fully refund any reasonable expenses she may incur in attending.
Obviously, if she was to tell the tribunal that she didn't lie to every single member of staff while being paid £250,000 a year to do so, then I would need her to explain her response to my protected disclosure. Her 'committment' seemed to have somewhat fallen short of what she had described to us all just days earlier. Could she have forgotten so quickly?
Much of what I said in my protected disclosure referred to meetings that took place with Karen Stark attending as the note taker. Most notable during these meetings was the behaviour of one Kathy McCabe. This was the Kathy that my team rarely got to see. It was the same Kathy who behaved in the same way during mediation. She acted like a spoilt little girl accused of stealing and eating all of the chocolate biscuits; screaming that it wasn't her, and blaming her innocent little brother, while the chocolate on her face and on her pretty dress told a different story. During mediation, she defiantly refused to answer any questions; she even left the room in a tantrum! At the time I felt embarrassed for Colin Sinclair; this was his friend who was behaving like a child. Ruth and I had genuinely believed him when he said he had always known her to be honest. We could never have anticipated that he would later make a statement saying that Kathy had answered my questions. Colin and Kathy are both IT managers at the uni. Graham Millar is another. All three are corrupt. David Gardiner is another IT manager at the uni. He is also close friends with Kathy and Colin. To my knowledge, he has played no part in this sham. However, he did stop speaking to me after I lodged my grievance against Kathy. The reason I mention David is because he came over to me and a friend I was with in a pub in Stirling one night, and threatened me; not physically, but with his powers of corruption. He had jumped to the wrong conclusion about me and my friend. He later apologised, blaming alcohol, but the damage was done. And he was so proud of his ability and willingness to abuse his powers that he wanted my friend to hear all about how he could ruin my career. The little shit was trying to scare me and embarrass me. He is an embarrassment to himself. I spent much of another evening with him once. Once again he was the worse for drink, and he described his hatred for his ex-wife's boyfriend, and what he planned to do if the opportunity arose. Many people will recognise David as a friendly, jovial bloke. I think it's a mask, and alcohol removes the mask to reveal the true David. With David, we probably wouldn't need lie detector tests; just alcohol!
So that's four IT managers as well as their boss, Mark Toole and former boss, Peter Kemp. Will the honest IT manager please stand up.
Back to Karen Stark, the note taker! Being involved with grievance and disciplinary procedures, I am always amazed at the accuracy of the notes taken by the note takers. The note taker is generally someone who is drawn from HR who has no prior involvement or emotional investment in the proceedings. The notes are not perfect by any means; that would be impossible without an audio recording device, but I'm genuinely surprised how accurate they are, given how much is said, the speed with which it is said, and that the topic being discussed may include terms the note taker may never have heard before. No meeting was ever stopped in order for the note taker to ask for something to be repeated, or to ask for time to catch up. It is a skill I truly wish I had. There might be little bits that are slightly wrong, but you can always tell that it was a genuine attempt to record what was said. The note taker then takes their handwritten notes, types them up, and files away both copies in electronic format. It's almost bulletproof.
There is but one exception to this, and that is when the note taker is Karen Stark. Karen was the note taker at a meeting attended by Mark Toole, Kathy, Lynn McDonald and my union representative, Dave Edgar. For most of the meeting, Kathy attacked me with malicious criticism. It was an act of desperation because at a previous meeting, Mark had told her that criticism should be delivered privately and it should be evidence based. She had agreed to that, but I could see that she was embarrassed at having basically been told by Mark that she was behaving like a bully. She was out for revenge, and that meant increasing the bullying. It was as if she had totally lost all sense of reason. The things she was criticising me about were things that any normal manager would have thanked me for. Much of this absurd criticism, and my response to it did not appear in Karen's notes.
I pointed out to Kathy that her arms were folded, and that she had told me she had complained to the uni that I had my arms folded during a meeting, and she thinks it's aggressive. She quickly unfolded her arms and said that she hadn't noticed. This didn't appear in Karen's notes.
