This is a link to the mp3 file (Selina and Una.mp3) that contains a conversation I had with Selina Gibb and Una Forsyth on 26 February 2010 immediately after my grievance hearing with Kathy McCabe. The transcript of the conversation is on my blog here.
Two months after this conversation took place, Selina was interviewed as part of the disciplinary investigation. She claimed that due to a private conversation she had with me in January that year, she was frightened, nervous and anxious around me. She had lied, claiming that I had gone wild with rage, and that I was red in the face and spitting on her desk.
The conversation begins as I'm about to go home early. Selina and Una Forsyth instigate the conversation by asking me why I'm going home. The both lied, claiming that neither of them got on with me. If I didn't get on with someone, I wouldn't talk to them as they are about to leave. I would just let them leave.
You will note that the volume of my voice lowers as I go over to them, and away from the exit. This was because we shared a room with about eleven colleagues. The private conversation I had with Selina in January 2010 also took place as I was about to leave the room, and again it was Selina who instigated it. However, that day I didn't move towards Selina because we were the only two people in the room at the time. So her claim that I was spitting on her desk in anger was false because I was nowhere near her desk. In fact, at one point, she had stood up from her desk to come over and stand beside me. She was giving the appearance of being genuinely concerned for my health. I now know that to be false.
In this February conversation, just as in the January one, there is no sign of anger from me; no going wild; no spitting with rage. Yet we are discussing my grievance with Kathy McCabe which was the subject that Selina alleged caused me to go wild.
In this conversation, Una raises a work issue which I begin to answer, when Selina interrupts to make jokes about my 'dancing shoes'. Hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious and nervous around me.
The reason the conversation is being recorded is because I had been recording the grievance hearing, and hadn't switched off my recorder.
Mark Toole, who dismissed me, says he believes Selina's unsubstantiated claims. Yet he criticised me because Ruth had sent him a letter in which she stated she had seen disciplinary investigator, Graham Millar, with his arm around Una Forsyth at works nights out. Mark says that Ruth's claims are unsubstantiated despite the fact that Graham did this in the presence of more than a dozen work colleagues, and on more than one occasion. He didn't even bother to ask Graham if it was true or not, such was his desire to substantiate Ruth's claims. Mark claims that Ruth made false claims in collusion with me because she was my partner, but he says he could not imagine that work colleagues would collude with each other.
Ruth's letter also stated that David Black had told her that Jackie O'Neil had shouted angrily at me just before I was suspended. Again, Mark says that he believed Ruth had made this up. David Black has confirmed it, though, so maybe Mark should have asked David before dismissing me. Isn't that what you would expect from someone who says they are going to carry out a thorough investigation? I had pleaded with him to speak to David, but my pleas were ignored. He obviously knew I was telling the truth. Why on earth would I lie about an incident that was witnessed by a dozen colleagues. Mark says he believed Jackie who denied shouting at me, even though she was unwilling to attend a meeting with me and Mark to discuss the incident. Despite knowing that I shared an office with 13 colleagues, Mark says he thought that only David and Jackie and I were present. That's why nobody else was asked about it, he said.
Does that sound genuine to you?
Showing posts with label bullying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bullying. Show all posts
Sunday
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act
The author of a recent message I posted referred to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. Here is the FAQ about the act.
Under this act, I cannot find any evidence that employers who receive a grievance about bullying that has already caused a period of stress related absence, are advised that senior management should lie in order to cover up that bullying, rather than act to remove the source of bullying. My view is that to act in that way, senior management may be guilty of gross negligence.
Where can I find the Act and any guidance?
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
When did the new Act come into force?
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act was given Royal assent on 26 July 2007. The offence came into force on 6 April 2008 and is called corporate manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and corporate homicide in Scotland.
Provisions in the Act which relate to publicity orders (see section 10 of the Act ) will commence when sentencing guidelines are published. It is anticipated that this will be by Summer 2009.
Provisions in the Act which relate to the management of custody (see sections 2(1)(d) and 2(2) of the Act ) will also come into force at a later stage. It is expected that the implementation period will be between 3-5 years.
Are there any new duties or obligations under the Act?
There are no new duties or obligations under the Act, nor is the new offence part of health and safety law. It is, however, specifically linked to existing health and safety requirements.
What do companies and organisations need to do to comply?
Companies and organisations that take their obligations under health and safety law seriously are not likely to be in breach of the new provisions. Nonetheless, companies and organisations should keep their health and safety management systems under review, in particular, the way in which their activities are managed or organised by senior management.
Where does health and safety legislation come in?
Under the Act, health and safety legislation means "any statutory provision dealing with health and safety matters" so it will include transport (road, rail, river, sea, air) food safety and workplace safety as enforced by HSE and local authorities.
Juries will be required to consider breaches of health and safety legislation in determining liability of companies and other corporate bodies for corporate manslaughter/homicide. Juries may also consider whether a company or organisation has taken account of any appropriate health and safety guidance and the extent to which the evidence shows that there were attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within the organisation that were likely to have encouraged any such serious management failure or have produced tolerance of it.
Who will investigate and prosecute under the new offence?
The police will investigate suspected cases of corporate manslaughter/homicide. Prosecution decisions will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service (England and Wales), the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland).
What is the role of health and safety regulators like HSE, local authorities etc?
As now, there will be a joint approach to work-related deaths between all the relevant regulatory authorities in line with the principles of the Work Related Deaths Protocol.
Will directors, board members or other individuals be prosecuted?
The offence is concerned with corporate liability and does not apply to directors or other individuals who have a senior role in the company or organisation. However, existing health and safety offences and gross negligence manslaughter will continue to apply to individuals. Prosecutions against individuals will continue to be taken where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.
Is there any advice or guidance for directors or board members on what they should be doing and what their responsibilities are under health and safety legislation?
In conjunction with the Institute of Directors, HSE has published guidance for directors on their responsibilities for health and safety - 'Leading health and safety at work: leadership actions for directors and board members’ (INDG417) [450KB] . The guidance sets out good practice for directors, addressing them in language and style they will find authoritative and convincing, informing Boards and their members in the public, private and third sectors, as to how to provide leadership in health and safety so as to help their organisation meet its legal obligations as an employer under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and gain the business benefits arising from effective, sensible health and safety management.
It should be borne in mind that HSE is only one of the health and safety regulators that might produce relevant health and safety guidance. Organisations and companies can also seek guidance from any regulators in their own industry or sector.
What penalties will a company or organisation face?
Penalties will include unlimited fines, remedial orders and publicity orders. A remedial order will require a company or organisation to take steps to remedy any management failure that led to a death. The court can also impose an order requiring the company or organisation to publicise that it has been convicted of the offence, giving the details, the amount of any fine imposed and the terms of any remedial order made. The publicity order provisions will not come into force until the Sentencing Guidelines Council has completed its work on the relevant guidance.
From here
Under this act, I cannot find any evidence that employers who receive a grievance about bullying that has already caused a period of stress related absence, are advised that senior management should lie in order to cover up that bullying, rather than act to remove the source of bullying. My view is that to act in that way, senior management may be guilty of gross negligence.
Where can I find the Act and any guidance?
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
When did the new Act come into force?
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act was given Royal assent on 26 July 2007. The offence came into force on 6 April 2008 and is called corporate manslaughter in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and corporate homicide in Scotland.
Provisions in the Act which relate to publicity orders (see section 10 of the Act ) will commence when sentencing guidelines are published. It is anticipated that this will be by Summer 2009.
Provisions in the Act which relate to the management of custody (see sections 2(1)(d) and 2(2) of the Act ) will also come into force at a later stage. It is expected that the implementation period will be between 3-5 years.
Are there any new duties or obligations under the Act?
There are no new duties or obligations under the Act, nor is the new offence part of health and safety law. It is, however, specifically linked to existing health and safety requirements.
What do companies and organisations need to do to comply?
Companies and organisations that take their obligations under health and safety law seriously are not likely to be in breach of the new provisions. Nonetheless, companies and organisations should keep their health and safety management systems under review, in particular, the way in which their activities are managed or organised by senior management.
Where does health and safety legislation come in?
Under the Act, health and safety legislation means "any statutory provision dealing with health and safety matters" so it will include transport (road, rail, river, sea, air) food safety and workplace safety as enforced by HSE and local authorities.
Juries will be required to consider breaches of health and safety legislation in determining liability of companies and other corporate bodies for corporate manslaughter/homicide. Juries may also consider whether a company or organisation has taken account of any appropriate health and safety guidance and the extent to which the evidence shows that there were attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within the organisation that were likely to have encouraged any such serious management failure or have produced tolerance of it.
Who will investigate and prosecute under the new offence?
The police will investigate suspected cases of corporate manslaughter/homicide. Prosecution decisions will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service (England and Wales), the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland).
What is the role of health and safety regulators like HSE, local authorities etc?
As now, there will be a joint approach to work-related deaths between all the relevant regulatory authorities in line with the principles of the Work Related Deaths Protocol.
Will directors, board members or other individuals be prosecuted?
The offence is concerned with corporate liability and does not apply to directors or other individuals who have a senior role in the company or organisation. However, existing health and safety offences and gross negligence manslaughter will continue to apply to individuals. Prosecutions against individuals will continue to be taken where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to do so.
Is there any advice or guidance for directors or board members on what they should be doing and what their responsibilities are under health and safety legislation?
In conjunction with the Institute of Directors, HSE has published guidance for directors on their responsibilities for health and safety - 'Leading health and safety at work: leadership actions for directors and board members’ (INDG417) [450KB] . The guidance sets out good practice for directors, addressing them in language and style they will find authoritative and convincing, informing Boards and their members in the public, private and third sectors, as to how to provide leadership in health and safety so as to help their organisation meet its legal obligations as an employer under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and gain the business benefits arising from effective, sensible health and safety management.
It should be borne in mind that HSE is only one of the health and safety regulators that might produce relevant health and safety guidance. Organisations and companies can also seek guidance from any regulators in their own industry or sector.
What penalties will a company or organisation face?
Penalties will include unlimited fines, remedial orders and publicity orders. A remedial order will require a company or organisation to take steps to remedy any management failure that led to a death. The court can also impose an order requiring the company or organisation to publicise that it has been convicted of the offence, giving the details, the amount of any fine imposed and the terms of any remedial order made. The publicity order provisions will not come into force until the Sentencing Guidelines Council has completed its work on the relevant guidance.
From here
Thursday
Message From Another Bullying Victim
This is a message I received recently from someone who knows what I'm going through, because she has been through it herself. There are very striking similarities in our experiences.
