Suggestions for Kevin Clarke's Temporary Replacement

Kevin Clarke, Kepphill, Arnprior, By Kippen, FK8 3EW

Kevin Clarke is set to retire on 31 March 2012 from his position of University Secretary for University of Stirling. May I respectfully suggest that he leave right now.

Of course, that will mean finding a temporary replacement of at least equal competence to fill the position until a permanent replacement can be found.

May I please ask for your suggestions. You can be as anonymous as you like. But please remember your suggestion must have competence equal to or greater than that of Mr Clarke. I will take a very dim view of any suggestions that do not meet the basic requirement, and they will not be added to the suggestion list below.

The temporary replacement must not cost any more than Mr Clarke's estimated £150,000 per year salary.

You can either post your suggestions in a comment, or email me at: bullyingatstirlinguniversity@gmail.com

Suggestions:

1 The space that he normally takes up.

2 The cat that the woman put in the bin.

3 The woman that put the cat in the bin.

4 The bin.

5 Eileen Schofield.

6 Eileen MacDonald.

7 A little turd.

8 "Professor" David Donaldson

Has Anyone Ever Been Literally Laughed Out Of Court?

If not, then the University of Stirling could well be first!

Well done, Kevin Clarke!

I might just turn up at his leaving do.

To be continued...

Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week 2011: October 16-22

by David Yamada

“Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week,” an annual observance sponsored by the Workplace Bullying Institute, runs from October 16 through 22. It is an important opportunity for supporters of the workplace anti-bullying movement to educate the public and rally others to the cause.

In the U.S., this movement is reaching the point where workplace bullying is a recognized phenomenon. Although there always are new audiences who haven’t named or labeled this hurtful and destructive behavior, these days we’re having to explain ourselves a little less than before. Within wider circles, the term “workplace bullying” is used and understood. Our educational work is far from over — the need will endure — but we’re seeing progress in terms of public comprehension.

For today, I want to center our attention on action. Toward that end, I’m re-posting my article “Ten ways to stop workplace bullying,” from December 2010:

Ten ways to stop workplace bullying

When people talk to me about workplace bullying, they often ask, what can I do to help? The following list is hardly exhaustive, but it’s a starting place:

1. Don’t — Don’t be a workplace bully. It starts with each of us.

2. Stand up — Stand up for someone who is being bullied. Silence equals permission.

3. Support — Similarly, support friends, colleagues, and family members who are experiencing bullying at work. Validate their concerns and, where appropriate, guide them to coaching, counseling, and legal assistance. (For some resources, go here.)

4. Ask — Ask your employer to educate employees about workplace bullying and to include an anti-bullying policy in the employee handbook.

5. Post — If you read an article on workplace bullying, post a comment to it online, voicing your support for taking this problem seriously. Help to generate momentum for the anti-bullying movement.

6. Talk — Yes, just talk about it with others. Without making a pest of yourself to your friends, family, and associates, discuss bullying as part of the workplace experience for many employees.

7. Law reform — Support anti-bullying legislation. For readers in the U.S., get active in the grassroots campaign to enact the Healthy Workplace Bill in states around the nation (link here). (Full disclosure: I’m the author of the Healthy Workplace Bill, so I do have an interest in seeing it enacted!)

8. Unions — If you are a member of a union, lobby your union leaders to educate members about workplace bullying and to negotiate an abusive supervision clause in the collective bargaining agreement, as discussed here.

9. Faith — If you are a member of a church, synagogue, or mosque, encourage your congregational leaders and fellow members to include workplace bullying among their social action concerns.

10. Connect — We must connect workplace bullying to other forms of interpersonal abuse, such as school bullying, cyber bullying, and domestic abuse. There are many unfortunate similarities between them, and helping others to understand this will serve as a powerful consciousness raising mechanism.

Words of caution

Some of these actions carry personal risks. There is something very threatening about this topic to certain individuals and organizations. Furthermore, when someone is suffering due to workplace bullying, they may be in a difficult place psychologically. Thus, please consider:

1. Those who stand up for bullying targets may find themselves next on the firing line. This is a very real possibility.

2. A bad employer may consider you a troublemaker simply for asking that the organization oppose these behaviors.

3. Posting a comment online about workplace bullying may lead to some people to ridicule your concerns.

4. Providing homebrewed psychological counseling or legal advice is not only unwise, but also illegal if you are not licensed to provide such assistance.

