Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
Stirling University has attempted to explain the fraudulent document that they sent to the Employment Tribunal. I asked the following question.
I refer to the answers to questions, and to item "Our useless DBA". It states that in order to investigate this allegation, Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark referred to Mr Flockhart's statement dated 22 March 2010. Please state why they referred to that statement which has no bearing on the allegation. Please also explain why Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation.
This is their response.
In the preparation of the responses to questions dated 15 April 2011, Miss Stark refers to Mr Flockhart's statement. At the time of the preparation of that response in April 2011, the e-mail from Mr Flockhart dated 15 April 2010 had been clipped to other papers including the statement dated 22 March 2010 which had been considered during the grievance investigation. Reference to Mr Flockhart's statement and his evidence in this part of the spreadsheet and was an error arising as a consequence of the retrospective nature of the exercise being undertaken in March and April 2011. Mr Flockhart was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation during the grievance investigation. The subject of his interactions prior to the promulgation of the grievance outcome was around his reasons for leaving the University. He was not asked about the "useless DBA" allegation as it was not considered a material allegation, but as part of a pattern of day-to-day issues arising within a busy team.
The university got themselves into this mess when they first wrote to the Employment Tribunal in response to my original claim. I said I had been subjected to a sham grievance process, and they stated that all of the allegations in my grievance were investigated and rejected. Big mistake! This put them in an impossible position of having to try to explain how each of my allegations could have been investigated and rejected. So they had to either admit it was a sham or invent an investigation that could arrive at each allegation being rejected. They made the absurd decision to pretend that there was a proper investigation. So a year after the investigation was supposed to have taken place, they carried out a retrospective investigation to try to come up with a fake reason for rejecting each of my allegations.
When I asked them to give details of how each allegation was rejected, it was not meant to be an invitation to start rummaging through evidence. That was what they were supposed to have done a year earlier before rejecting my allegations. Why would Karen Stark need to investigate evidence in 2011 for allegations that Eileen Schofield rejected in 2010? The fraudulent document clearly shows an attempt to describe a decision making process that results in the conclusion that this particular allegation was upheld, when Eileen Schofield couldn't possibly have made that decision at the time alleged. That "decision" was therefore made in 2011, and not in 2010, and the process that reached that decision also took place in 2011. The whole document is clearly an attempt to fool the tribunal that each allegation was investigated and that Eileen Schofield had gone to the trouble of making a decision about each and every allegation, when in reality her decision to dismiss my overall grievance wasn't based on evidence.
They have also made matters worse for themselves by saying that Mr Flockhart was not asked about this allegation because it was not considered a material allegation. If that was the case, then why did they make a point of asking Mrs O'Neil about the allegation when I had already indicated that doing so would likely cause friction within the team? My allegation wasn't against Mrs O'Neil, but Kathy McCabe, who wasn't asked to respond to it. And if it is typical behaviour that is only to be expected in a busy team, then what the hell have I been sacked for? Even if the allegations against me had been true, they don't compare with phoning a supplier and describing a colleague as useless; especially when that colleague wasn't useless.
By interviewing Jackie O'Neil over this matter, they performed an act in response to my protected disclosure which was likely to cause me to suffer detriment. And that was the only reason they had for discussing the matter with her. It was already decided that it was not material. There was no reason for Jackie to have been asked about it because Kathy had already been aware of it, and Karen Stark had heard Kathy say she wasn't interested. Whistleblowing laws are there to protect employees from such acts. The university will have to explain why they questioned Jackie over that incident if they had already decided that the issue was not material, and having been forewarned by me that it would likely cause bad feelings (detriment).
It was a horrendously bad decision to make up this fraudulent document. Firstly, it will clearly demonstrate to the tribunal that they are lying, and that they were covering up a sham grievance process. That won't bode well for the rest of the case. Regardless of this specific allegation, it was bleeding obvious that the whole process was a sham, so they had nothing to gain by going to all of the trouble and risk of making up that document. Every single allegation in this ten page document is going to be a nightmare for them in court. It will take a very long time for me to go through each allegation with both Mrs Schofield and Miss Stark to show the tribunal that it was a farce. I would imagine that the tribunal would soon become very irritated if they continue to insist that the grievance process was genuine. They really could go to jail, and it would be no more than they deserve!