I had a stress breakdown as I couldn't cope with the bullying any longer. I felt there was no support from colleagues or from managers. In fact the bullying had spread from one principal bully to several others. I have found out subsequently that this is quite common. At some level everyone knows bullying is going on. I have observed that there is usually a principal bully who is often joined by others, and who, if they are skilful enough can get the others to do the dirty work while they themselves appear to stay clean. Some people side with the bully because they are inherently bullies themselves, and enjoy the sense of power they have. Others side with the bully because they hope they will be safe, so they act from fear of being the next victim. Others keep their heads down and choose to view the situation as a personality clash so they don't need to do anything about it. They are terrified they might become a victim if they speak out. Most avoid the victim. In a strange way everyone is a victim of the bully and bullying can only exist where there is poor management. It's a bit like when harassed parents keep giving in to toddler tantrums and eventually create a monster.
I was off with stress for over 7 months during which time I took out a grievance against the principal bully which was upheld. Although my grievance was upheld, I found after I got back to work that the macho bullying culture had hardened. I think it is a pack animal instinctive thing to go for someone who is weak or wounded. It even spread to some of the students, part, I think, of the subliminal pack animal thing. I felt I was being watched all the time to see if I would slip up so they could 'get' me and the stress was intolerable. I'm sure some of it was self-imposed. I knew if I went off ill without completing my semester's teaching I probably wouldn't make it back again. I didn't want to live with being a failure.
The institution did make attempts to put support in place but no-one realised just how much support someone in my situation would need - much better to not let it get so bad in the first place by ensuring that managers are properly trained. I didn't know who, if anyone, I could trust in the department so I tended to keep to myself. I was in a PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder state) and I couldn't cope with large numbers of people or a lot of noise so avoided the coffee room. I self harmed for a long time to cope with the pressures of being back, and eventually close to the end of semester I showed someone. I had discussed self-harming with my counsellor who told me there are two types of wound - one is a slashing kind of action, expressing anger and rage. The other is much more precise and controlled, just deep enough to release some endorphins after the initial pain. That kind of self harm represented despair. I was doing the second kind.
Occupational Health advised me to get signed off but I knew if I didn't complete that semester's teaching I would probaly never make it back. I did manage to find black humour in some of the situations I found myself in, like thinking about what method I might use to attempt suicide and my reasons for rejecting it - I didn't have the energy to go and fetch a knife, and it probably wasn't sharp enough anyway as I never
sharpened them, or I might damage the tree or the lorry I considered driving my car into, or if not successful I might be a vegetable for the rest of my life and my young family didn't like veg! I even had my counsellor in stitches on several occasions as we discussed some of this stuff which gave me a glimmer of hope for an alternative career.
The institution responded to the self harm and the suicidal thoughts by wanting me to be assessed by a psychiatrist. Were they just covering themselves, to show they were
being proactive or were they trying to get me on some kind of mental health retirement thing? I never worked that one out but whichever it was became irrelevant as my counsellor wrote refuting my need to be assessed by a psychiatrist as the counsellor had judged me to be 'normal' in an abnormal situation.
This all happened years ago so obviously I survived to tell the tale but for several years I was hypervigilant and could not react well to stress. Repairing battered self confidence and self esteem takes much longer and some vicitms of bullying are so damaged they never fully recover, never become fully functional again. Some are so damaged it can be years before they work again, if at all.
Allan is braver than I was in starting a blog and being so open. Although it happened years ago, I've asked him not to identify the institution where I worked and I salute his bravery.
The saddest thing about bullying is that it is people who are good at their job, or popular with students, or colleagues, or customers, who are targetted by people who are trying to distract from their own inadequacies - poor consolation though if your self confidence and self esteem have been destroyed.
Victims of bullying are generally high achieving, self motivated, empathic, trusting and a bit naive while bullies are generally inadequate, insecure, promoted beyond their capabilites and lacking empathy. In extreme cases they can be sociopaths incapable of putting themselves in other people's shoes and reckless of the consequences of their actions.
I got very interested in the topic of corporate manslaughter (corporate homicide in Scotland)- a way of making top management take responsibility if people have fatal accidents due to a failure to observe proper health and safety guidelines concerning the requirement to provide a safe working environment, which I believe covers
psychological safety as well as physical safety. So if someone had a fatal accident or committed suicide because of overwork and stress, or because of unchecked bullying the organisation could be found to be liable.
I had a stress breakdown as I couldn't cope with the bullying any longer. I felt there was no support from colleagues or from managers. In fact the bullying had spread from one principal bully to several others. I have found out subsequently that this is quite common. At some level everyone knows bullying is going on. I have observed that there is usually a principal bully who is often joined by others, and who, if they are skilful enough can get the others to do the dirty work while they themselves appear to stay clean. Some people side with the bully because they are inherently bullies themselves, and enjoy the sense of power they have. Others side with the bully because they hope they will be safe, so they act from fear of being the next victim. Others keep their heads down and choose to view the situation as a personality clash so they don't need to do anything about it. They are terrified they might become a victim if they speak out. Most avoid the victim. In a strange way everyone is a victim of the bully and bullying can only exist where there is poor management. It's a bit like when harassed parents keep giving in to toddler tantrums and eventually create a monster.
I was off with stress for over 7 months during which time I took out a grievance against the principal bully which was upheld. Although my grievance was upheld, I found after I got back to work that the macho bullying culture had hardened. I think it is a pack animal instinctive thing to go for someone who is weak or wounded. It even spread to some of the students, part, I think, of the subliminal pack animal thing. I felt I was being watched all the time to see if I would slip up so they could 'get' me and the stress was intolerable. I'm sure some of it was self-imposed. I knew if I went off ill without completing my semester's teaching I probably wouldn't make it back again. I didn't want to live with being a failure.
The institution did make attempts to put support in place but no-one realised just how much support someone in my situation would need - much better to not let it get so bad in the first place by ensuring that managers are properly trained. I didn't know who, if anyone, I could trust in the department so I tended to keep to myself. I was in a PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder state) and I couldn't cope with large numbers of people or a lot of noise so avoided the coffee room. I self harmed for a long time to cope with the pressures of being back, and eventually close to the end of semester I showed someone. I had discussed self-harming with my counsellor who told me there are two types of wound - one is a slashing kind of action, expressing anger and rage. The other is much more precise and controlled, just deep enough to release some endorphins after the initial pain. That kind of self harm represented despair. I was doing the second kind.
Occupational Health advised me to get signed off but I knew if I didn't complete that semester's teaching I would probaly never make it back. I did manage to find black humour in some of the situations I found myself in, like thinking about what method I might use to attempt suicide and my reasons for rejecting it - I didn't have the energy to go and fetch a knife, and it probably wasn't sharp enough anyway as I never
sharpened them, or I might damage the tree or the lorry I considered driving my car into, or if not successful I might be a vegetable for the rest of my life and my young family didn't like veg! I even had my counsellor in stitches on several occasions as we discussed some of this stuff which gave me a glimmer of hope for an alternative career.
The institution responded to the self harm and the suicidal thoughts by wanting me to be assessed by a psychiatrist. Were they just covering themselves, to show they were
being proactive or were they trying to get me on some kind of mental health retirement thing? I never worked that one out but whichever it was became irrelevant as my counsellor wrote refuting my need to be assessed by a psychiatrist as the counsellor had judged me to be 'normal' in an abnormal situation.
This all happened years ago so obviously I survived to tell the tale but for several years I was hypervigilant and could not react well to stress. Repairing battered self confidence and self esteem takes much longer and some vicitms of bullying are so damaged they never fully recover, never become fully functional again. Some are so damaged it can be years before they work again, if at all.
Allan is braver than I was in starting a blog and being so open. Although it happened years ago, I've asked him not to identify the institution where I worked and I salute his bravery.
The saddest thing about bullying is that it is people who are good at their job, or popular with students, or colleagues, or customers, who are targetted by people who are trying to distract from their own inadequacies - poor consolation though if your self confidence and self esteem have been destroyed.
Victims of bullying are generally high achieving, self motivated, empathic, trusting and a bit naive while bullies are generally inadequate, insecure, promoted beyond their capabilites and lacking empathy. In extreme cases they can be sociopaths incapable of putting themselves in other people's shoes and reckless of the consequences of their actions.
I got very interested in the topic of corporate manslaughter (corporate homicide in Scotland)- a way of making top management take responsibility if people have fatal accidents due to a failure to observe proper health and safety guidelines concerning the requirement to provide a safe working environment, which I believe covers
psychological safety as well as physical safety. So if someone had a fatal accident or committed suicide because of overwork and stress, or because of unchecked bullying the organisation could be found to be liable.
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?
Friday
The Witnesses
The people who are being called by either side as witnesses for my employment tribunal case versus University of Stirling are, in no particular order:
1 Graham Millar
If Mr Millar can withdraw his tongue from Mark Toole's arse for long enough, then I intend to probe him in relation to his bizarre investigation, in which he seemed to begin with the lynching, then moved backwards towards gathering the evidence with the handicap of a mouthful of Mark's shite.
2 Mark Toole
I guess that all I'm going to get from him is "on the balance of probability...." Mark doesn't expect to win at the tribunal. All he wanted was me out of the uni, cos he was too much of a coward to deal with Kathy. She's far more of a man than he'll ever be.
3 Karen Stark
She is nowhere near as clever as she thinks she is. She will fail disastrously. I'm on to her.
4 Martin McCrindle
Surprisingly, the university raised the issue of the Framework process in their case against me. This means that I will be able to cross examine Mr McCrindle and Karen Stark on the subject. A spectacular own goal, surely! Bizarrely, at my appeal against unfair dismissal, Martin asked me to keep quiet about the liars who had conspired to have me dismissed. Why would I want to do that? He must really have thought I was stupid. I'm deeply offended.
5 Gail Miller
I expect that Mark and Graham and Gail will try to defend the investigation with some false story that they have agreed upon. Nevertheless, it is completely indefensible. I wouldn't want to defend it. They've invented their own disciplinary procedures. They completely ignored the university's. They had to batter the square peg into the round hole. I'd imagine that the tribunal would wonder why neither of them saw the flaws in their corrupt process.
6 Professor Gerry McCormac
What have you done about all the corruption, Gerry? Nothing? Yet you think I shouldn't be reinstated? Surely you should be begging me to return?
7 Kevin Clarke
He's going to have to explain how each flaw in the grievance procedure isn't a flaw. Rather him than me.
8 Professor Christine Hallett
What the fuck can she possibly say for herself? She has to be the queen of corruption. To pretend to everybody that she was our protector, when in reality she was the executioner; that takes a very special type of bastard. I wasn't her first victim either. She's a habitual corrupt bastard. Corruption is her hobby. Doesn't give a fuck about people's health. Money! Money! Money! I wish her a very slow painful death.
9 Jackie O'Neil
Jackie and Kathy are very similar. She's a loose cannon. Who knows what she could say? But I expect I will have evidence to prove it's a lie.