Eileen MacDonald - The Power of Gossip

Eileen MacDonald, 53 Castle Rd, Stirling, FK9 5JE

The person I fear most at the forthcoming Employment Tribunal hearing is Eileen MacDonald. Eileen seems to have some magical or hypnotic ability to persuade people that she is somehow the victim, when in fact she is the perpetrator. That alone would be an extraordinary ability, but she somehow manages to do it, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. It's almost as though she is able to manipulate the part of the brain that normally processes facts, so that it can only process and consider emotion. And she has managed to do this with so many people, that I fear that she could do it with the members of the tribunal. I'm the only person I know of that her special powers don't work on. It's as though my fact processor refuses to be sidetracked my emotion. No amount of emotion will make my brain think that two plus two is anything other than four. I'm hard wired to think logically, and I can only hope that the tribunal members are too.

Here are the facts; Eileen is a compulsive liar who was jealous of me. She used her powers of gossip to persuade others to think badly of me. It appears that people believed whatever she said, including our manager, Kathy McCabe. Eileen told Kathy another whopper, and although Kathy believed it, she asked Eileen to put it in writing, so that she could hit me right between the eyes with it. I replied to Kathy with the facts. Kathy didn't like the facts, so she cancelled the meeting she had arranged with Eileen and me. I thought it was well overdue for Eileen to face the facts, so I lodged a grievance against her. At the same time, I lodged a grievance against Kathy, because she should not have cancelled that meeting. Instead she should have done what she was paid to do, and manage a very difficult team member that she had recruited. That is a fact too.

Kathy refused to handle my grievance against Eileen, so she passed it on to Peter Kemp. Peter didn't handle my grievance either. Apparently, Eileen emailed Peter because she was finding her situation very stressful.

What seems to have happened is that the university's responsibility to handle my grievance within a reasonable time, was put to one side while all and sundry provided emotional support for Eileen. As a result, the facts of the matter were all ignored, and everybody's energy was used to paint me as the baddie who had upset a pregnant colleague. The fact that Eileen had got herself in this mess by gossiping about me, seems to have got lost somewhere among the emotional camouflage.

Below is an email Eileen sent to Kathy about her situation. This was about seven months after I lodged my grievance. While all the King's horses and all the King's men were running around providing more and more support for Eileen, nobody was giving a damn about the fact that I was Eileen's victim. I lodged those grievances just a few weeks after a five week period of sick leave due to stress.

In an extraordinary set of circumstances, my manager whom I had a grievance against, went to visit Eileen, whom I also had a grievance against, at her home to discuss those grievances I had against them. You couldn't make this stuff up!

In the end, Eileen tells another pack lies, Mark Toole who also ignored my grievance against Eileen says he believes Eileen's malicious complaint because he cannot think of any reason why she should lie. He doesn't bother looking at the evidence, or try to explain how it could possibly be true. He will have to explain to the tribunal how it could be more likely to be true than false. That will be impossible!

I find it quite extraordinary that so many people should wish to provide support for someone who would make up malicious lies in an attempt to deprive someone of their career. One of the strangest things is that I had shown Lynn McDonald evidence that Eileen had lied. So why on earth would she then provide support to her to get her through the summer? Lynn was one of the people I thought I could trust.

At the tribunal, I intend to show Eileen her statement, and then I will show her the evidence that proves that she lied. Following the hearing, I will publish the proof here.


If Eileen was feeling vulnerable and exposed two and a half year ago, it is possible that she will feel even more vulnerable and exposed at the tribunal. It's almost three and a half years since I lodged my grievance. The grievance procedure says it should have been handled within three weeks. I think that soon it will finally be heard. That's unless Eileen 'Houdini' MacDonald can somehow wriggle out of it again.

Theoretically, of course, she has nothing to fear at the tribunal. According to Mr Toole, there was no reason for her to lie, and no evidence that she did lie. And also according to Mr Toole, there is just no way she could have made up such a convincing story by colluding with others, because he said it just wasn't possible in the time they had available.

For years Eileen had been making up lies about me because she was jealous of me being good at my job, and because colleagues recognised me as being good at my job. Eileen would frequently ask me to do her work for her, because she couldn't do it. And like the mug I am, I did it. And while I did it, she was off gossiping about me behind my back. Of course, when she was cowardly lying about me behind my back, I couldn't defend myself. Then when I saw her email to Kathy, I was prevented from defending myself. Then when she made her false statements, I was prevented from defending myself again. Finally, I'm going to have my chance to defend myself and to confront her with the indisputable facts. Justice has been a long time coming, but it will sure taste sweet.