Here's the entry from that document:
COMPLAINT / ALLEGATION
Inequitable handling of complaints and acting on gossip.
[1] our useless DBA
WHEN INVESTIGATED
Between 5‐24 March 2010
INVESTIGATED BY WHOM
Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark
FORM OF INVESTIGATION
Reference to J O'Neil's statement and reference to B Flockhart's statement.
FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION
J O'Neil could not recall this incident although one member of staff who was contacted as part of the investigation (who left the university in March 2007) stated that he recalled an incident when J O'Neil was unprofessional and derogatory in her remarks towards AG when speaking to a third party supplier on the phone.
CONCLUSION
Allegation upheld ‐ but considered not to be material.
That conclusion couldn't have been reached in 2010, but it definitely describes an investigation and decision making process that took place in 2011, rather than a clerical or typing error. And the decision that the allegation was not considered material was also made in 2011, because the decision reached in 2010 was that it was material and should be investigated even though it was likely to cause friction to do so.
They are also beginning to respond to my request for document disclosure. However, there is information that I've requested that they want to keep hidden from me and the Employment Tribunal.
One of the documents they are trying to keep hidden is the role description for the role of System Assistant. It was a role occupied by three women when Kathy McCabe helped them create the description for it in 2008, and to help them get as high a salary as possible, by honest means or otherwise. Kathy grossly exaggerated the degree of difficulty and the level of experience required for the role, which she once described to me as a junior role.
She stated that five years Oracle experience was normally required to do this job. My arse! A job requiring five years Oracle experience would be a very specialist role. Selina Gibb applied for her job as System Assistant in June 2004. The job advertisement said nothing about requiring five years or any Oracle experience whatsoever, which was just as well because Selina had none, and she still didn't have any by September 2009 when I gave her a very basic Oracle training course.
The university is claiming that the role description is personal data relative to Selina. Of course, it's not personal at all. It relates to a role. It will be for Kathy McCabe to explain why she thinks the role requires so much Oracle experience, and why the job advertisement didn't specify that outrageous requirement, and why Selina, who had occupied the role for four years didn't possess it.
I now intend to ask for the role descriptions for roles held by Eileen MacDonald (Senior Programmer Analyst / Support Coordinator) and Jackie O'Neil (Programmer / Analyst). Their roles will doubtless state that they are required to possess the ability to develop programming solutions. Despite each of them having more than ten years experience, their level of programming ability was shockingly low - practically negligible. So, if they can't perform tasks that their role description says they do, then they shouldn't be in that role.
Selina Gibb, Eileen MacDonald and Jackie O'Neil (2) all received merit awards from sex discriminator, Kathy McCabe. None of them have the disadvantage of owning a penis.
The university also refused to provide me with information they hold for Una Forsyth. I asked for the towns of her addresses since 2002. At her interview for the disciplinary investigation, she said that around 2005, I had a soft spot for her and had plans to get together with her. Five years later at her interview, this was still proving too upsetting for her. Her statement describes her as visibly upset, and that Karen Eccleson had to speak on her behalf. It was so upsetting. She added that she was married at the time and felt it was inappropriate. This is a fascinating story she invented after colluding with Karen Eccleson.
Una had split from her husband in 2002, and had moved in with her boyfriend, Ricky from Edinburgh until around 2004 when she got her own house in Bo'ness. At some point around 2007/2008, she split up with Ricky and had joined dating websites. She had also attended speed dating events, and I recall she had dated some men from them. Karen Eccleson, as well as most of the team, was also aware of this. I had also shown Mark Toole evidence that my partner had been living with me since April 2004.
I had told Mark Toole that Una's allegation was impossible, and asked him to check with HR. I asked the university to say whether or not Mr Toole had investigated this. Their response is "This is personal data relative to Mrs Forsyth. She has not consented to its release. Mr Toole did not consider this information and could see no reason why he should."