10 Dr Peter Kemp
This guy has been talking shite with impunity for so long, he won't know what else to do. He's in for an extremely hard time unless I'm seriously missing something.
11 Kathy McCabe
Nobody, and I mean nobody knows what on earth she might say on the witness stand. I fear there could be fake tears. When she is faced with the fact that she is a liar, the hearing may have to be suspended while she considers her response. During mediation, she refused to answer any questions, and she made an almighty fuss because I mentioned her dishonesty. Now she has more questions to answer. She won't be able to refuse to answer them. She has lied even more since mediation, and there is irrefutable evidence to prove it. "Isn't it true, Mrs McCabe that you told me, more than once, that honesty goes to the core of your very being? Then how do you explain this, and this, and this, and this, and..." Kathy described the mediation process as "the most difficult and deeply unpleasant experience of my working life." She will think it was a party compared with her time in the witness box. This won't be pretty, but it should be very entertaining.
12 Selina Gibb
I can only assume that someone is going to advise her what to say. I hope it's Eileen MacDonald.
13 Una Forsyth
Where do I begin? The university has definitely let Una down. They deliberately made her think I had made a complaint about her. It's almost unfair, but I have to treat her as what she is; a liar, and an extremely bad one at that.
14 Eileen MacDonald
Another one who has been led to believe that she is clever. This will be disastrous for Eileen. I suspect tears will flow if they allow this to proceed. She will be faced with her own stupidity and dishonesty. There's no escape. She has run out of lives. She depended on me for help, but I won't be helping her. She has dug herself into a very deep hole when she should have been keeping her mouth well and truly shut. No hope. And she'll probably blame Kathy for getting her into such a mess.
15 Eileen Schofield
My only fear with Eileen is that she'll come dressed as Mystic Meg and tell us the next day's horse results. No wait! That would be a good thing. A £1 roll-up on these 20 horses please, Mr Bookie!
16 David Black
He will have to check with Eric what he's allowed to say. He's shit scared of Kathy, so he will back her up to the hilt. But there's a rule at the tribunal. You have to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That means he will have to make a choice, and I suspect the spineless twat will lie with everything he's got. A complete integrity vacuum; he'll say anything to keep Kathy happy. He'd sell his granny for a ha'penny. I don't intend to make it easy though.
17 Eric Hall
Eric will turn up full of confidence that he will eat me for breakfast. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. He will definitely not be saying that Kathy is a fucking bitch. I expect she will be a fucking Goddess when I cross examine him.
18 Karen Plouviez
1 Graham Millar
If Mr Millar can withdraw his tongue from Mark Toole's arse for long enough, then I intend to probe him in relation to his bizarre investigation, in which he seemed to begin with the lynching, then moved backwards towards gathering the evidence with the handicap of a mouthful of Mark's shite.
2 Mark Toole
I guess that all I'm going to get from him is "on the balance of probability...." Mark doesn't expect to win at the tribunal. All he wanted was me out of the uni, cos he was too much of a coward to deal with Kathy. She's far more of a man than he'll ever be.
3 Karen Stark
She is nowhere near as clever as she thinks she is. She will fail disastrously. I'm on to her.
4 Martin McCrindle
Surprisingly, the university raised the issue of the Framework process in their case against me. This means that I will be able to cross examine Mr McCrindle and Karen Stark on the subject. A spectacular own goal, surely! Bizarrely, at my appeal against unfair dismissal, Martin asked me to keep quiet about the liars who had conspired to have me dismissed. Why would I want to do that? He must really have thought I was stupid. I'm deeply offended.
5 Gail Miller
I expect that Mark and Graham and Gail will try to defend the investigation with some false story that they have agreed upon. Nevertheless, it is completely indefensible. I wouldn't want to defend it. They've invented their own disciplinary procedures. They completely ignored the university's. They had to batter the square peg into the round hole. I'd imagine that the tribunal would wonder why neither of them saw the flaws in their corrupt process.
6 Professor Gerry McCormac
What have you done about all the corruption, Gerry? Nothing? Yet you think I shouldn't be reinstated? Surely you should be begging me to return?
7 Kevin Clarke
He's going to have to explain how each flaw in the grievance procedure isn't a flaw. Rather him than me.
8 Professor Christine Hallett
What the fuck can she possibly say for herself? She has to be the queen of corruption. To pretend to everybody that she was our protector, when in reality she was the executioner; that takes a very special type of bastard. I wasn't her first victim either. She's a habitual corrupt bastard. Corruption is her hobby. Doesn't give a fuck about people's health. Money! Money! Money! I wish her a very slow painful death.
9 Jackie O'Neil
Jackie and Kathy are very similar. She's a loose cannon. Who knows what she could say? But I expect I will have evidence to prove it's a lie.
10 Dr Peter Kemp
This guy has been talking shite with impunity for so long, he won't know what else to do. He's in for an extremely hard time unless I'm seriously missing something.
11 Kathy McCabe
Nobody, and I mean nobody knows what on earth she might say on the witness stand. I fear there could be fake tears. When she is faced with the fact that she is a liar, the hearing may have to be suspended while she considers her response. During mediation, she refused to answer any questions, and she made an almighty fuss because I mentioned her dishonesty. Now she has more questions to answer. She won't be able to refuse to answer them. She has lied even more since mediation, and there is irrefutable evidence to prove it. "Isn't it true, Mrs McCabe that you told me, more than once, that honesty goes to the core of your very being? Then how do you explain this, and this, and this, and this, and..." Kathy described the mediation process as "the most difficult and deeply unpleasant experience of my working life." She will think it was a party compared with her time in the witness box. This won't be pretty, but it should be very entertaining.
12 Selina Gibb
I can only assume that someone is going to advise her what to say. I hope it's Eileen MacDonald.
13 Una Forsyth
Where do I begin? The university has definitely let Una down. They deliberately made her think I had made a complaint about her. It's almost unfair, but I have to treat her as what she is; a liar, and an extremely bad one at that.
14 Eileen MacDonald
Another one who has been led to believe that she is clever. This will be disastrous for Eileen. I suspect tears will flow if they allow this to proceed. She will be faced with her own stupidity and dishonesty. There's no escape. She has run out of lives. She depended on me for help, but I won't be helping her. She has dug herself into a very deep hole when she should have been keeping her mouth well and truly shut. No hope. And she'll probably blame Kathy for getting her into such a mess.
15 Eileen Schofield
My only fear with Eileen is that she'll come dressed as Mystic Meg and tell us the next day's horse results. No wait! That would be a good thing. A £1 roll-up on these 20 horses please, Mr Bookie!
16 David Black
He will have to check with Eric what he's allowed to say. He's shit scared of Kathy, so he will back her up to the hilt. But there's a rule at the tribunal. You have to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That means he will have to make a choice, and I suspect the spineless twat will lie with everything he's got. A complete integrity vacuum; he'll say anything to keep Kathy happy. He'd sell his granny for a ha'penny. I don't intend to make it easy though.
17 Eric Hall
Eric will turn up full of confidence that he will eat me for breakfast. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. He will definitely not be saying that Kathy is a fucking bitch. I expect she will be a fucking Goddess when I cross examine him.
18 Karen Plouviez
Wednesday
The Public Interest
One of the reasons this blog exists is because it contains information I believe is in the public interest.
When I wrote to the then Principal of Stirling University, Professor Christine Hallett in February 2010, it wasn't because of a trivial matter. The IS department was being run in a manner that was hazardous to the health of employees. Sex discrimination and bullying was taking place so often that employees had just come to expect it. Not only that, but they expected that nothing would ever be done about it.
I stuck my neck out and made the Principal aware of it. It had to stop, and she seemed to be the person who had a mind to stop it. Just a few days earlier she wrote to every member of staff telling us how committed the university was to allowing us all to work free from bullying, sex discrimination and victimisation.
The email I sent her informed her that Stirling University was failing to comply with its legal obligations by not caring for employees' health properly and for turning a blind eye to sex discrimination. I was also suggesting that senior management were covering up these illegal acts by pretending they didn't happen. The information I gave her should have had her taking immediate steps to ensure that the university acted within the law.
Because of the contents of my email, I was protected under whistleblowing laws, namely the Public Interest Disclosures Act. What that means is that I was protected from the university taking any action that would be to my detriment because of that email to the Principal. Acts such as: victimisation, further bullying, ostracising, subjecting me to a sham grievance procedure, placing me under suspension for no good reason and for far too long, refusing to deal with my legitimate complaints, subjecting me to malicious complaints, subjecting me to a sham disciplinary procedure, unfair dismissal, all acts that were designed to cause further damage to my health.
The point I wish to make here was that I was doing the Principal and the university a favour. What I did was good for everybody concerned. It was in the public interest. However, when I say that it was good for everybody concerned, I mean that it was good for the honest and non corrupt members of staff; the vast majority. It was not seen as good for those members of staff who could not work under conditions where they are not allowed to bully or discriminate for illegal reasons. Unfortunately, there were more of these people than I had imagined possible at Stirling Uni.
And what thanks did I receive from Prof. Hallett in return? I got fired! I could have had no way of knowing it at the time, but the victimisation and bullying and sex discrimination was happening with her blessing. It genuinely never occurred to me that, in 21st century Britain, people get fired for blowing the whistle on illegal practices. Least of all; I did not expect it to happen in a university.
University of Stirling sees whistleblowers in a negative light. They view them as troublemakers. Of course, you won't find that written in any university policy document.
The policy documents that Stirling University publishes on its website are merely cosmetic. They are also traps. Any innocent employee hoping to make use of its published grievance procedures should be very wary of using them. To my cost, I found that the real procedures; the ones that they don't publish, are very different indeed.
They tell you that you will be given an opportunity to state your case. I never got that opportunity. And that's a fact that it took the university over a year to admit, after Eileen Schofield had said not once, but two times in her report that I was asked to present my case. They say that your grievance will be decided using the facts. The facts in my case were completely ignored. However, 'facts' that didn't exist were used instead.
Colleagues that you've worked alongside for many years will suddenly lose their memory when they are interviewed. It's as if a disease strikes your department. Why do they suddenly lose their memory? Fear! In some cases, it's fear of victimisation. In some cases it's fear of losing special privileges. It doesn't tell you about that in the grievance procedure. If you do have a colleague who is willing to back you up, their evidence will be ignored, and they will be victimised. It doesn't say that in the published procedures either.
The procedure is correct in saying that you have the right to appeal. However, you shouldn't put too much faith in the appeal. The same tactics that were used at the original grievance are used again. The Appeal Officer won't see the flaws in the process, even after you have pointed them out. There is one statement in the grievance procedure that I can find no fault with; the outcome of the appeal hearing will be final.
The grievance procedure also states that you can raise grievances within three months of you leaving. Well, that's what it says, but it's not what happens. I lodged thirteen formal grievances with Gerry McCormac within three months of leaving, and he replied saying:
I refer to your letter dated 23 September 2010.