I highlighted how she treats me differently from other team members, because when I had written to her saying that a colleague had physically assaulted me, she din't even reply. She then amazingly claimed that I had never told her of the assault. I reminded her that I had told her in an email. She denied it, just as she had denied receiving other emails from me. I offered to go and fetch the email, and asked her in advance what she would say once I showed it to her. This was because when I had shown her another email that she insisted she never received, she made up some stupid excuse about it. Dave asked her if she had known about the assault. She admitted that she had known. Dave asked her what she did about it. She said she didn't do anything about it. Dave asked her why she took no action, and she said it was because she wasn't present at the time of the assault.
Karen's notes do not refer to the fact that my manager thought that arm folding, which every single member of the team did, is so aggressive that it warranted a written complaint to the uni, while physical assault warranted no action whatsoever.
This is just a small sample of what Karen's notes do not include. This is particularly important because my grievance against Kathy included her behaviour at these meetings. But when Karen and Eileen came to investigate this complaint, the thorough investigation that I was promised turned out to be a complete sham. None of the witnesses were interviewed. There was a strange rule applied about witnesses. In order for a witness to be interviewed, their name had to appear in the documents that Kathy and I had lodged. But all of the attendees at those meetings were named in the documents, and so could have been interviewed anyway. So they were deliberately not interviewed. The entire investigation for my complaint consisted of Karen looking at her notes. Her notes didn't include anything worthy of complaint, so my complaint was rejected.
Karen's notes may originally have been accurate, but I didn't get to see them until after the grievance process. It is possible that she tampered with the notes to remove anything that was too incriminating for Kathy. I asked Karen for her handwritten version of the notes, but she said she destroyed them after she typed them up. all of the other note takers keep both versions.
Karen will have some explaining to do at the tribunal, about how these notes are so inaccurate, and why she destroyed her handwritten notes, and why the witnesses were not interviewed. This is in addition to her fraudulent investigation details document. She has produced a fraudulent document which, in turn, refers to another fraudulent document that she produced.
This amount and degree of fraud could mean a spell in the slammer for Karen, and I think she fully deserves it. Karen was already aware that her behaviour was damaging my health.
It will be interesting to see if Karen insists her notes are accurate, and that my account of these meetings that were attended by several witnesses, is false. Or will she once again claim that it was just a mistake? God knows where she is going with this, but she certainly has acquired a taste for fraud.
After the grievance decision was announced, Kevin Clarke described Karen as "highly professional". This raises very serious concerns about the University Secretary's judgement. Will he still be saying that when she's on her way to jail? Was Karen working to his instructions? Why is she still in her job where she could be doing this to more and more innocent employees? Is nobody at the uni calling for an investigation into her behaviour?
Regarding Karen's fraud, there could even be more. Watch this space...
In theory, my protected disclosure to the Principal should have raised alarm bells. The Principal should have been concerned that the university's committment, that she had just told us all about, didn't really exist, and that possibly HR and senior management had fooled her into thinking that there ever was such a committment. The question I feel the Principal should answer under oath is "Was she just innocently incompetent, or was she lying when she wrote to every single member of her staff?" I don't know if there is a third option, but she should have the opportunity to explain. I have asked for Christine Hallett to appear at the tribunal for cross examination, but the uni has objected to this. I feel that Christine should have the opportunity to clear her name, if she wants to. Christine is well known for claiming expenses, and I'm pretty sure the tribunal would fully refund any reasonable expenses she may incur in attending.
Obviously, if she was to tell the tribunal that she didn't lie to every single member of staff while being paid £250,000 a year to do so, then I would need her to explain her response to my protected disclosure. Her 'committment' seemed to have somewhat fallen short of what she had described to us all just days earlier. Could she have forgotten so quickly?