Of course, the reason why he should is because it was his job to. He was about to take away my livelihood, and should at least have made a reasonable attempt at pretending this was a genuine disciplinary process. Making malicious complaints is a sackable offence. The university is going to be very busy sacking people soon, unless that's one of the policies that is applied differently depending on who you are, and what your gender is.
Mr Toole says that he saw no evidence to support my claim that my colleagues had lied. Well obviously, if you are determined not to carry out any sort of investigation, you will improve your chances of not seeing it. But he will struggle to explain how he saw no evidence when I bloody showed him it.
To be continued...
Showing posts with label sex discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex discrimination. Show all posts
Friday
Kathy McCabe - Sex Discriminator Extraordinaire
In the period between the years 2000 and 2006, Kathy McCabe made 13 merit awards to team members. Each award was for a value up to £500.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
Amazingly, twelve of those thirteen awards went to women. And it comes as no surprise to me that the only man who received a merit award was Eric Hall, who was brought in because of his friendship with Suzie Law and her ex husband, David Gardiner.
For six years, I worked an extra 15 hours a week in the office for free, and I usually did more work at home. For two years I performed a grade 3 role, but only received a grade 2 salary. There were times when I was in my office working beyond midnight, and even once to 4:30 in the morning. There was a three week period when I practically lived in my office, and saved the uni tens of thousands of pounds. But I never received a merit award from Kathy. The simple reason is that I have a penis.
None of the other male team members had a look in either, and almost all of them were excellent employees who easily performed at a higher standard than most of the women. I know because I worked very closely with them and saw what they were capable of. I had to spend a great deal of my time helping female colleagues with their work because they couldn't do it, and in some cases, didn't want to learn how to do it.
When I was a student, I studied three separate IT courses. For each of them, the proportion of male students was around 90%. Any IT conference I attended was also around 90% male. I was a member of an interview panel three times at the university, and two of those times there were only male applicants, the other had one female and about six male applicants. Kathy bucked the trend whenever possible and hired women. By restricting yourself to just 10% of the available population, you are unlikely to hire the best applicants. Throughout her time as a manager, the team always had twice as many females as males.
In her grievance against me, Kathy said that she treats the team fairly and consistently.
In my grievance, I stated that I had never received a merit award from Kathy. At her hearing, she insisted that I did receive a merit award from her. At my appeal hearing, I said that this was something that could easily have been checked out. Eileen Schofield claimed that she had checked it out. Kevin Clarke heard my appeal, but it was not upheld.
One woman received three merit awards. She was a part time worker, working mornings only. Two women each received two.
Bloody disgusting! It's no wonder that Stirling University held this information back from me for so long. I first asked for it in May 2010, and just received it today, 16 December 2011. The document they sent me has the employee names blacked out, but it is easy to tell who they are. There should have been no reason for this information to have been censored. When an employee received a merit award, it was published in a university magazine that was sent to all staff.
In their response to my claim to the Employment Tribunal, the university stated
"The Respondent denies that the Claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of his sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Indeed the Respondent found that the Claimant had harassed his colleagues on grounds of their gender."
It is not surprising that Eileen Schofield and Karen Stark found no evidence to support my allegations of sex discrimination. They simply ignored my allegations and didn't investigate them. That's what is termed a cover up. It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sex. It is also unlawful to attempt to cover it up.
When Eric Hall was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation, he said that Kathy McCabe was not the problem. "She treats everyone professionally and equally", he creeped.
Eric was obviously treated more equally than others.
How will Kathy McCabe explain this away? You'll hear it here first...
I just remembered how Eileen Schofield's investigation dealt with this blatant sex discrimination.
The issue of Merit Awards was investigated and there was no evidence of inequitable treatment. It was noted that more female staff than male staff had received merit awards but given that the section was 2/3rds female staff this seemed to reflect the gender balance of the team.
That is prime time television comedy material of the highest order. They used to come out with gems like that on Yes Minister. Whoever wrote that must have been a fan.