I write to confirm that all internal mechanisms within the University that were available to you as an employee have now been exhausted. Accordingly, there is no grievance procedure available to you. I confirm, therefore, that all correspondence between you and the University on this matter is now regarded as closed.
Yours sincerely
PROFESSOR GERRY McCORMAC
Principal and Vice Chancellor
Gerry is the current Principal. My letter to Gerry also informs him of substantial corrupt practices at the university, including its failure in its duty to care for my health. Can you see anything in Gerry's response that suggests that he intends to rid Stirling University of its corrupt practices? I don't see it.
Something else that it doesn't say in the grievance procedure, is that you can end up sacked. That's what happened to me. The only way I have of resolving this now is via the Employment Tribunal Services. I made my claim to the tribunal in September 2010. The hearing hasn't begun yet. These things clearly take time.
I opened this post by saying that this blog exists partly because it contains information that I believe is in the public interest. I am aware that the contents of this blog are causing embarrassment to some employees at Stirling University, and they would like the blog to be removed. They even paid their lawyer to send pages of my blog to the Employment Tribunal judge to support their assertion that I should be denied my legal rights to cross examine witnesses; witnesses they know to be liars; particularly Mrs Kathy McCabe who said several times during mediation that 'Honesty goes to the core of my very being'. We will see at the hearing just how honest Mrs McCabe is.
I acted in the public interest by blowing the whistle to two Stirling University Principals. It amazes me that the university should now expect that, after having unfairly sacked me, I should suddenly stop blowing the whistle and keep my mouth shut. That just doesn't make sense to me. It's as if they are asking me to reward them for unfairly dismissing me, by allowing them to continue to mistreat staff without the general public getting to know about it. They want to be able to continue with their bullying and unfair dismissals and sham procedures, but they would prefer it was not widely known. They don't want to have a reputation for corruption, they just want to be corrupt on the quiet. Sorry, but no can do!
To those people who are embarrassed by their own actions, I'd say that if they had behaved appropriately, they would have nothing to be embarrassed about. Furthermore, I have said this many times before; if there is anything I've said in my blog that is not true, then I would be the first person to want it removed. It would not be in the public interest for me to publish any untruths. So please tell me if you spot anything that is not true. I should also point out that in the 14 months that it has been on public view, I have not received one single notice of anything in my blog being inaccurate. May I suggest that that is because it is all true.
Once the hearing begins, I hope whenever possible, to report on what's happening on my blog. Tribunal hearings are open to the public as well as the press. There are no restrictions that I am aware of that prevent anyone from reporting events on their blog. And unless I'm officially told otherwise; that's what I will do. If a witness was to lie under oath, I will report that here, and if possible I will also publish the evidence that shows that they lied. The fact that it will prove embarrassing to the liars is merely a bonus. My recommendation would be; don't lie!
Each time I'm told by the uni that their corrupt employees don't like my blog, it fills my heart with joy. I do so hope they keep telling me!
I can't make my mind up about who I'm most looking forward to cross examining. I'm like a kid in a sweetshop. High on the list has to be Kathy McCabe. I genuinely thought that it would never happen, but that will be a very special day. Karen Stark is well up there too. Then the investigators, Gail Miller and Graham Millar; what on earth could they possibly say in defense of their investigation? I never thought I'd be allowed to cross examine Eileen MacDonald either. I thought she was on the protected list, but I guess not. That will be a special day too. She doesn't know what she's got coming yet. Mark Toole is obviously another I can't wait to question. Eileen Schofield too. I can't wait to go through the fraudulent document with her. What will Jackie O'Neil be like? Will she start shouting at me and the tribunal members? Will she slam her fist down and insist she never shouts at people? What will Christine Hallett have to say for herself? And Peter Kemp too! What can he possibly say? Then I get to go through Una Forsyth's and Selina Gibb's statements with a fine tooth comb too. I hope to receive their answers to my questions soon.
I look forward to the day that my blog is seen by an even greater audience. That might be triggered by some action that the university may be about to take. Go ahead; make my day! You declared war on the wrong bloke.
When I wrote to the then Principal of Stirling University, Professor Christine Hallett in February 2010, it wasn't because of a trivial matter. The IS department was being run in a manner that was hazardous to the health of employees. Sex discrimination and bullying was taking place so often that employees had just come to expect it. Not only that, but they expected that nothing would ever be done about it.
I stuck my neck out and made the Principal aware of it. It had to stop, and she seemed to be the person who had a mind to stop it. Just a few days earlier she wrote to every member of staff telling us how committed the university was to allowing us all to work free from bullying, sex discrimination and victimisation.
The email I sent her informed her that Stirling University was failing to comply with its legal obligations by not caring for employees' health properly and for turning a blind eye to sex discrimination. I was also suggesting that senior management were covering up these illegal acts by pretending they didn't happen. The information I gave her should have had her taking immediate steps to ensure that the university acted within the law.
Because of the contents of my email, I was protected under whistleblowing laws, namely the Public Interest Disclosures Act. What that means is that I was protected from the university taking any action that would be to my detriment because of that email to the Principal. Acts such as: victimisation, further bullying, ostracising, subjecting me to a sham grievance procedure, placing me under suspension for no good reason and for far too long, refusing to deal with my legitimate complaints, subjecting me to malicious complaints, subjecting me to a sham disciplinary procedure, unfair dismissal, all acts that were designed to cause further damage to my health.
The point I wish to make here was that I was doing the Principal and the university a favour. What I did was good for everybody concerned. It was in the public interest. However, when I say that it was good for everybody concerned, I mean that it was good for the honest and non corrupt members of staff; the vast majority. It was not seen as good for those members of staff who could not work under conditions where they are not allowed to bully or discriminate for illegal reasons. Unfortunately, there were more of these people than I had imagined possible at Stirling Uni.
And what thanks did I receive from Prof. Hallett in return? I got fired! I could have had no way of knowing it at the time, but the victimisation and bullying and sex discrimination was happening with her blessing. It genuinely never occurred to me that, in 21st century Britain, people get fired for blowing the whistle on illegal practices. Least of all; I did not expect it to happen in a university.
University of Stirling sees whistleblowers in a negative light. They view them as troublemakers. Of course, you won't find that written in any university policy document.
The policy documents that Stirling University publishes on its website are merely cosmetic. They are also traps. Any innocent employee hoping to make use of its published grievance procedures should be very wary of using them. To my cost, I found that the real procedures; the ones that they don't publish, are very different indeed.
They tell you that you will be given an opportunity to state your case. I never got that opportunity. And that's a fact that it took the university over a year to admit, after Eileen Schofield had said not once, but two times in her report that I was asked to present my case. They say that your grievance will be decided using the facts. The facts in my case were completely ignored. However, 'facts' that didn't exist were used instead.
Colleagues that you've worked alongside for many years will suddenly lose their memory when they are interviewed. It's as if a disease strikes your department. Why do they suddenly lose their memory? Fear! In some cases, it's fear of victimisation. In some cases it's fear of losing special privileges. It doesn't tell you about that in the grievance procedure. If you do have a colleague who is willing to back you up, their evidence will be ignored, and they will be victimised. It doesn't say that in the published procedures either.
The procedure is correct in saying that you have the right to appeal. However, you shouldn't put too much faith in the appeal. The same tactics that were used at the original grievance are used again. The Appeal Officer won't see the flaws in the process, even after you have pointed them out. There is one statement in the grievance procedure that I can find no fault with; the outcome of the appeal hearing will be final.
The grievance procedure also states that you can raise grievances within three months of you leaving. Well, that's what it says, but it's not what happens. I lodged thirteen formal grievances with Gerry McCormac within three months of leaving, and he replied saying:
I refer to your letter dated 23 September 2010.
I write to confirm that all internal mechanisms within the University that were available to you as an employee have now been exhausted. Accordingly, there is no grievance procedure available to you. I confirm, therefore, that all correspondence between you and the University on this matter is now regarded as closed.
Yours sincerely
PROFESSOR GERRY McCORMAC
Principal and Vice Chancellor
Gerry is the current Principal. My letter to Gerry also informs him of substantial corrupt practices at the university, including its failure in its duty to care for my health. Can you see anything in Gerry's response that suggests that he intends to rid Stirling University of its corrupt practices? I don't see it.
Something else that it doesn't say in the grievance procedure, is that you can end up sacked. That's what happened to me. The only way I have of resolving this now is via the Employment Tribunal Services. I made my claim to the tribunal in September 2010. The hearing hasn't begun yet. These things clearly take time.
I opened this post by saying that this blog exists partly because it contains information that I believe is in the public interest. I am aware that the contents of this blog are causing embarrassment to some employees at Stirling University, and they would like the blog to be removed. They even paid their lawyer to send pages of my blog to the Employment Tribunal judge to support their assertion that I should be denied my legal rights to cross examine witnesses; witnesses they know to be liars; particularly Mrs Kathy McCabe who said several times during mediation that 'Honesty goes to the core of my very being'. We will see at the hearing just how honest Mrs McCabe is.
I acted in the public interest by blowing the whistle to two Stirling University Principals. It amazes me that the university should now expect that, after having unfairly sacked me, I should suddenly stop blowing the whistle and keep my mouth shut. That just doesn't make sense to me. It's as if they are asking me to reward them for unfairly dismissing me, by allowing them to continue to mistreat staff without the general public getting to know about it. They want to be able to continue with their bullying and unfair dismissals and sham procedures, but they would prefer it was not widely known. They don't want to have a reputation for corruption, they just want to be corrupt on the quiet. Sorry, but no can do!
To those people who are embarrassed by their own actions, I'd say that if they had behaved appropriately, they would have nothing to be embarrassed about. Furthermore, I have said this many times before; if there is anything I've said in my blog that is not true, then I would be the first person to want it removed. It would not be in the public interest for me to publish any untruths. So please tell me if you spot anything that is not true. I should also point out that in the 14 months that it has been on public view, I have not received one single notice of anything in my blog being inaccurate. May I suggest that that is because it is all true.
Once the hearing begins, I hope whenever possible, to report on what's happening on my blog. Tribunal hearings are open to the public as well as the press. There are no restrictions that I am aware of that prevent anyone from reporting events on their blog. And unless I'm officially told otherwise; that's what I will do. If a witness was to lie under oath, I will report that here, and if possible I will also publish the evidence that shows that they lied. The fact that it will prove embarrassing to the liars is merely a bonus. My recommendation would be; don't lie!
Each time I'm told by the uni that their corrupt employees don't like my blog, it fills my heart with joy. I do so hope they keep telling me!