Much of what I said in my protected disclosure referred to meetings that took place with Karen Stark attending as the note taker. Most notable during these meetings was the behaviour of one Kathy McCabe. This was the Kathy that my team rarely got to see. It was the same Kathy who behaved in the same way during mediation. She acted like a spoilt little girl accused of stealing and eating all of the chocolate biscuits; screaming that it wasn't her, and blaming her innocent little brother, while the chocolate on her face and on her pretty dress told a different story. During mediation, she defiantly refused to answer any questions; she even left the room in a tantrum! At the time I felt embarrassed for Colin Sinclair; this was his friend who was behaving like a child. Ruth and I had genuinely believed him when he said he had always known her to be honest. We could never have anticipated that he would later make a statement saying that Kathy had answered my questions. Colin and Kathy are both IT managers at the uni. Graham Millar is another. All three are corrupt. David Gardiner is another IT manager at the uni. He is also close friends with Kathy and Colin. To my knowledge, he has played no part in this sham. However, he did stop speaking to me after I lodged my grievance against Kathy. The reason I mention David is because he came over to me and a friend I was with in a pub in Stirling one night, and threatened me; not physically, but with his powers of corruption. He had jumped to the wrong conclusion about me and my friend. He later apologised, blaming alcohol, but the damage was done. And he was so proud of his ability and willingness to abuse his powers that he wanted my friend to hear all about how he could ruin my career. The little shit was trying to scare me and embarrass me. He is an embarrassment to himself. I spent much of another evening with him once. Once again he was the worse for drink, and he described his hatred for his ex-wife's boyfriend, and what he planned to do if the opportunity arose. Many people will recognise David as a friendly, jovial bloke. I think it's a mask, and alcohol removes the mask to reveal the true David. With David, we probably wouldn't need lie detector tests; just alcohol!
So that's four IT managers as well as their boss, Mark Toole and former boss, Peter Kemp. Will the honest IT manager please stand up.
Back to Karen Stark, the note taker! Being involved with grievance and disciplinary procedures, I am always amazed at the accuracy of the notes taken by the note takers. The note taker is generally someone who is drawn from HR who has no prior involvement or emotional investment in the proceedings. The notes are not perfect by any means; that would be impossible without an audio recording device, but I'm genuinely surprised how accurate they are, given how much is said, the speed with which it is said, and that the topic being discussed may include terms the note taker may never have heard before. No meeting was ever stopped in order for the note taker to ask for something to be repeated, or to ask for time to catch up. It is a skill I truly wish I had. There might be little bits that are slightly wrong, but you can always tell that it was a genuine attempt to record what was said. The note taker then takes their handwritten notes, types them up, and files away both copies in electronic format. It's almost bulletproof.
There is but one exception to this, and that is when the note taker is Karen Stark. Karen was the note taker at a meeting attended by Mark Toole, Kathy, Lynn McDonald and my union representative, Dave Edgar. For most of the meeting, Kathy attacked me with malicious criticism. It was an act of desperation because at a previous meeting, Mark had told her that criticism should be delivered privately and it should be evidence based. She had agreed to that, but I could see that she was embarrassed at having basically been told by Mark that she was behaving like a bully. She was out for revenge, and that meant increasing the bullying. It was as if she had totally lost all sense of reason. The things she was criticising me about were things that any normal manager would have thanked me for. Much of this absurd criticism, and my response to it did not appear in Karen's notes.
I pointed out to Kathy that her arms were folded, and that she had told me she had complained to the uni that I had my arms folded during a meeting, and she thinks it's aggressive. She quickly unfolded her arms and said that she hadn't noticed. This didn't appear in Karen's notes.
I highlighted how she treats me differently from other team members, because when I had written to her saying that a colleague had physically assaulted me, she din't even reply. She then amazingly claimed that I had never told her of the assault. I reminded her that I had told her in an email. She denied it, just as she had denied receiving other emails from me. I offered to go and fetch the email, and asked her in advance what she would say once I showed it to her. This was because when I had shown her another email that she insisted she never received, she made up some stupid excuse about it. Dave asked her if she had known about the assault. She admitted that she had known. Dave asked her what she did about it. She said she didn't do anything about it. Dave asked her why she took no action, and she said it was because she wasn't present at the time of the assault.
Karen's notes do not refer to the fact that my manager thought that arm folding, which every single member of the team did, is so aggressive that it warranted a written complaint to the uni, while physical assault warranted no action whatsoever.