Eileen MacDonald declared war on me. She is going to wish she hadn't bothered.

Stirling University Court - What's the Point of it?

Any idea?

Harry Adam is a member. He looks fairly happy about it. This may be his day off though, as he is not wearing a hat. It could be a disguise! Harry is an HR Director for Ian Williams Ltd in Bristol. Is he happy with the corrupt methods used by HR at Stirling University? What is the point of him being a member? Does he enjoy the free shortbread and alcohol? Does it look good on his CV? I'm pretty sure Harry reads my blog, so maybe he will tell us. His association with a corrupt management can't be good for Ian Williams Ltd can it? Is he too frightened to tell Gerry McCormac to get his house in order? Did he recruit Gerry? Is Gerry a mate of his? I'm sure we'd all love to know, Harry. Do they pay you to turn a blind eye? Don't you think Stirling University would benefit if you were replaced by someone who actually gave a damn?

What is Stirling University Court? Is it a gentlemen's only drinking club? Do they have special hand shakes?

How much does it cost? What does it do? Who pays for it? Who decides how much it is paid? Does it determine how much salary the members of management receive?

Are they pleased that management is corrupt? Are the members of Court required to be corrupt? Are there members of the corrupt management who are also members of Court? If so, how do the honest members of Court feel about that? Are there any honest members of Court? If so, do they wear a different uniform? How would a member of the public be able to identify an honest one? Are they allowed to say that they are honest when really they're not?

Why do the members want to be members? Is it like networking? Is it for the kudos or to boost their ego, or because they genuinely want to do good on behalf of the university? Is it for the free drinks, free shortbread and special handshakes? Is it good for business?

Do they have to swear never to repeat what is said at meetings - the real meetings? Any connection with witches' covens and animal sacrifice? Do they speak in tongues?

Have any former members of Court ever lived to tell their tale? Are you ever allowed to become a former member of Court? What about their knowledge of the special handshakes? Do they change the handshakes every time someone leaves?

Has any member of the Court ever dared to suggest that management should be investigated? What punishment would such a member have to undergo? Would their families also be punished? Is there a secure shelter for former members of Court and their families who have suggested that management should be investigated?

Do they get to wear robes and masks? Anything sexual that we should be aware of? Devil worship? Do they have special songs that they sing before meetings - the real meetings?

How do I apply for membership? Is integrity an advantage or a disadvantage to joining? Could I join part time or temporarily? What if I don't have time to attend the meetings - the unreal meetings? Would it help if I know some good handshakes and can drink a lot, especially when it's free? Would I get to wear a hat?

Can they arrange contract killings? Any connection with the Mafia or the Krays? Any political allegiances, or allegiances to the monarchy? Is the Queen a member; not an ordinary member obviously, but like a special member?

Does membership earn you a discount at Tescos? Would I get a membership card with my photo on it? Are there local laws that I would be allowed to break because I was a member? Would I receive shares in the university's solicitors? Would I receive a bonus every time Stirling University loses an Employment Tribunal case?

What are the hours like? What's the first thing I'd have to do every Monday morning? Would I have to wear my hat while I did it? Who would I have to tell once I've done it? Are there any disciplinary procedures? Is bullying allowed, especially bullying based on gender? Would it be compulsory for vegetarians to sacrifice animals? Couldn't they maybe sacrifice a lentil instead?

Am I allowed to start up an alternative Court in competition with the existing one? Would my Court be allowed to undercut them on costs, say by replacing the hats with tasteful, yet cost effective badges?

Would I be allowed to advertise my Court as A Court With A Point To It?

Karen Stark - An Addiction to Fraud

I an earlier post, I spoke of the fraudulent document that Stirling Univesity gave to the Employment Tribunal to try to mislead them into thinking that all of my grievances against Kathy McCabe were thoroughly investigated. It would have been useful if Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield had produced this document at the time the alleged investigations took place. Not only would it have been useful; it would surely have been natural. Eileen is the university's Deputy Secretary on grade 10. She probably earns around £80,000 per year. Karen is on Grade 8, earning £44,000. This is not a pair of inexperienced juniors fresh from school. Any investigation would surely have been carefully planned and executed, and the findings would have been meticulously recorded BEFORE the outcome was decided. That's how I think most people would expect a proper investigation of their concerns to be carried out. Many of my complaints were of being bullied over several years, and the university promises that such complaints will be taken 'extremely seriously', so you would imagine there would be considerable evidence of this. Some of my complaints were of sex discrimination, and just days before I lodged my grievance, the Principal had written to every member of staff, including Eileen and Karen, emphasising how Stirling University was committed to diversity, and ensuring staff could work free from discrimination and victimisation. Karen even saw and acknowledged the protected disclosure I made to the Principal, in which I describe how senior management and HR had failed in its duty of care by allowing Kathy to continue bullying me to the serious detriment of my health.