I can't make my mind up about who I'm most looking forward to cross examining. I'm like a kid in a sweetshop. High on the list has to be Kathy McCabe. I genuinely thought that it would never happen, but that will be a very special day. Karen Stark is well up there too. Then the investigators, Gail Miller and Graham Millar; what on earth could they possibly say in defense of their investigation? I never thought I'd be allowed to cross examine Eileen MacDonald either. I thought she was on the protected list, but I guess not. That will be a special day too. She doesn't know what she's got coming yet. Mark Toole is obviously another I can't wait to question. Eileen Schofield too. I can't wait to go through the fraudulent document with her. What will Jackie O'Neil be like? Will she start shouting at me and the tribunal members? Will she slam her fist down and insist she never shouts at people? What will Christine Hallett have to say for herself? And Peter Kemp too! What can he possibly say? Then I get to go through Una Forsyth's and Selina Gibb's statements with a fine tooth comb too. I hope to receive their answers to my questions soon.
I look forward to the day that my blog is seen by an even greater audience. That might be triggered by some action that the university may be about to take. Go ahead; make my day! You declared war on the wrong bloke.
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.
Wednesday
Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder and workplace bullying
From MINDING THE WORKPLACE hosted by David Yamada.
Can some targets of severe workplace bullying become so angry and embittered by their experiences that they are unable to move forward in their lives?
In 2003, Dr. Michael Linden, a Berlin psychiatrist, proposed recognition of a new condition, Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED), asserting that a traumatic event could trigger “embitterment and feelings of injustice” that impair one’s “performance in daily activities and roles.” These reactions can be so strong and enduring that they render someone helpless to address the situation.
PTED is not listed in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and this absence limits its application as a formal diagnosis. Linden believes the evidence merits its addition to the next version, now under deliberation.
While some disagree with creating a separate psychiatric diagnosis, others cite PTED as an important breakthrough in our understanding of trauma. For example, I recently cited Cheryl Dellasega’s invocation of PTED in her new book When Nurses Hurt Nurses (2011).
PTED and workplace bullying
I do not have sufficient expertise to pass judgment on the DSM debate, but the concept of PTED rings true based on my knowledge of the experiences of some bullying targets, especially those who have experienced job loss and career impacts. At times, the anger and embitterment run so deep that they disable individuals from taking actions in their self-interest.
This is not a negative judgment on someone’s character, and I wish to distinguish it from the maddening “it’s time to get over it” line that so many targets of abuse hear from well-meaning family, friends, and associates. Furthermore, I’m not talking here about the normal angry feelings that bullying targets often experience, some of which can be awfully hard to let go.
Indeed, words like “angry,” “bitter,” and “embittered” carry very negative connotations when used to describe people. They paint individuals as unpleasant and unsympathetic figures, while downplaying or ignoring the events that caused them to be this way.
By contrast, the concept of PTED helps us to understand that anger and bitterness may be natural responses to trauma and injustice, in some cases becoming disabling. Equally important, it may lead us to, as Linden suggests, “specific therapeutic interventions.”
PTED and workplace violence
On occasion, acts of severe workplace violence have been committed by those who purportedly were bullied at work. Could PTED explain why? As reported in the blog Living the Scientific Life (link here):
Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.
Can some targets of severe workplace bullying become so angry and embittered by their experiences that they are unable to move forward in their lives?
In 2003, Dr. Michael Linden, a Berlin psychiatrist, proposed recognition of a new condition, Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED), asserting that a traumatic event could trigger “embitterment and feelings of injustice” that impair one’s “performance in daily activities and roles.” These reactions can be so strong and enduring that they render someone helpless to address the situation.
PTED is not listed in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and this absence limits its application as a formal diagnosis. Linden believes the evidence merits its addition to the next version, now under deliberation.
While some disagree with creating a separate psychiatric diagnosis, others cite PTED as an important breakthrough in our understanding of trauma. For example, I recently cited Cheryl Dellasega’s invocation of PTED in her new book When Nurses Hurt Nurses (2011).
PTED and workplace bullying
I do not have sufficient expertise to pass judgment on the DSM debate, but the concept of PTED rings true based on my knowledge of the experiences of some bullying targets, especially those who have experienced job loss and career impacts. At times, the anger and embitterment run so deep that they disable individuals from taking actions in their self-interest.
This is not a negative judgment on someone’s character, and I wish to distinguish it from the maddening “it’s time to get over it” line that so many targets of abuse hear from well-meaning family, friends, and associates. Furthermore, I’m not talking here about the normal angry feelings that bullying targets often experience, some of which can be awfully hard to let go.
Indeed, words like “angry,” “bitter,” and “embittered” carry very negative connotations when used to describe people. They paint individuals as unpleasant and unsympathetic figures, while downplaying or ignoring the events that caused them to be this way.
By contrast, the concept of PTED helps us to understand that anger and bitterness may be natural responses to trauma and injustice, in some cases becoming disabling. Equally important, it may lead us to, as Linden suggests, “specific therapeutic interventions.”
PTED and workplace violence
On occasion, acts of severe workplace violence have been committed by those who purportedly were bullied at work. Could PTED explain why? As reported in the blog Living the Scientific Life (link here):
Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.
Saturday
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
At the Employment Tribunal hearing, Karen Stark gave evidence, and the university's lawyer, Alun Thomas asked her how often HR has to deal with grievances. She replied that there are not many. The impression they were hoping to give was that HR and management take great care to ensure that staff and students are happy, and that therefore I am unusual, and perhaps the type of person who complains for no good reason. It would perhaps have provided the tribunal with a more accurate impression if Mr Thomas had asked how many grievances are taken seriously, and how many people who raise grievances end up sacked. However, in this case, it's not Mr Thomas' job to present the tribunal with the whole truth, but to persuade it that I am the problem, and that the university acts in a highly professional manner. That means he has to create barriers to prevent the tribunal from learning the whole truth.
In 2009, Mr Thomas represented the university at an employment tribunal hearing dealing with a complaint from former Psychology Researcher, Dr Rhodes. She had previously complained to the university that David Donaldson, a Senior Lecturer in her department, had removed her name from a research funding application, and replaced it with his own eleven times. Her complaint resulted in her being sacked, and Donaldson was later promoted to a professorship. The university conceded that Dr Rhodes had been unfairly dismissed. But they had achieved their main aim by getting rid of a whistleblower and deterring other unfairly treated employees who may have been thinking about making a complaint. Story at Times Higher Education.
In 2010, a Postgraduate Researcher complained to the university about bullying. Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield was supposed to handle his complaint, but instead she ended up lying to him. This made him very angry, and he threatened to kill her if she lied to him again. You would have to be in his position to understand just how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, and the person who is responsible for dealing with it takes part in a strategy to cover up. It is a form of torture. The Researcher who has gained an MA, a BA and an MSc has been expelled from the university. More important than his qualifications though, just like me, he is a man who considers honesty and integrity to be important. Like me, his natural instinct is to trust people in authority, and he is shocked and overwhelmed to find that they are corrupt.
Since I began writing my blog in September 2010, at least one university employee has written to me saying that they had made a complaint of bullying, and that HR was not taking it seriously. I've also heard a rumour that there are more.
By raising the subject of the number of grievances the university receives, they may have scored an own goal, because it is my job to ensure the tribunal learns the whole truth.
In 2009, Mr Thomas represented the university at an employment tribunal hearing dealing with a complaint from former Psychology Researcher, Dr Rhodes. She had previously complained to the university that David Donaldson, a Senior Lecturer in her department, had removed her name from a research funding application, and replaced it with his own eleven times. Her complaint resulted in her being sacked, and Donaldson was later promoted to a professorship. The university conceded that Dr Rhodes had been unfairly dismissed. But they had achieved their main aim by getting rid of a whistleblower and deterring other unfairly treated employees who may have been thinking about making a complaint. Story at Times Higher Education.
In 2010, a Postgraduate Researcher complained to the university about bullying. Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield was supposed to handle his complaint, but instead she ended up lying to him. This made him very angry, and he threatened to kill her if she lied to him again. You would have to be in his position to understand just how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, and the person who is responsible for dealing with it takes part in a strategy to cover up. It is a form of torture. The Researcher who has gained an MA, a BA and an MSc has been expelled from the university. More important than his qualifications though, just like me, he is a man who considers honesty and integrity to be important. Like me, his natural instinct is to trust people in authority, and he is shocked and overwhelmed to find that they are corrupt.
Since I began writing my blog in September 2010, at least one university employee has written to me saying that they had made a complaint of bullying, and that HR was not taking it seriously. I've also heard a rumour that there are more.
By raising the subject of the number of grievances the university receives, they may have scored an own goal, because it is my job to ensure the tribunal learns the whole truth.
Andy Coulson - a bully!
It was widely reported on TV and in the press that yesterday (8 July 2011) Andy Coulson was arrested in connection with phone hacking and police corruption. Fewer people will be aware, however, that David Cameron's former spin doctor is also a bully.
In November 2009, an Employment Tribunal ordered the News of the World to pay Matt Driscoll £792,736 in compensation for being the victim of "a consistent pattern of
bullying behaviour", led by the paper's former editor, Andy Coulson. The bullying continued when Driscoll was signed off on sick leave for stress related depression.
Story at the Guardian.
Tommy Sheridan's lawyers have called for a police investigation into Mr Coulson's suspected lying on oath after he told a perjury trial that there was no culture of phone hacking at the News of the World.
In November 2009, an Employment Tribunal ordered the News of the World to pay Matt Driscoll £792,736 in compensation for being the victim of "a consistent pattern of
bullying behaviour", led by the paper's former editor, Andy Coulson. The bullying continued when Driscoll was signed off on sick leave for stress related depression.
Story at the Guardian.
Tommy Sheridan's lawyers have called for a police investigation into Mr Coulson's suspected lying on oath after he told a perjury trial that there was no culture of phone hacking at the News of the World.
Sunday
What now for Stirling University?
The revelation that Stirling University has sent fraudulent evidence to the Employment Tribunal places them in a very awkward position; and that is putting it mildly.
The term 'nip it in the bud' means nothing to the uni management. What was once a manageable problem of bullying has escalated firstly to widespread corruption at the highest level, and now fraud. Rather than deal appropriately with a bully, they have tried to cover it up to the point where Stirling University, once associated with ducks swimming on a peaceful loch, is now known to Googlers, Bloggers and Facebookers all over the world to be associated with employees and students that are sitting ducks for a corrupt management. (And late offers to potential students!)
One Postgraduate Researcher was so exasperated by management's dishonesty that he was compelled to threaten to kill one of them. I know exactly how he felt. Ironically, the same management that has clearly opted out of living by rules, chose to go to the police to get them to uphold the rules.