The Problem With Women
One of the problems that Stirling University faces in defending the tribunal case is that after I made my protected disclosure, a large number of colleagues were encouraged to report that I had "a problem with women". This included Kathy McCabe, Eric Hall, Eileen MacDonald, Una Forsyth, Selina Gibb And Jackie O'Neil.
I had informed Christine Hallett that my manager, Kathy McCabe discriminated on the basis of gender, but rather than deal with that genuine issue, management performed a switch to make it appear that I was the one who discriminated based on gender. First, Karen Stark caused bad feelings between me and my colleagues by interviewing them about old incidents when they had abused me. Then word was passed down that they should suggest that I had "a problem with women".
The problem they have is that, despite all of these people saying this, there will be no documentary evidence that exists of this prior to my protected disclosure. There will be no record of me having been reprimanded or spoken to or informed in any way about my alleged "problem with women" during my thirteen years of service. How could there be? It hadn't been invented yet. So this is another dilemma the university has. Should they create a few helpful documents that refer to this alleged "problem with women", or do they admit that there is none? All of the allegations of my "problem with women" comes from those colleagues within days of each other. And it is obviously false. It's worse than none!
I have asked the university to produce all documents that refer to me having this "problem with women".
At the hearing in June, we discussed my request for the university to produce the questionnaires that the women, who allege that I had bullied them over several years, had completed about two months before I made my protected disclosure. The questionnaire included questions about bullying, and asked if you were being bullied. I knew that none of them would have said that they were being bullied. I would have been the only member of the team who said I was being bullied. The university's lawyer objected to my request. Clearly he knows it's all a pack of lies. The employment judge said that the questionnaires would not be necessary as the university would be expected to show documentary evidence of me bullying women over time.
What will the university do? It won't be able to produce anything that is timestamped, so will they try and create something that's not timestamped? Unfortunately for them, they won't be able to mention my alleged "problem with women" in my appraisal reports, because I have already seen them. That's a big disadvantage for them. I had an appraisal about nine months before I made my protected disclosure, but of course it doesn't refer to something that wasn't to be invented until nine months later.
So each of these people who referred to my alleged "problem with women" will have to explain why there is no evidence of them having reported it. Going by the number of times it is mentioned in their statements, you would expect there to be a big bundle of documents that refer to it. More importantly, the tribunal will expect there to be evidence of it. There would be lots of emails inviting me to attend meetings to discuss my alleged "problem with women". There would be an audit trail which shows that my alleged "problem with women" was being monitored and reassessed. There would be massive reports written up about all the occasions I had trapped women in the office and went wild with them. There would be plans that show that I was to be separated from women for fear that my alleged "problem with women" escalated.
So when the university responds to my requests for documents, it will be interesting to see all of the evidence of my alleged "problem with women". Will the uni feel that it is still worthwhile to create some more fraudulent documents?
Will Gerry McCormac go for broke, and order some more fraudulent documents to be created? If he does, he should ask them to be more careful this time, and not make it obvious that it's a fraud. By failing to take any action over the fraudulent document, Gerry is making it look like he was involved in it.
It's time you spoke out, Gerry. Did you order the fraudulent document to be created? If not, then please explain why you have taken no action to root out the criminal element in Stirling University.
One problem the university will face if they do decide to produce fraudulent documentary evidence of my alleged "problem with women" is that they are bound to be asked why they didn't produce that very important evidence before the hearing began in June 2011. Mark Toole claims that he dismissed me because I bullied women over time. Why would they not have included all of the documents (that the judge said they would expect to see) at that time?
What did the university tell their lawyer when he asked to see all the documentary evidence of me bullying women? Maybe I should call him as a witness and ask him. He can't produce any genuine evidence of my alleged "problem with women", but he desperately wants to show the tribunal my blog; my blog which didn't exist until after my unfair dismissal and would never have existed had it not been for that unfair dismissal. That can't possibly justify dismissal. He is focusing on my blog because he doesn't have a scrap of evidence that I was guilty of gross misconduct. There's plenty of evidence of gross misconduct by others though.