In theory, my protected disclosure to the Principal should have raised alarm bells. The Principal should have been concerned that the university's committment, that she had just told us all about, didn't really exist, and that possibly HR and senior management had fooled her into thinking that there ever was such a committment. The question I feel the Principal should answer under oath is "Was she just innocently incompetent, or was she lying when she wrote to every single member of her staff?" I don't know if there is a third option, but she should have the opportunity to explain. I have asked for Christine Hallett to appear at the tribunal for cross examination, but the uni has objected to this. I feel that Christine should have the opportunity to clear her name, if she wants to. Christine is well known for claiming expenses, and I'm pretty sure the tribunal would fully refund any reasonable expenses she may incur in attending.

Obviously, if she was to tell the tribunal that she didn't lie to every single member of staff while being paid £250,000 a year to do so, then I would need her to explain her response to my protected disclosure. Her 'committment' seemed to have somewhat fallen short of what she had described to us all just days earlier. Could she have forgotten so quickly?

Much of what I said in my protected disclosure referred to meetings that took place with Karen Stark attending as the note taker. Most notable during these meetings was the behaviour of one Kathy McCabe. This was the Kathy that my team rarely got to see. It was the same Kathy who behaved in the same way during mediation. She acted like a spoilt little girl accused of stealing and eating all of the chocolate biscuits; screaming that it wasn't her, and blaming her innocent little brother, while the chocolate on her face and on her pretty dress told a different story. During mediation, she defiantly refused to answer any questions; she even left the room in a tantrum! At the time I felt embarrassed for Colin Sinclair; this was his friend who was behaving like a child. Ruth and I had genuinely believed him when he said he had always known her to be honest. We could never have anticipated that he would later make a statement saying that Kathy had answered my questions. Colin and Kathy are both IT managers at the uni. Graham Millar is another. All three are corrupt. David Gardiner is another IT manager at the uni. He is also close friends with Kathy and Colin. To my knowledge, he has played no part in this sham. However, he did stop speaking to me after I lodged my grievance against Kathy. The reason I mention David is because he came over to me and a friend I was with in a pub in Stirling one night, and threatened me; not physically, but with his powers of corruption. He had jumped to the wrong conclusion about me and my friend. He later apologised, blaming alcohol, but the damage was done. And he was so proud of his ability and willingness to abuse his powers that he wanted my friend to hear all about how he could ruin my career. The little shit was trying to scare me and embarrass me. He is an embarrassment to himself. I spent much of another evening with him once. Once again he was the worse for drink, and he described his hatred for his ex-wife's boyfriend, and what he planned to do if the opportunity arose. Many people will recognise David as a friendly, jovial bloke. I think it's a mask, and alcohol removes the mask to reveal the true David. With David, we probably wouldn't need lie detector tests; just alcohol!

So that's four IT managers as well as their boss, Mark Toole and former boss, Peter Kemp. Will the honest IT manager please stand up.

Back to Karen Stark, the note taker! Being involved with grievance and disciplinary procedures, I am always amazed at the accuracy of the notes taken by the note takers. The note taker is generally someone who is drawn from HR who has no prior involvement or emotional investment in the proceedings. The notes are not perfect by any means; that would be impossible without an audio recording device, but I'm genuinely surprised how accurate they are, given how much is said, the speed with which it is said, and that the topic being discussed may include terms the note taker may never have heard before. No meeting was ever stopped in order for the note taker to ask for something to be repeated, or to ask for time to catch up. It is a skill I truly wish I had. There might be little bits that are slightly wrong, but you can always tell that it was a genuine attempt to record what was said. The note taker then takes their handwritten notes, types them up, and files away both copies in electronic format. It's almost bulletproof.