The new Principal, Gerry McCormac said he knows how to get the best out of people, but his chair was still lukewarm when we discovered that he thought that it would be a good use of their time for the Deputy Secretary and an HR Partner to spend five weeks fraudulently creating a document in an attempt to fool the Employment Tribunal that they had spent a week carrying out an investigation a year earlier. Maybe he should have asked them to spend another ten minutes making sure it wasn't bleeding obvious that it was a fraud. Or better yet, he might have done what he was paid to do, and nipped the problem in the bud. I think Gerry should maybe change his motto to 'I know how to get the best people out!'
The situation is now that I am scheduled to attend a Tribunal to defend myself against false allegations of gross misconduct which, even if they were true, are about one gazillionth as gross as the misconduct of the people I will be defending myself against. Karen Stark is meant to be there to represent the uni; but any reasonable person would expect she would be sacked before then.
The funny thing is that they probably still don't think the hole they've dug themselves into is deep enough yet. To hell with a spade, lets get a JCB.
The term 'nip it in the bud' means nothing to the uni management. What was once a manageable problem of bullying has escalated firstly to widespread corruption at the highest level, and now fraud. Rather than deal appropriately with a bully, they have tried to cover it up to the point where Stirling University, once associated with ducks swimming on a peaceful loch, is now known to Googlers, Bloggers and Facebookers all over the world to be associated with employees and students that are sitting ducks for a corrupt management. (And late offers to potential students!)
One Postgraduate Researcher was so exasperated by management's dishonesty that he was compelled to threaten to kill one of them. I know exactly how he felt. Ironically, the same management that has clearly opted out of living by rules, chose to go to the police to get them to uphold the rules.
The new Principal, Gerry McCormac said he knows how to get the best out of people, but his chair was still lukewarm when we discovered that he thought that it would be a good use of their time for the Deputy Secretary and an HR Partner to spend five weeks fraudulently creating a document in an attempt to fool the Employment Tribunal that they had spent a week carrying out an investigation a year earlier. Maybe he should have asked them to spend another ten minutes making sure it wasn't bleeding obvious that it was a fraud. Or better yet, he might have done what he was paid to do, and nipped the problem in the bud. I think Gerry should maybe change his motto to 'I know how to get the best people out!'
The situation is now that I am scheduled to attend a Tribunal to defend myself against false allegations of gross misconduct which, even if they were true, are about one gazillionth as gross as the misconduct of the people I will be defending myself against. Karen Stark is meant to be there to represent the uni; but any reasonable person would expect she would be sacked before then.
The funny thing is that they probably still don't think the hole they've dug themselves into is deep enough yet. To hell with a spade, lets get a JCB.
Saturday
Bullying and suicide - Bullycide
I believe bullying is the single most important social issue of today, for the study of bullying provides an opportunity to understand the behaviours which underlie almost all conflict and violence.
Tim Field
Bullying can lead victims to utter despair. It's not just the bullying itself, but victims can find themselves isolated when friends desert them for fear that they too will be victimised. Friends and bystanders can also lie and deny that there was any bullying. Even worse, friends may believe there is something to be gained by toadying up to the bullies, and to join in with bullying their former friend, or to falsely claim that the victim is the bully. Believe me, it happens, and it is far from pleasant.
In addition, if you've been unfairly dismissed after complaining about being bullied, it can be difficult to get another job with no references, even if you are in a mental state, and have the confidence to work again.
I would love for me and my team, and others I've mentioned on my blog to spend a morning on the Jeremy Kyle show on TV to answer questions while we are hooked up to lie detectors. It would be a real eye opener for the public. Tim Field was correct; bullying has far reaching effects, and the public has to be made aware of it.
Here is the story of a young girl who was beaten up on a bus. Her screams were ignored by the other passengers pretending it wasn't happening because they didn't want to get involved.
Here is the story of a young girl who was gang raped in view of 20 bystanders for over two hours before anyone informed the police.
"I don't want to get involved" is the same as "I'm all right, Jack". You are sick in the head if you enjoy watching people suffer. You are also sick in the head if you add to the suffering by lying.
In desperation, victims may consider suicide. Undoubtedly, more victims would kill themselves but for the fact that it isn't easy. Sure, a lot of people have succeeded, but I suspect that many of them will either have had great courage, or they were so desperate that they didn't give enough thought to how difficult it really is, and may have suffered unbearable physical pain before they eventually died.
If you have found this page because you are thinking of killing yourself, then I am not going to discourage you, but I won't be encouraging you either. Obviously, councelling (Samaritans and Pieta) may help you make your mind up, but ultimately the decision is yours. However, if you eventually decide that the only solution is to kill yourself, then you ought to be fully aware of what you are doing.
Do not attempt suicide unless you are 100% certain that you want to die. I do not say this to discourage anyone who is already completely sold on the idea, it's just that if doubts creep in, they will increase the risk of failure. If what you want is for the pain to go away, councelling might be worthwhile. If you obtain some relief through harming yourself, be sure that it doesn't develop into something that can put your life at risk or cause you serious damage.
If you attempt suicide and fail, you could leave yourself a lot worse off. You could be permanently disabled or disfigured. You, or someone else, could be financially worse off. Your failed attempt may result in you being prosecuted due to damage or distress you may have caused. As well as the problems you already have, people will learn of your attempt to kill yourself and some will think that you have mental problems, and of course, they will be right.
I would certainly discourage you from attempting suicide as a cry for help. You could easily end up dead, and nobody can help you when you're dead. Get councelling now. I genuinely feel for you, but this page is not for you. God only knows how many apparently successful suicides were, in reality, unsuccessful cries for help.
You must consider the people you leave behind. Who will find you, and how will it effect them? What will the scene be like when you are found? If you have dependants, what will happen to them? You must make it very clear why you are doing it, otherwise innocent people may blame themselves. If you write a note, read it back to make sure it is legible and makes sense. Provide contact details of people who should be informed, and put your note somewhere it is sure to be found in good condition.
If you haven't thought about it already, you need to consider the best method for yourself. If you are like most people, you will want it to be quick and painless. You definitely do not want half an hour of excrutiating physical pain, even if you do attain your ultimate goal at the end of it. So if your chosen method is to slit your wrist, you need to give it a helluva lot more thought. By using that method, you could be in terrible pain for a long time during which you will be tempted to call for help. When you eventually return from hospital, you may find your home and belongings covered in thick, deep red blood. You would also have cost taxpayers the expense of saving you, which is the opposite of what you had in mind. You would also have the scars that announce your mental illness to everyone.
You need to be aware that you will be fighting against your natural human survival instinct. For example, if you can swim, it would be almost impossible to drown yourself, because you would instinctively come up for air. Other methods could have horrendous consequences if you instinctively change your mind at the last moment.
As well as considering the time and pain factors, each method has a success ratio. So you need to investigate which methods have low failure rates, and consider if you have the courage to employ any of those methods. You may need to do a fair bit of research.
I'm writing this in the UK where it's difficult to gain access to firearms. Even if you do manage to get hold of one, you may be surprised to learn that some people have made botched attempts with a gun, leaving themselves in a dreadful condition. I say this because you may believe that pulling a trigger is an option that requires less courage than others.
People who survive after jumping from a bridge frequently admit that while they were falling, they wished they hadn't jumped. Often they go on to live happy lives. So maybe you should try to visualise yourself plummeting to your death and wondering if you made the right choice.
Apparently there is a suicide pill available in Mexico. That might sound attractive for its simplicity. It's not risk free though, because it has a shelf life, and there are people who sell these pills knowing that they have gone past their sell by date. Yep, there is even profit to be made by keeping suicidal people alive.
If you are religious; you may wish to consider what comes after death. It might be 72 virgins or it might be an eternity of burning in maggot infested fire. Although I'm not religious, I still wonder if there might be something after death. I also wonder if people who kill themselves are punished for it. It used to be against the law to attempt suicide, and the bible says "Thou shalt not kill." In modern language, that means "You must not kill." I haven't read a whole bible, but I doubt if it says it's okay for priests to sexually abuse children. Maybe it's time for somebody to write a newer testament that clarifies the rules and penalties on these matters.
In almost every country, men kill themselves far more often than women. Instead of killing yourself, perhaps you should first consider a sex change?
In the UK, farmers and people in the medical professions have the highest suicide rates. I don't think that it's because they have depressing jobs, but because they have the knowledge and weapons required for the most efficient suicide methods. It's much more difficult for the rest of us. You could become a farmer; but what if you enjoyed it? What a dilemma!
Perhaps one day in the future people will be able to arrange an appointment with their doctor for to be killed humanely and painlessly, just like a vet kills a lame or stray dog. Or maybe Tescos will sell DIY suicide kits.
There is a strong case for a risk free, private, quick, painless, clean, dignified suicide. It would be far less expensive in terms of damage to property, searches for bodies, police investigations, clearing up the mess, medical staff and families having to care for permanently damaged relatives, etc; and children wouldn't be traumatised by finding pieces of human bodies while out playing. However, there is no sign of 'drop in suicide shops' coming soon, so people have to come up with their own home made plans.
None of us receive training on how to commit suicide; you have to teach yourself. It won't help if you're a slow learner; you'll just have to think longer, or rule it out.
I'm not a doctor, and I haven't attempted suicide. I don't have all the answers for you. You have to find out all your answers for yourself. Once you come up with your plan, you should run it past the Samaritans just in case there is something you have not thought of.
If you decide to kill yourself as a result of bullying, it means that the bullies get their ultimate victory. Don't think for a second that they'll feel any guilt. More likely they will dance on your grave, make up stories about you, and make fun of you on facebook. Where's the justice in that? Why should YOU die to please THEM?
Best wishes and lots of love
Allan
Tim Field
Bullying can lead victims to utter despair. It's not just the bullying itself, but victims can find themselves isolated when friends desert them for fear that they too will be victimised. Friends and bystanders can also lie and deny that there was any bullying. Even worse, friends may believe there is something to be gained by toadying up to the bullies, and to join in with bullying their former friend, or to falsely claim that the victim is the bully. Believe me, it happens, and it is far from pleasant.
In addition, if you've been unfairly dismissed after complaining about being bullied, it can be difficult to get another job with no references, even if you are in a mental state, and have the confidence to work again.
I would love for me and my team, and others I've mentioned on my blog to spend a morning on the Jeremy Kyle show on TV to answer questions while we are hooked up to lie detectors. It would be a real eye opener for the public. Tim Field was correct; bullying has far reaching effects, and the public has to be made aware of it.
Here is the story of a young girl who was beaten up on a bus. Her screams were ignored by the other passengers pretending it wasn't happening because they didn't want to get involved.
Here is the story of a young girl who was gang raped in view of 20 bystanders for over two hours before anyone informed the police.
"I don't want to get involved" is the same as "I'm all right, Jack". You are sick in the head if you enjoy watching people suffer. You are also sick in the head if you add to the suffering by lying.