Where was the evidence that allegedly persuaded Mark Toole that I had a "problem with women"? Why did he not expect that there would be lots of documentary evidence of this? Mark will need answers to questions like those if he is to have any chance of fooling the tribunal that the dismissal was genuine. Mark said he could see no evidence that the complainants had conspired.
What action has Gerry taken over Mark's deliberate unfair dismissal, and Martin McCrindle's sham appeal process? What action has he taken over Eileen Schofield's sham grievance process? What action has he taken over Kevin Clarke's sham grievance appeal process?
If he takes no action over corrupt colleagues, then he is just as corrupt as they are.
That's Gerry McCormac for you; the man who claims to know how to get the best out of people. My arse, Gerry!
I had informed Christine Hallett that my manager, Kathy McCabe discriminated on the basis of gender, but rather than deal with that genuine issue, management performed a switch to make it appear that I was the one who discriminated based on gender. First, Karen Stark caused bad feelings between me and my colleagues by interviewing them about old incidents when they had abused me. Then word was passed down that they should suggest that I had "a problem with women".
The problem they have is that, despite all of these people saying this, there will be no documentary evidence that exists of this prior to my protected disclosure. There will be no record of me having been reprimanded or spoken to or informed in any way about my alleged "problem with women" during my thirteen years of service. How could there be? It hadn't been invented yet. So this is another dilemma the university has. Should they create a few helpful documents that refer to this alleged "problem with women", or do they admit that there is none? All of the allegations of my "problem with women" comes from those colleagues within days of each other. And it is obviously false. It's worse than none!
I have asked the university to produce all documents that refer to me having this "problem with women".
At the hearing in June, we discussed my request for the university to produce the questionnaires that the women, who allege that I had bullied them over several years, had completed about two months before I made my protected disclosure. The questionnaire included questions about bullying, and asked if you were being bullied. I knew that none of them would have said that they were being bullied. I would have been the only member of the team who said I was being bullied. The university's lawyer objected to my request. Clearly he knows it's all a pack of lies. The employment judge said that the questionnaires would not be necessary as the university would be expected to show documentary evidence of me bullying women over time.
What will the university do? It won't be able to produce anything that is timestamped, so will they try and create something that's not timestamped? Unfortunately for them, they won't be able to mention my alleged "problem with women" in my appraisal reports, because I have already seen them. That's a big disadvantage for them. I had an appraisal about nine months before I made my protected disclosure, but of course it doesn't refer to something that wasn't to be invented until nine months later.
So each of these people who referred to my alleged "problem with women" will have to explain why there is no evidence of them having reported it. Going by the number of times it is mentioned in their statements, you would expect there to be a big bundle of documents that refer to it. More importantly, the tribunal will expect there to be evidence of it. There would be lots of emails inviting me to attend meetings to discuss my alleged "problem with women". There would be an audit trail which shows that my alleged "problem with women" was being monitored and reassessed. There would be massive reports written up about all the occasions I had trapped women in the office and went wild with them. There would be plans that show that I was to be separated from women for fear that my alleged "problem with women" escalated.
So when the university responds to my requests for documents, it will be interesting to see all of the evidence of my alleged "problem with women". Will the uni feel that it is still worthwhile to create some more fraudulent documents?
Will Gerry McCormac go for broke, and order some more fraudulent documents to be created? If he does, he should ask them to be more careful this time, and not make it obvious that it's a fraud. By failing to take any action over the fraudulent document, Gerry is making it look like he was involved in it.
It's time you spoke out, Gerry. Did you order the fraudulent document to be created? If not, then please explain why you have taken no action to root out the criminal element in Stirling University.
One problem the university will face if they do decide to produce fraudulent documentary evidence of my alleged "problem with women" is that they are bound to be asked why they didn't produce that very important evidence before the hearing began in June 2011. Mark Toole claims that he dismissed me because I bullied women over time. Why would they not have included all of the documents (that the judge said they would expect to see) at that time?