There is but one exception to this, and that is when the note taker is Karen Stark. Karen was the note taker at a meeting attended by Mark Toole, Kathy, Lynn McDonald and my union representative, Dave Edgar. For most of the meeting, Kathy attacked me with malicious criticism. It was an act of desperation because at a previous meeting, Mark had told her that criticism should be delivered privately and it should be evidence based. She had agreed to that, but I could see that she was embarrassed at having basically been told by Mark that she was behaving like a bully. She was out for revenge, and that meant increasing the bullying. It was as if she had totally lost all sense of reason. The things she was criticising me about were things that any normal manager would have thanked me for. Much of this absurd criticism, and my response to it did not appear in Karen's notes.

I pointed out to Kathy that her arms were folded, and that she had told me she had complained to the uni that I had my arms folded during a meeting, and she thinks it's aggressive. She quickly unfolded her arms and said that she hadn't noticed. This didn't appear in Karen's notes.

I highlighted how she treats me differently from other team members, because when I had written to her saying that a colleague had physically assaulted me, she din't even reply. She then amazingly claimed that I had never told her of the assault. I reminded her that I had told her in an email. She denied it, just as she had denied receiving other emails from me. I offered to go and fetch the email, and asked her in advance what she would say once I showed it to her. This was because when I had shown her another email that she insisted she never received, she made up some stupid excuse about it. Dave asked her if she had known about the assault. She admitted that she had known. Dave asked her what she did about it. She said she didn't do anything about it. Dave asked her why she took no action, and she said it was because she wasn't present at the time of the assault.

Karen's notes do not refer to the fact that my manager thought that arm folding, which every single member of the team did, is so aggressive that it warranted a written complaint to the uni, while physical assault warranted no action whatsoever.

This is just a small sample of what Karen's notes do not include. This is particularly important because my grievance against Kathy included her behaviour at these meetings. But when Karen and Eileen came to investigate this complaint, the thorough investigation that I was promised turned out to be a complete sham. None of the witnesses were interviewed. There was a strange rule applied about witnesses. In order for a witness to be interviewed, their name had to appear in the documents that Kathy and I had lodged. But all of the attendees at those meetings were named in the documents, and so could have been interviewed anyway. So they were deliberately not interviewed. The entire investigation for my complaint consisted of Karen looking at her notes. Her notes didn't include anything worthy of complaint, so my complaint was rejected.

Karen's notes may originally have been accurate, but I didn't get to see them until after the grievance process. It is possible that she tampered with the notes to remove anything that was too incriminating for Kathy. I asked Karen for her handwritten version of the notes, but she said she destroyed them after she typed them up. all of the other note takers keep both versions.

Karen will have some explaining to do at the tribunal, about how these notes are so inaccurate, and why she destroyed her handwritten notes, and why the witnesses were not interviewed. This is in addition to her fraudulent investigation details document. She has produced a fraudulent document which, in turn, refers to another fraudulent document that she produced.

This amount and degree of fraud could mean a spell in the slammer for Karen, and I think she fully deserves it. Karen was already aware that her behaviour was damaging my health.

It will be interesting to see if Karen insists her notes are accurate, and that my account of these meetings that were attended by several witnesses, is false. Or will she once again claim that it was just a mistake? God knows where she is going with this, but she certainly has acquired a taste for fraud.

After the grievance decision was announced, Kevin Clarke described Karen as "highly professional". This raises very serious concerns about the University Secretary's judgement. Will he still be saying that when she's on her way to jail? Was Karen working to his instructions? Why is she still in her job where she could be doing this to more and more innocent employees? Is nobody at the uni calling for an investigation into her behaviour?

Regarding Karen's fraud, there could even be more. Watch this space...

The Danger of Gossip

Selina Gibb, Riverbank Lodge, Auchinlay Rd, Dunblane, FK15 9BF

In earlier posts I spoke of Selina Gibb's involvement in having me sacked. I had assumed that somehow Eileen MacDonald had forced Selina to make up stories about me to help in her attempt to get rid of me. On reflection, I think I may have given Selina too much credit as being an innocent person being forced against her will. Having thought about it, I don't think that is realistic.

When interviewed for the disciplinary investigation, Selina gave false accounts of two separate conversations I had with her; one in private and one which was witnessed by about seven colleagues. Selina and I had always got on very well, and it seemed bizarre that she would do that voluntarily. It didn't make sense, so I thought she must have been forced. But I now think that is unlikely. I now believe it is far more likely that Selina found herself in an awkward position due to her own stupidity.