In desperation, victims may consider suicide. Undoubtedly, more victims would kill themselves but for the fact that it isn't easy. Sure, a lot of people have succeeded, but I suspect that many of them will either have had great courage, or they were so desperate that they didn't give enough thought to how difficult it really is, and may have suffered unbearable physical pain before they eventually died.
If you have found this page because you are thinking of killing yourself, then I am not going to discourage you, but I won't be encouraging you either. Obviously, councelling (Samaritans and Pieta) may help you make your mind up, but ultimately the decision is yours. However, if you eventually decide that the only solution is to kill yourself, then you ought to be fully aware of what you are doing.
Do not attempt suicide unless you are 100% certain that you want to die. I do not say this to discourage anyone who is already completely sold on the idea, it's just that if doubts creep in, they will increase the risk of failure. If what you want is for the pain to go away, councelling might be worthwhile. If you obtain some relief through harming yourself, be sure that it doesn't develop into something that can put your life at risk or cause you serious damage.
If you attempt suicide and fail, you could leave yourself a lot worse off. You could be permanently disabled or disfigured. You, or someone else, could be financially worse off. Your failed attempt may result in you being prosecuted due to damage or distress you may have caused. As well as the problems you already have, people will learn of your attempt to kill yourself and some will think that you have mental problems, and of course, they will be right.
I would certainly discourage you from attempting suicide as a cry for help. You could easily end up dead, and nobody can help you when you're dead. Get councelling now. I genuinely feel for you, but this page is not for you. God only knows how many apparently successful suicides were, in reality, unsuccessful cries for help.
You must consider the people you leave behind. Who will find you, and how will it effect them? What will the scene be like when you are found? If you have dependants, what will happen to them? You must make it very clear why you are doing it, otherwise innocent people may blame themselves. If you write a note, read it back to make sure it is legible and makes sense. Provide contact details of people who should be informed, and put your note somewhere it is sure to be found in good condition.
If you haven't thought about it already, you need to consider the best method for yourself. If you are like most people, you will want it to be quick and painless. You definitely do not want half an hour of excrutiating physical pain, even if you do attain your ultimate goal at the end of it. So if your chosen method is to slit your wrist, you need to give it a helluva lot more thought. By using that method, you could be in terrible pain for a long time during which you will be tempted to call for help. When you eventually return from hospital, you may find your home and belongings covered in thick, deep red blood. You would also have cost taxpayers the expense of saving you, which is the opposite of what you had in mind. You would also have the scars that announce your mental illness to everyone.
You need to be aware that you will be fighting against your natural human survival instinct. For example, if you can swim, it would be almost impossible to drown yourself, because you would instinctively come up for air. Other methods could have horrendous consequences if you instinctively change your mind at the last moment.
As well as considering the time and pain factors, each method has a success ratio. So you need to investigate which methods have low failure rates, and consider if you have the courage to employ any of those methods. You may need to do a fair bit of research.
I'm writing this in the UK where it's difficult to gain access to firearms. Even if you do manage to get hold of one, you may be surprised to learn that some people have made botched attempts with a gun, leaving themselves in a dreadful condition. I say this because you may believe that pulling a trigger is an option that requires less courage than others.
People who survive after jumping from a bridge frequently admit that while they were falling, they wished they hadn't jumped. Often they go on to live happy lives. So maybe you should try to visualise yourself plummeting to your death and wondering if you made the right choice.
Apparently there is a suicide pill available in Mexico. That might sound attractive for its simplicity. It's not risk free though, because it has a shelf life, and there are people who sell these pills knowing that they have gone past their sell by date. Yep, there is even profit to be made by keeping suicidal people alive.
If you are religious; you may wish to consider what comes after death. It might be 72 virgins or it might be an eternity of burning in maggot infested fire. Although I'm not religious, I still wonder if there might be something after death. I also wonder if people who kill themselves are punished for it. It used to be against the law to attempt suicide, and the bible says "Thou shalt not kill." In modern language, that means "You must not kill." I haven't read a whole bible, but I doubt if it says it's okay for priests to sexually abuse children. Maybe it's time for somebody to write a newer testament that clarifies the rules and penalties on these matters.
In almost every country, men kill themselves far more often than women. Instead of killing yourself, perhaps you should first consider a sex change?
In the UK, farmers and people in the medical professions have the highest suicide rates. I don't think that it's because they have depressing jobs, but because they have the knowledge and weapons required for the most efficient suicide methods. It's much more difficult for the rest of us. You could become a farmer; but what if you enjoyed it? What a dilemma!
Perhaps one day in the future people will be able to arrange an appointment with their doctor for to be killed humanely and painlessly, just like a vet kills a lame or stray dog. Or maybe Tescos will sell DIY suicide kits.
There is a strong case for a risk free, private, quick, painless, clean, dignified suicide. It would be far less expensive in terms of damage to property, searches for bodies, police investigations, clearing up the mess, medical staff and families having to care for permanently damaged relatives, etc; and children wouldn't be traumatised by finding pieces of human bodies while out playing. However, there is no sign of 'drop in suicide shops' coming soon, so people have to come up with their own home made plans.
None of us receive training on how to commit suicide; you have to teach yourself. It won't help if you're a slow learner; you'll just have to think longer, or rule it out.
I'm not a doctor, and I haven't attempted suicide. I don't have all the answers for you. You have to find out all your answers for yourself. Once you come up with your plan, you should run it past the Samaritans just in case there is something you have not thought of.
If you decide to kill yourself as a result of bullying, it means that the bullies get their ultimate victory. Don't think for a second that they'll feel any guilt. More likely they will dance on your grave, make up stories about you, and make fun of you on facebook. Where's the justice in that? Why should YOU die to please THEM?
Best wishes and lots of love
Allan
Eric Hall - Brown Nose
Ever since Kathy became the team manager around 1998, she began filling just about every vacant position either with a friend or with someone she knew. I can only think that she did this in the hope that those people would be beholding to her, and support her. That's not to say that none of them were any good, but there were certainly some who could not have been selected on merit. Almost all of the people who she took on by this method were women; the one exception that I can think of being Eric Hall who happened to be a friend of an existing female colleague, Suzie, who in turn was a close friend of Kathy's, and who Kathy chose to include on the interview panel for Eric's interview. This was a new post that Kathy created for a Project Manager, and it was slightly odd because we already had the luxury of a full time Project Manager. Added to that; whenever a high profile project came up, Kathy would take it for herself to manage. We all felt that the Project Managers were under occupied, while for years I was doing the work of one and a half employees.
This recruitment method resulted in the formation of a clique, but it also created a millstone round Kathy's neck. She's a very poor people manager, and she had only made things worse for herself by creating a team that was difficult to manage. Those in the clique felt it was their right to receive favourable treatment, and to keep them sweet, Kathy gave them it. On the other hand, at one point it felt like 80% of the work was done by 20% of the team; Jaana, me, Marco and Bruce - all non clique members. Later, Stephen, Suzie, Paul and David did more than their fair share.
Kathy desperately wanted to be liked, but that shouldn't be the main goal of a manager. Ironically some of the clique strongly disliked her, and in the case of Eric; hated her. "I hate the fucking bitch!" he told me one day while he was with me and Lynn. Just as ironic, Eric also intensely disliked Suzie after she divorced David Gardiner; his chum from schooldays. It became an obsession with him, and he would work it in to just about every conversation.
Lynn had made Eric aware of a meeting that Kathy and I had with Mark Toole where Kathy had behaved like a lunatic. She had gone on an astonishing rant where she desperately invented reasons to criticise me. This was because at a similar meeting a few weeks earlier, Mark had got her to agree to stop criticising me unjustly and publicly. My union rep who witnessed it, strongly agreed that it was serious bullying. He advised Mark to take action to stop it, and he made him aware of Kathy's mistreatment of a former colleague.
Although Eric hated Kathy, he knew which side his bread was buttered on. He defended Kathy's behaviour and said that she was entitled to behave that way because I had submitted a grievance against her. He then added that if I was ever to submit a grievance against him, he would kick my "fucking" head in. I commented on his aggression, and he quickly apologised, but he'd shown just how irrational he was on the topic. His experience in the team was the complete opposite of mine. Kathy treated him with dignity; he was never overworked, or anywhere near it; he was allowed to attend training courses and conferences; and there's probably more that I don't know about. I told him that during my grievance, I was asked what outcome I wanted, and I said that I wanted Kathy removed from the team. If that were to have happened (and it SHOULD have happened), it would have been a shock to Eric's system to have a new manager that treats everyone equally, and expects a day's work from him. A new manager might even decide that there just isn't enough work to justify having two full time Project Managers, and that the team needed people with development skills. Every year, Kathy would present the team with a list, several pages long, of development work that had been requested, and every year we barely scratched the surface of that list. Mark Toole got rid of a whole team to meet his staff budget cut. In my opinion it would have made far more sense to have looked at each role in the department and considered what it was actually accomplishing. I know that Lynn and Eric had both been nervous about the cuts. And how could Mark justify getting rid of Alison, Oron and Rob while keeping Eileen, Jackie and Selina?
David had told Eric about how Jackie had screamed at me a couple of weeks earlier. I said it was ridiculous, and Eric tried to play it down by saying something like "That's just how Jackie is. You're never going to change her." I said that Kathy had had 12 years to do something about her. He again defended Kathy by saying that she had attempted to sort Jackie out a couple of years earlier when Jackie had been sending out overly aggressive and overly technical emails to other (non technical) teams. Kathy had told Jackie not to send out any more emails without checking with her first. Jackie then went off sick on work related stress because of it, so Kathy backed off and dropped the matter.
There was an improper, unhealthy work relationship between Kathy and Eric. The deal was that they would support each other even when they were wrong or being dishonest. One time at a full team meeting, Eric, who is non technical, made a suggestion. It would have been an excellent suggestion except for the fact that it was technically impossible. I pointed out why it couldn't work, and how if we attempted it, we would simply cause ourselves more work. Kathy completely ignored me, and said it was a good idea, and that we would implement it. This was in a room full of technical experts. It wasn't rocket science, but nobody backed me up. Two minutes after the meeting, Eric came to me privately to say that after he had thought about it, he realised his suggestion wouldn't work. It was never mentioned again, but I was left to look like an idiot.
On another occasion, Kathy had sent me a cheeky email criticising me for not knowing the time in lieu procedure. She was wrong, and this was just more unjust criticism. I'd had enough of it, and I booked a meeting with her to discuss her behaviour towards me. On my way to Kathy's room, I asked Eric what he understood the TIL procedure to be. He said there was no procedure, and that it was taken on trust. I asked Kathy to explain her criticism. She said that I must follow the correct procedure like everyone else, and she said that Eric always does it correctly. I told her that Eric had just told me that there was no procedure. She quickly changed the subject. It transpired that I was the only person following the correct procedure because I was the only person she had told to follow it. I suspect she was planning to get Eric to say that there was a procedure, but I had accidently spoilt her plan. The reason Kathy had asked me to follow a TIL procedure was because Jackie had been spreading rumours claiming that I was taking TIL I wasn't entitled to.