What did the university tell their lawyer when he asked to see all the documentary evidence of me bullying women? Maybe I should call him as a witness and ask him. He can't produce any genuine evidence of my alleged "problem with women", but he desperately wants to show the tribunal my blog; my blog which didn't exist until after my unfair dismissal and would never have existed had it not been for that unfair dismissal. That can't possibly justify dismissal. He is focusing on my blog because he doesn't have a scrap of evidence that I was guilty of gross misconduct. There's plenty of evidence of gross misconduct by others though.
Where was the evidence that allegedly persuaded Mark Toole that I had a "problem with women"? Why did he not expect that there would be lots of documentary evidence of this? Mark will need answers to questions like those if he is to have any chance of fooling the tribunal that the dismissal was genuine. Mark said he could see no evidence that the complainants had conspired.
What action has Gerry taken over Mark's deliberate unfair dismissal, and Martin McCrindle's sham appeal process? What action has he taken over Eileen Schofield's sham grievance process? What action has he taken over Kevin Clarke's sham grievance appeal process?
If he takes no action over corrupt colleagues, then he is just as corrupt as they are.
That's Gerry McCormac for you; the man who claims to know how to get the best out of people. My arse, Gerry!
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
Me v University of Stirling
Happy Christmas to all my readers. And thank you to those of you who find my blog so interesting that you copy some of my posts and send them to others, regardless of any copyright laws you may be infringing! :)
Weather permitting, St Johnstone travel to Celtic Park on Boxing day. The bookies estimate there's a probability of roughly seven per cent that they'll win. Hardly fair, is it?
Maybe they should suggest to the Premier League that they bend the rules in their favour to give them a fighting chance. How about Derek McInnes, the Saints' manager being allowed to select the Celtic team, and how about making Celtic play with just seven players, and any goals Celtic score in the first half don't count towards the final score. That should just about do it, but just to make sure, allow St Johnstone to make eleven substitutions.
I think the Premier League would give their suggestions short shrift, and rightly so.
Stirling University see themselves as having little hope in successfully defending my claim at the Employment Tribunal. So they've made some suggestions to the Tribunal that, if accepted, would give them a bit more of a chance. Of course, they're not suggesting that it's for that reason, but for honourable reasons, like saving time in a case they say I have little hope of winning, and even if I did win, it would be of little value to me.
When you make a claim to a Tribunal, the employer has to respond stating the grounds on which they resist the claim. The Uni put all their effort into trying to convince the Tribunal that my claim should just be dismissed, by saying it's unreasonable and misconceived. They said that the grievance and disciplinary procedures were handled fairly and appropriately, and that my complaints were all investigated and rejected. There was no sex discrimination, they said, apart from the sex discrimination they allege I displayed. They said that I was the major contributor in the breakdown of my working relationship with Kathy McCabe and two other colleagues. They also said that they didn't accept that I made a protected disclosure, and that, even if I did, I didn't receive any detrimental treatment. They failed to convince the Tribunal to dismiss my claim, and a hearing was scheduled to take place over January, February and March 2011.
I'm allowed to ask the Uni for written answers to questions. I asked them for the reasons why they don't accept that I made a protected disclosure. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. I asked them for the facts that Eileen Schofield relied upon when deciding to reject the allegations in my grievance and to uphold Kathy's grievance. They refused to answer, saying that it's irrelevant. I asked them if they now accept that I wasn't given an opportunity to present my case at my grievance hearing. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. If these issues are irrelevant, then they shouldn't have included them in their grounds of resistance! However, they are very relevant, and if they are as concerned about time as they say they are, the sooner they answer my questions, the better.
Both sides are allowed to call witnesses. The Uni has decided not to call their star witness, Kathy, even though she was allegedly able to point to evidence that persuaded Eileen Schofield that she hadn't bullied me or discriminated against me on the basis of my gender, and that I had in fact bullied Kathy. The reason they are not calling her as a witness is because she couldn't possibly have done that. This means that I have to call Kathy as a witness for cross examination in order to see that evidence she pointed to. The Uni has suggested to the Tribunal that I shouldn't be allowed to cross examine her, because they say I am "an aggrieved employee with a difference of view". That would surely describe every claimant at a Tribunal.