This is just a small sample of what Karen's notes do not include. This is particularly important because my grievance against Kathy included her behaviour at these meetings. But when Karen and Eileen came to investigate this complaint, the thorough investigation that I was promised turned out to be a complete sham. None of the witnesses were interviewed. There was a strange rule applied about witnesses. In order for a witness to be interviewed, their name had to appear in the documents that Kathy and I had lodged. But all of the attendees at those meetings were named in the documents, and so could have been interviewed anyway. So they were deliberately not interviewed. The entire investigation for my complaint consisted of Karen looking at her notes. Her notes didn't include anything worthy of complaint, so my complaint was rejected.
Karen's notes may originally have been accurate, but I didn't get to see them until after the grievance process. It is possible that she tampered with the notes to remove anything that was too incriminating for Kathy. I asked Karen for her handwritten version of the notes, but she said she destroyed them after she typed them up. all of the other note takers keep both versions.
Karen will have some explaining to do at the tribunal, about how these notes are so inaccurate, and why she destroyed her handwritten notes, and why the witnesses were not interviewed. This is in addition to her fraudulent investigation details document. She has produced a fraudulent document which, in turn, refers to another fraudulent document that she produced.
This amount and degree of fraud could mean a spell in the slammer for Karen, and I think she fully deserves it. Karen was already aware that her behaviour was damaging my health.
It will be interesting to see if Karen insists her notes are accurate, and that my account of these meetings that were attended by several witnesses, is false. Or will she once again claim that it was just a mistake? God knows where she is going with this, but she certainly has acquired a taste for fraud.
After the grievance decision was announced, Kevin Clarke described Karen as "highly professional". This raises very serious concerns about the University Secretary's judgement. Will he still be saying that when she's on her way to jail? Was Karen working to his instructions? Why is she still in her job where she could be doing this to more and more innocent employees? Is nobody at the uni calling for an investigation into her behaviour?
Regarding Karen's fraud, there could even be more. Watch this space...
Saturday
Against all odds, I'm still alive.
In 2005, when I began to realise that Kathy McCabe was mistreating me, I increased my alcohol intake to help dull the psychological pain, and to stop the intrusive thoughts that prevented me from sleeping at night.
In case you only intend to read a small part of this post, let me tell you that that was not the correct response to bullying. So if you are being bullied at work, I do not advise you to drown your feelings in alcohol. The correct response is probably to see your own doctor. If your employer has an Occupational Health doctor, then you might want to visit them, however you should be aware that they may not be completely independent. They could just be an extension of management, in much the same way that HR may be. Yes, I had foolishly thought that HR was there to look after the employees. Many people still do!
Unfortunately, I didn't seek help from a doctor. For one thing, I didn't have a doctor, but even if I had, I probably wouldn't have visited them. I'm a man, and it seems that we men have a natural tendency to bottle up our problems. 'Doctors are for people who are REALLY ill. They don't need the likes of me taking up their valuable time.'
To be honest, I thought the alcohol was helping me. It helped me get some sleep, and if you're sleeping, then all those nasty intrusive thoughts can't fill your head and make you toss and turn all night. To be honest, that still seems to me to have been a tangible benefit from drinking alcohol at that time, but I think the problem lies in the longer term. The underlying problem of the bullying didn't go away, and I found that I was having to increase my dosage in order to gain the same relief. My main choice of medicine was whisky, although I also added wine, vodka, brandy and lager to the mix. By 2009, I was consuming roughly 120 cl of whisky every day. That's almost two bottles, or nearly 3 pints.
Looking back, the weird thing is that it didn't effect my work or my attendance. I didn't need or think about alcohol while I was working. Ironically, work was therapeutic and helped to reduce the stress. That is until there was a bullying incident, or a discussion related to bullying that would cause the stress to go through the roof.
I've never suffered from hangovers. That may not be a good thing though. Maybe hangovers are nature's way of telling you to cut back. And I should have cut back, because while I was enjoying the benefits of the alcohol, I wasn't giving any thought to the damage it was causing me.
Firstly, alcohol is a depressant. It's like Kathy McCabe in a bottle. Secondly, it kills. It kills people who drink far less than I did for far shorter periods than I did. I've read up on this a bit, and I'm amazed to still be alive. For several years I was drinking as much as 16 times the recommended limit for a man.
