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?
Showing posts with label corruption fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption fraud. Show all posts
Tuesday
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
Sunday
Stirling University's Fictitious Grievance Investigation
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the powers that be met to discuss what they should do in response to my request for the details of the alleged grievance investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
I guess the attendees at that meeting would have included Kathy McCabe and her husband, Liam, Karen Stark, Eileen Schofield, Kevin Clarke, Martin McCrindle and Mark Toole. Principal Gerry McCormac would also have attended because he knows how to get the best out of people. Their solicitor had also indicated that he'd met with them to discuss the issue.
The choice was whether to simply admit that the investigation was a sham; to lie and make up a fictitious investigation; or to simply do nothing. The solicitor would have made them aware that doing nothing was no longer an option because the Tribunal would be compelled to order them to answer. They had amazingly managed to stall the Tribunal for five months by saying that the information was not relevant to my claim. I've still to hear their explanation for this. We must keep in mind that this was information that Stirling University claimed would help their case; so it didn't make sense for them not to produce it.
There was actually a fourth option; to try to settle out of court. However, it is unlikely that I would have settled before I received the information that was bound to strengthen my position. The optimum time for them to have tried to settle was the moment they received my claim. In my opinion, they should never have told the Tribunal they would defend the claim by lying. That was just plain stupid!
Kathy McCabe would certainly have been opposed to telling the truth. To admit that she was found not to be a bully only by means of a sham process would have been as good as admitting that she is indeed a bully. She would have insisted that her husband agree with her. She would also have told the meeting that she could invent an investigation that could convince the Tribunal that it was authentic. Admitting to a sham process would automatically have meant that Stark, Schofield and Clarke were all liars; so they would also have preferred the lie option.
Even though it was a massive gamble, they decided that Kathy would invent the grievance investigation and decision process. The fictitious investigation had three vital requirements.
The simplest requirement was to ensure she only referred to information that existed at the time; but even that proved beyond her capabilities. In my post, Kathy McCabe - Silent Witness I describe how Kathy is a compulsive and terrible liar who actually thinks nobody can possibly detect her lies. In my post, Stirling University lies to Employment Tribunal, I describe the schoolgirl error.
The second requirement was to provide the Employment Tribunal with the information very quickly. The alleged investigation had only taken a week, and of course the information they were about to send was supposed to exist already. That was what they were trying to convince the Tribunal. However, it took them five weeks from the time they agreed to produce the evidence to send it to the Tribunal. Even then, there was a sense of panic as they sent it at 5:21 pm on the date they finally promised it would be sent.
The most difficult requirement was to describe a fair and thorough grievance process that took the evidence available as input, and output the decision that Kathy was not a bully, and that I was a bully. The difficulty of this requirement was obviously the cause of them failing to meet the second requirement. I intend to talk a bit about how well or otherwise they tackled this impossible task.
Suppose you have been asked to investigate a murder. There is video evidence showing the suspect committing the murder. He has signed a confession admitting that he did it. There is also video evidence of him threatening to murder the victim because the victim was a tea drinker. How would you investigate this?
Well, here's how Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark would do it. They wouldn't look at the video evidence because that would influence them unnecessarily and impair their judgement. They wouldn't look at the confession or ask him if he did it either. They would note that the victim was a tea drinker, and carry out an investigation into the prices of tea. They would also speak to Eric Hall who would inform them that he vaguely remembers that there was a guy he knew about six years ago who took a day off sick, and that he thought he drank tea; or maybe it was coffee.
Once completed, they would look at the evidence they've gathered and note that there is no proof that any murder has been committed. In their report they would add that if a tea drinker has died, then all the evidence points to the tea being the killer. The suspect would then be released.
That's the quality of investigation they have described for all of my allegations.
I just realised I made their investigation sound better than it was. I should have added that the video of the threat to kill was delivered to Ms Stark with a note that said: "Should I die suddenly, please investigate my murder and not the prices of tea. Also, I don't drink tea, I only drink water!"
I submitted 26 documents to support my allegations and to refute Mrs McCabe's allegations. I also submitted a list containing my own documents as well as a further 9 documents submitted by Mrs McCabe. My list indicated the allegation to which each document was related. The response shows that my documents were not referred to in any part of the investigation.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)