They are not calling the other four women, (Eileen, Selina, Jackie and Una) on whose evidence they allegedy based their decision to dismiss me. So I've called them as witnesses. I suspect the Uni realises that those women won't be able to convince the Tribunal that I should have been dismissed. I also suspect there are other, even more important reasons why the Uni will not want them to be cross examined.
They are not calling Eileen Schofield, despite her being convinced that I was the cause of the breakdown in my working relationship with Kathy. I need to call her as a witness to hear how she arrived at that decision.
They are not calling Kevin Clarke who said he couldn't see any flaws in the
grievance procedure. I'm calling him as a witness too, because I want him to explain to the Tribunal how the flaws I described to him aren't flaws.
They are not calling the two managers (Graham and Gail) who carried out the disciplinary investigation, but I need to find out from them why their investigation was so flawed. Who knows, they might tell me the truth, as they are required under oath!
The Uni is asking the Tribunal to restrict me, or my representative, to cross examining only those who made the decisions, claiming that they are the only ones with relevant evidence. They cannot possibly think that's true, especially when they are being advised by a lawyer.
They don't stop at that though. There are other advantages they want too. Normally, in a case like mine where there are elements of discrimination and victimisation as a result of protected disclosures, it is the employee who presents their case first, followed by the employer. The reverse is true when it's only unfair dismissal. I think that makes sense because the party that has to refer to the earliest incidents should go first. The Uni has decided that it would be best for them if they present their case first.
They also wish to treat my claim as if it was just one of unfair dismissal. That's their comfort zone. They want to force the Tribunal to decide if I was dismissed for a fair reason before they've heard from me about any victimisation and discrimination. They probably still wouldn't win, but their chances would be significantly greater, especially if, as they suggest, the Tribunal doesn't get to hear the very dodgy evidence from those five women and others, and they don't get to hear about the flawed grievance procedure or any of the mistreatment I had been subjected to for several years.
They were offered an opportunity to have the matter of the protected disclosures decided first. I'd imagine that wouldn't take very long because there is a clear definition of what qualifies as a protected disclosure, and the Uni is struggling to find a reason to argue my protected disclosures don't qualify. However, they rejected that offer, and I suspect that's because the natural thing to decide after that would be whether or not I suffered detriment (from which I was protected) as a result of the grievance procedure, and they wish to avoid that subject like the plague. The Tribunal would also have the protected disclosures at the forefront of their minds while listening to evidence on my dismissal.
So far, they haven't insisted that I be blindfolded and have my hands tied behind my back; but it's still early days...
Weather permitting, St Johnstone travel to Celtic Park on Boxing day. The bookies estimate there's a probability of roughly seven per cent that they'll win. Hardly fair, is it?
Maybe they should suggest to the Premier League that they bend the rules in their favour to give them a fighting chance. How about Derek McInnes, the Saints' manager being allowed to select the Celtic team, and how about making Celtic play with just seven players, and any goals Celtic score in the first half don't count towards the final score. That should just about do it, but just to make sure, allow St Johnstone to make eleven substitutions.
I think the Premier League would give their suggestions short shrift, and rightly so.
Stirling University see themselves as having little hope in successfully defending my claim at the Employment Tribunal. So they've made some suggestions to the Tribunal that, if accepted, would give them a bit more of a chance. Of course, they're not suggesting that it's for that reason, but for honourable reasons, like saving time in a case they say I have little hope of winning, and even if I did win, it would be of little value to me.
When you make a claim to a Tribunal, the employer has to respond stating the grounds on which they resist the claim. The Uni put all their effort into trying to convince the Tribunal that my claim should just be dismissed, by saying it's unreasonable and misconceived. They said that the grievance and disciplinary procedures were handled fairly and appropriately, and that my complaints were all investigated and rejected. There was no sex discrimination, they said, apart from the sex discrimination they allege I displayed. They said that I was the major contributor in the breakdown of my working relationship with Kathy McCabe and two other colleagues. They also said that they didn't accept that I made a protected disclosure, and that, even if I did, I didn't receive any detrimental treatment. They failed to convince the Tribunal to dismiss my claim, and a hearing was scheduled to take place over January, February and March 2011.