It still wasn't enough to prevent the intrusive thoughts. Around the same time that I began over-drinking, I began to gamble excessively. The theory was that while I was thinking about gambling, I couldn't be thinking about anything else. And to some extent that worked. However, the higher the level of stress I was under, the higher the amount of money it was necessary to gamble. Like work, it was therapeutic. But under the conditions of stress and alcohol, my gambling was erratic and out of control.
I had a particularly stressful meeting with Mark Toole and my union rep in December 2009. He pretended that he hadn't witnessed Kathy bullying me. After the meeting, I was shaking like a leaf. When I got home, I filled up with alcohol, and gambled away almost £10,000 (ten thousand pounds) that same evening. Losing that amount of money is depressing too, but only for a relatively short period. It's not like being bullied for years. In a two week period in June 2010 when I knew that Mark Toole was conducting a sham disciplinary process and I was about to lose my job, I lost £32,909.47 by gambling erratically. It was different from my previous gambling. I had given up on life. I had no need for money because it was inevitable that I was going to kill myself.
I was seeing the Occupational Health doctor regularly at this time. He was aware of the alcohol and gambling and my intention to kill myself. He had advised me to cut back on the alcohol, but there was no point in that. I wanted to be dead, and it was killing me, while at the same time, providing a measure of relief.
I hadn't intended to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal, because I thought I would most likely be dead by the time the case came to court. However, I was aware of the three month time limit for claims, so just before time ran out, I lodged my claim. Unexpectedly, I was still alive, and I thought I'd better make the claim just in case I didn't kill myself. Ironically, I think it's the ET case, and the possibility of justice that has kept me alive. Initially, my blog was intended to be my suicide note.
However, the suicidal thoughts haven't stopped, and I still have intrusive violent thoughts and intrusive memories too. Eventually, I visited my GP. I'd had a couple of days when I'd felt an improvement, so I made an appointment. By the time I was due to see my GP, three things had happened to make me feel worse, but I attended anyway. I was prescribed anti-depressants, but I didn't notice any difference. I was referred to a psychiatrist. The problem is that the psychiatrist felt nothing could be done to help me until I had greatly reduced, or even eliminated my alcohol consumption. As I said earlier, alcohol is a depressant, and an obstacle to treatment.
I've managed to reduce my alcohol consumption by a large amount, but I've still a long way to go. I was referred to a substance misuse expert. They want me to go into hospital for about ten days to detox, but I said No, No, No! I keep a daily diary of every drop of alcohol I take. I have good days and bad. When I was working, I generally drank between 6pm and 1am, except at weekends when I'd start earlier. Without work, I now start to feel an urge to take alcohol around 3pm; earlier if something causes me to feel anxious. Unfortunately, by reducing the alcohol, my sleep has reduced too. I'm told that alcohol induced sleep is not good quality sleep, but for me it's a case of 'never mind the quality, feel the width'.
A word of caution to anyone who intends to reduce their alcohol intake. Please seek advice from your GP as it can be very dangerous to do this too quickly, ie cold turkey.
In case you only intend to read a small part of this post, let me tell you that that was not the correct response to bullying. So if you are being bullied at work, I do not advise you to drown your feelings in alcohol. The correct response is probably to see your own doctor. If your employer has an Occupational Health doctor, then you might want to visit them, however you should be aware that they may not be completely independent. They could just be an extension of management, in much the same way that HR may be. Yes, I had foolishly thought that HR was there to look after the employees. Many people still do!
Unfortunately, I didn't seek help from a doctor. For one thing, I didn't have a doctor, but even if I had, I probably wouldn't have visited them. I'm a man, and it seems that we men have a natural tendency to bottle up our problems. 'Doctors are for people who are REALLY ill. They don't need the likes of me taking up their valuable time.'