It demonstrates how warped Kathy's mind is that she would unjustly criticise me for something she has dishonestly invented like not following a non existant procedure when I am the only one following the correct procedure for something as trivial as time in lieu, while someone like Eileen MacDonald can repeatedly breech university security procedures, and rather than discipline or criticise Eileen, she would rather change the procedure and reduce security. It's no wonder she desperately avoided discussing her behaviour. How could she possibly explain that?
Kathy also inappropriately involved Eric in matters that were private. For example she wanted him to attend my return to work interview. When I asked her if she did that with other employees, she told me it was none of my business, yet she wanted Eric to know all about MY business.
On another occasion, there had been a minor issue with a computer system. Normally she wouldn't have cared much about the issue. However, she wrongly thought that I was at fault, and decided to criticise me. She had criticised me a number of times before, only to find out she was wrong. This time she was sure. It wasn't sufficient to pop into my room and have a quiet word. She made a big song and dance about it, and sent a lengthy email. In order to gain further satisfaction, she copied her email to Eric, even though it had nothing to do with him. Sad to say; she was wrong again! Unlike Kathy who waited until after the event to appear clever and say that I should have anticipated the problem, I had actually anticipated the problem and done everything in my power to prevent it, and had even worked late doing so. Furthermore, I could prove it. Just like every other time she criticised me inappropriately, no apology was forthcoming. Kathy doesn't do apologies.
Kathy took part in a training course that was to last more than a year. Eric was one of four team members required to answer questions in order to rate Kathy as a manager. Kathy was rated very badly. She received scores of 2 and 3 while the others on the course scored 7s and 8s. Eric told me she received the worst scores that anybody had ever received on the course. When Kathy found out, she met with the four team members, and tried to persuade them that they hadn't understood the questions. They said that they had felt intimidated by this. At the end of her course, the same four were asked to answer the questions again. Eric admitted that he had lied in order to give Kathy better scores than she deserved, just for a quiet life. This angered Jaana who also answered the questions, because she felt the whole exercise was a waste of time if they weren't honest. It was worse than a waste of time, it produced inaccurate data that was intended to improve Kathy's performance.
Eric was one of he people that Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield interviewed as part of their fake investigation for my grievance. Some of those interviewed had denied things they had done to me, including things done in front of a dozen or more witnesses. Eileen took their denials to be proof that I had just made it up. In a fake investigation, that's what you do; you certainly don't ask the witnesses, and you don't ask the the complainant if they have evidence. You also ignore the fact that Kathy had already admitted that she was fully aware that the incidents happened, and that she had signed a document saying so. Eric went a stage further and made stuff up to help Kathy in her hour of need. He said that he felt I had "a problem with women". In the fake investigation, Eric wasn't asked to give any examples of this problem he felt I had with women. Eric knows I don't have a problem with women. When I first read his statement, I didn't see the point in him saying it. It wasn't something that Kathy had ever suggested. I found out later when I saw the notes of Kathy's meeting with Karen and Eileen. It was Karen Stark who, completely out of the blue, had planted the suggestion in Kathy's mind. Kathy took the opportunity to run with it. No doubt she passed the suggestion to Eric and Eileen MacDonald. The suggestion was then used in an attempt to get me sacked, and by the time Una Forsyth made her statement for the disciplinary investigation, the story had grown arms and legs, and I "only got on with two out of the eleven women in the team". Of course, in a fake investigation you don't ask those other nine women if they get on with me, and if not, why not. You also wouldn't ask Una why she cooked me a meal and asked me to be her Facebook friend when she didn't get on with me. Una didn't cook Eric a meal. They weren't friends on Facebook, and I don't think she showed him her photo of her stepping out of the shower with just a towel to hide her modesty. Maybe she has a problem with men?
Eric said "Kathy treats everyone professionally and equally", and that she had "an excellent way of managing the team". He didn't say anything about him "hating the fucking bitch" or how he only scored her 3 out of 10 then lied just for a "quiet life". If there was an award for the team's brownest nose, Eric's the winner!
To be continued...
Tuesday
David Black - Spineless Twat
David Black, 10c Bruce Street, Stirling, FK8 1PB
David, my Database Administrator colleague, had some idea of what it is like to be singled out for bullying by a manager. Before joining the university, David had suffered a measure of bullying by one of his bosses while he worked at Prudential UK in Stirling.
He worked 18 hours a week at the university, and this allowed him to spend time on other interests. He worked in radio as a DJ on Central FM, and sat in on Council related meetings in Stirling on a voluntary basis, such as Mercat Cross Community Council, Stirling Boys' Club and Stirling City Heritage Trust. He portrays himself as public spirited; a man who uses his time to benefit the community. You would certainly think he would stand up for justice and what's right.
Kathy McCabe had been bullying me for some time before I was even aware of the term Workplace Bullying. Before that, I thought bullying only happened in the playground at school. The first effect it had on me was that I couldn't sleep. I'd spend most of the night worrying and thinking "Why is she doing it, and why has she chosen me to do it to?" We had got on fairy well, and she could always rely on me with any work, and I required almost none of her time. For about seven years I had sacrificed about 15 hours of my own time every week to ensure everything ran smoothly. I thought that I would have been the last person she would ever want to bully. However, I think it's for that very reason that I became her target.
To help get some sleep and reduce the intrusive thoughts, I increased my alcohol intake until I was eventually drinking more than a litre of whisky a day. I used to do a lot of running, but I had to give that up. When you're running, there's nothing to do but think. Playing squash was much easier because my mind was forced to concentrate on the game. Eventually I had to give that up too. Gaps between points were being filled with unpleasant thoughts. I gave up dancing too when it began to feel as though I was trapped. I only felt safe dancing with Ruth. If I sat down for a rest, I'd immediately be approached by a woman. It would be extremely rude to turn down a dance, so I'd feel trapped dancing and hating every second of it, and as soon as it finished, I'd need to grab hold of Ruth before any other woman came for me.
During the time I was suspended from work, I began to hyperventilate, and there were a couple of panic attacks. There were also a couple of times when I was outside and everything sounded much louder than normal, and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. I literally had to run home with my hands covering my ears. For a while, I only felt safe at home.
One day I suddenly realised that I hadn't eaten for more than three days; yet I wasn't hungry.
It was effecting Ruth too. Once she said she was feeling overcome with worry. Half an hour later, she passed out. She had to spend the rest of the day in hospital.
Just as she had done a few times before, Jackie O'Neil screamed at me in the office and slammed her hand on her desk in anger. This was because a job she was working on failed, and she wrongly thought that I was to blame, when in fact, she was to blame. David was standing right next to us at Jackie's desk. He was also with me when I informed Kathy McCabe that Jackie had screamed at me again. Jackie had spoken to Kathy about it, and had told Kathy that she had to work till 10pm that night because of the failure. David told Kathy that the failure would have only held Jackie up for a short time. I then confirmed this in an email to Kathy who then passed my email to Mark Toole. Mark offered to arrange a meeting with me and Jackie to discuss the matter. I accepted, but that meeting never took place. Instead Jackie made a malicious complaint against me. She insisted that I was to blame for the failure, and denied that she had screamed. I had told Mark that David had seen the incident, and Jackie confirmed this. Mark carried out an investigation, but deliberately avoided speaking to David. He then instructed Graham Millar to carry out a formal investigation. Graham, who is an arse licker, carried out a fake investigation, and avoided speaking with David too.
Mark wrote to me to say he was arranging a disciplinary hearing. I wrote back saying it was obvious that by failing to speak with David or any one of about a dozen witnesses who had heard the incident that he had already made his mind up to dismiss me. If it had been a genuine mistake by the investigators, they could still have spoken to David. It wasn't a genuine mistake.
I had been suspended from work and wasn't allowed to speak to colleagues. So Ruth phoned David, and David confirmed what had happened. He said that Jackie had been very angry and shouted at me. He also confirmed that he hadn't been interviewed for the disciplinary investigation. He was very clear on all of this, and he had no problem recalling it. You wouldn't expect him to have forgotten, because thankfully it's not every day that you get screamed at by a colleague sitting four feet from you, and we had talked about it afterwards, and again with Kathy present. David had also discussed it with Eric. And you wouldn't forget being interviewed as part of a disciplinary hearing in a hurry. Ruth asked him to confirm this in an email, and he said he would send it to me that same day.
By the following day, we still hadn't heard from him. I began to worry because I knew that he had let me down very badly before during the role evaluation process. I had included a statement in the role description about planning. As full time DBA, our roles differed in that I would receive the work and would plan and allocate it between us. I checked with David that it was okay to include it. He agreed enthusiastically, saying it's what happens so we have to include it. I checked with him again two more times, including just before our meeting with Kathy to verify our description. He assured me it was absolutely fine and told me not to worry. During the meeting, Kathy challenged David about it, and he immediately backed down and agreed to take it out; making me look foolish.
I feared that David was going to let me down again, so Ruth sent him an email confirming what he had said on the phone. He couldn't deny saying it because I had been listening in when he said it. The following day, David wrote to us, and my heart sank as I read his email. He was now claiming that when he spoke to Ruth, he was tired and stressed. He was retracting his statement, and was now giving a different, false version of what took place. In his new version, Jackie wasn't "very angry", she was just frustrated; she didn't shout, she just raised her voice. In addition, he could no longer remember if he was interviewed for the disciplinary investigation. He did this knowing that Mark Toole was trying to dismiss me unfairly, because Ruth had told him. He also did it knowing that about a dozen people had witnessed what really happened.
When David clicked his mouse to send that email to me, he knew that he was damaging me just as though he was pounding on an open head wound with a baseball bat.
By lying, David has put himself in a situation where his account of the incident makes no sense. He remembers clearly, almost word perfect, what I said to Kathy. He knew that I wasn't trying to get Jackie sacked. He can recall what I said, so is he now saying that I told Kathy that Jackie had spoken to me in a raised voice? Hardly likely! Or is he saying that I dishonestly told Kathy that Jackie had shouted at me again and slammed her pen on the desk, and that he didn't correct me? There is no doubt that we were talking about the same incident because he took part in the conversation.
He knew that Jackie was dishonestly trying to get me sacked, and he was happy to let that happen. David isn't a boy in short trousers. He's a 42 year old man.
The telephone conversation he had with Ruth lasted 11 minutes and 44 seconds, and they discussed nothing but that incident with Jackie and my general situation. He even expresses his fake concern for me.
Is he going to claim in court, that when he told Ruth that Jackie shouted at me, he was asleep for that 11 minute and 44 second period?
What a mess he has managed to get himself into. I hope his sister and parents come along to the hearing and watch him in action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)