I'm allowed to ask the Uni for written answers to questions. I asked them for the reasons why they don't accept that I made a protected disclosure. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. I asked them for the facts that Eileen Schofield relied upon when deciding to reject the allegations in my grievance and to uphold Kathy's grievance. They refused to answer, saying that it's irrelevant. I asked them if they now accept that I wasn't given an opportunity to present my case at my grievance hearing. They refused to answer, saying it's irrelevant. If these issues are irrelevant, then they shouldn't have included them in their grounds of resistance! However, they are very relevant, and if they are as concerned about time as they say they are, the sooner they answer my questions, the better.
Both sides are allowed to call witnesses. The Uni has decided not to call their star witness, Kathy, even though she was allegedly able to point to evidence that persuaded Eileen Schofield that she hadn't bullied me or discriminated against me on the basis of my gender, and that I had in fact bullied Kathy. The reason they are not calling her as a witness is because she couldn't possibly have done that. This means that I have to call Kathy as a witness for cross examination in order to see that evidence she pointed to. The Uni has suggested to the Tribunal that I shouldn't be allowed to cross examine her, because they say I am "an aggrieved employee with a difference of view". That would surely describe every claimant at a Tribunal.
They are not calling the other four women, (Eileen, Selina, Jackie and Una) on whose evidence they allegedy based their decision to dismiss me. So I've called them as witnesses. I suspect the Uni realises that those women won't be able to convince the Tribunal that I should have been dismissed. I also suspect there are other, even more important reasons why the Uni will not want them to be cross examined.
They are not calling Eileen Schofield, despite her being convinced that I was the cause of the breakdown in my working relationship with Kathy. I need to call her as a witness to hear how she arrived at that decision.
They are not calling Kevin Clarke who said he couldn't see any flaws in the
grievance procedure. I'm calling him as a witness too, because I want him to explain to the Tribunal how the flaws I described to him aren't flaws.
They are not calling the two managers (Graham and Gail) who carried out the disciplinary investigation, but I need to find out from them why their investigation was so flawed. Who knows, they might tell me the truth, as they are required under oath!
The Uni is asking the Tribunal to restrict me, or my representative, to cross examining only those who made the decisions, claiming that they are the only ones with relevant evidence. They cannot possibly think that's true, especially when they are being advised by a lawyer.
They don't stop at that though. There are other advantages they want too. Normally, in a case like mine where there are elements of discrimination and victimisation as a result of protected disclosures, it is the employee who presents their case first, followed by the employer. The reverse is true when it's only unfair dismissal. I think that makes sense because the party that has to refer to the earliest incidents should go first. The Uni has decided that it would be best for them if they present their case first.
They also wish to treat my claim as if it was just one of unfair dismissal. That's their comfort zone. They want to force the Tribunal to decide if I was dismissed for a fair reason before they've heard from me about any victimisation and discrimination. They probably still wouldn't win, but their chances would be significantly greater, especially if, as they suggest, the Tribunal doesn't get to hear the very dodgy evidence from those five women and others, and they don't get to hear about the flawed grievance procedure or any of the mistreatment I had been subjected to for several years.
They were offered an opportunity to have the matter of the protected disclosures decided first. I'd imagine that wouldn't take very long because there is a clear definition of what qualifies as a protected disclosure, and the Uni is struggling to find a reason to argue my protected disclosures don't qualify. However, they rejected that offer, and I suspect that's because the natural thing to decide after that would be whether or not I suffered detriment (from which I was protected) as a result of the grievance procedure, and they wish to avoid that subject like the plague. The Tribunal would also have the protected disclosures at the forefront of their minds while listening to evidence on my dismissal.
So far, they haven't insisted that I be blindfolded and have my hands tied behind my back; but it's still early days...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)