To be honest, I thought the alcohol was helping me. It helped me get some sleep, and if you're sleeping, then all those nasty intrusive thoughts can't fill your head and make you toss and turn all night. To be honest, that still seems to me to have been a tangible benefit from drinking alcohol at that time, but I think the problem lies in the longer term. The underlying problem of the bullying didn't go away, and I found that I was having to increase my dosage in order to gain the same relief. My main choice of medicine was whisky, although I also added wine, vodka, brandy and lager to the mix. By 2009, I was consuming roughly 120 cl of whisky every day. That's almost two bottles, or nearly 3 pints.
Looking back, the weird thing is that it didn't effect my work or my attendance. I didn't need or think about alcohol while I was working. Ironically, work was therapeutic and helped to reduce the stress. That is until there was a bullying incident, or a discussion related to bullying that would cause the stress to go through the roof.
I've never suffered from hangovers. That may not be a good thing though. Maybe hangovers are nature's way of telling you to cut back. And I should have cut back, because while I was enjoying the benefits of the alcohol, I wasn't giving any thought to the damage it was causing me.
Firstly, alcohol is a depressant. It's like Kathy McCabe in a bottle. Secondly, it kills. It kills people who drink far less than I did for far shorter periods than I did. I've read up on this a bit, and I'm amazed to still be alive. For several years I was drinking as much as 16 times the recommended limit for a man.
It still wasn't enough to prevent the intrusive thoughts. Around the same time that I began over-drinking, I began to gamble excessively. The theory was that while I was thinking about gambling, I couldn't be thinking about anything else. And to some extent that worked. However, the higher the level of stress I was under, the higher the amount of money it was necessary to gamble. Like work, it was therapeutic. But under the conditions of stress and alcohol, my gambling was erratic and out of control.
I had a particularly stressful meeting with Mark Toole and my union rep in December 2009. He pretended that he hadn't witnessed Kathy bullying me. After the meeting, I was shaking like a leaf. When I got home, I filled up with alcohol, and gambled away almost £10,000 (ten thousand pounds) that same evening. Losing that amount of money is depressing too, but only for a relatively short period. It's not like being bullied for years. In a two week period in June 2010 when I knew that Mark Toole was conducting a sham disciplinary process and I was about to lose my job, I lost £32,909.47 by gambling erratically. It was different from my previous gambling. I had given up on life. I had no need for money because it was inevitable that I was going to kill myself.
I was seeing the Occupational Health doctor regularly at this time. He was aware of the alcohol and gambling and my intention to kill myself. He had advised me to cut back on the alcohol, but there was no point in that. I wanted to be dead, and it was killing me, while at the same time, providing a measure of relief.
I hadn't intended to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal, because I thought I would most likely be dead by the time the case came to court. However, I was aware of the three month time limit for claims, so just before time ran out, I lodged my claim. Unexpectedly, I was still alive, and I thought I'd better make the claim just in case I didn't kill myself. Ironically, I think it's the ET case, and the possibility of justice that has kept me alive. Initially, my blog was intended to be my suicide note.
However, the suicidal thoughts haven't stopped, and I still have intrusive violent thoughts and intrusive memories too. Eventually, I visited my GP. I'd had a couple of days when I'd felt an improvement, so I made an appointment. By the time I was due to see my GP, three things had happened to make me feel worse, but I attended anyway. I was prescribed anti-depressants, but I didn't notice any difference. I was referred to a psychiatrist. The problem is that the psychiatrist felt nothing could be done to help me until I had greatly reduced, or even eliminated my alcohol consumption. As I said earlier, alcohol is a depressant, and an obstacle to treatment.
I've managed to reduce my alcohol consumption by a large amount, but I've still a long way to go. I was referred to a substance misuse expert. They want me to go into hospital for about ten days to detox, but I said No, No, No! I keep a daily diary of every drop of alcohol I take. I have good days and bad. When I was working, I generally drank between 6pm and 1am, except at weekends when I'd start earlier. Without work, I now start to feel an urge to take alcohol around 3pm; earlier if something causes me to feel anxious. Unfortunately, by reducing the alcohol, my sleep has reduced too. I'm told that alcohol induced sleep is not good quality sleep, but for me it's a case of 'never mind the quality, feel the width'.
A word of caution to anyone who intends to reduce their alcohol intake. Please seek advice from your GP as it can be very dangerous to do this too quickly, ie cold turkey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)