There was a strong gossip culture in the team, and it seems that for years colleagues were being drip fed gossip about me by Eileen who I knew had been jealous of me. Selina knew that Eileen hated me and loved gossip. I think that following each of those conversations, Selina has sought to ingratiate herself with Eileen by misrepresenting them to her, and making them sound sinister. She was feeding the gossip monster. Selina would not at that stage have been planning to have me fired. She was just playing the game of gossiping about me.

Later when Eileen saw an opportunity for getting rid of me, she would have asked Selina for her help by reporting these 'sinister' conversations. That put Selina in an awkward position, because she either had to tell Eileen that she had lied to her, or she does the unthinkable, and formally repeats her lies.

Immediately before she gave her statement, Selina had been on holiday for about three weeks; plenty of time to weigh up her options. As a mother to three babies, Selina definitely made the wrong choice by deciding to repeat her lie in order to end a man's career. What began as a game of gossip, could end in disaster.

Selina claimed that, because of these conversations, she was frightened and anxious when with me. I have audio and documentary evidence that proves this to be a laughable lie. Selina's luck couldn't have been much worse. I mean, what were the chances of me accidentally recording her joking with me, and that the recording would even include an indication that it followed those allegedly sinister conversations? And what were the chances of her emailing me to invite me to hear 'lots of funnies' while she was allegedly frightened and anxious to be around me, and that I'd still have that email? The University has heard the recording and seen the email. The email and the recording, along with a transcript of its contents have been submitted to the tribunal. The university accepts that the transcript accurately describes what is said in the recording.

It shows that Selina had begun the conversation with me, and it shows her interrupting a work discussion I was having with another colleague. She interrupted in order to joke with me. Selina does not sound frightened or anxious, and I don't sound as though I would expect her to be frightened or anxious. We sound as though we are two colleagues who got on very well. Selina does not sound as though she is so frightened of me that she could no longer work with me.

To lie about someone in this manner in order to have him lose his livelihood represents serious defamation for which Selina is personally responsible. In her defense, she may claim that it was so obvious she was lying that the University should have known, and not fired me. I don't think that would stand up to scrutiny though. Her intention was to be believed that she could no longer work with me because she was so frightened. And officially, her story was so convincing that I was sacked. She has also had the opportunity to right her wrong since April 2010, but chose to continue with it. Judging by how happy she appears when she is out and about with Eileen, my situation doesn't seem to be causing her conscience too much trouble.

Bearing in mind that it is obvious that she lied, and that there were so many witnesses as well, I think the responsible thing for Selina to do would be to come forward and tell the truth. I wouldn't leave it too long though. I hope she fully understands the seriousness of her situation.

Last month, a student was jailed for six months when he pleaded guilty to stealing a £3.50 bottle of water. Selina's premeditated crime is infinitely worse, in my view. Her crime has cost me tens of thousands of pounds, has caused me very serious mental injury, and has possibly ended my career, and may even cause the end of my life. Needless to say, I'm very angry with Selina. VERY angry!

Lets consider Selina's thought process when she did this.

1 A complete lack of integrity. She knew that what she was doing was wrong and wicked, but she just went ahead and did it anyway. What a role model for her kids!

2 Totally selfish. No concern about what would happen to me. No concern about embarrassment to her family and to the university.

3 No consideration given to the fact that there were witnesses. She didn't expect the witnesses to find out about her false allegations.

4 No consideration given to the fact that there may be evidence that would show she lied.

5 No concern that she didn't have a single piece of evidence to support her allegations.

6 No consideration given to the fact that her partners in crime would be found out or admit to colluding with her. They must all have thought their stories were air tight.

7 No concern about what action I may take in response, even without evidence that she lied.

8 No concern that making false allegations is a sackable offence.

9 No concern about how difficult it would be to get a new job, having a record of making false allegations. Who would want to work with someone who makes false allegations?

10 No concern that she may have to testify under oath at a tribunal.

11 No concern about the laws of defamation.

12 No concern at all that I had thought of her as a friend, and had bent over backwards to help her.

13 No concern that the world would find out who the real Selina is.

14 No concern that it may eat at her conscience later, because she has no conscience.

Selina was interviewed by Graham Millar and Gail Miller at 3pm on 21 April 2010. She officially must have been extremely convincing, because at 9am the following day when they interviewed me, they didn't even mention Selina to me. But they felt so strongly about her evidence that they felt it merited a deviation from normal disciplinary procedure, and they included conclusions in their report; one of which highlighted their serious concerns about my conversation with Selina which had left her "uncomfortable and frightened and as a consequence is now nervous and anxious around him". Selina will have to explain how she went from frightened and anxious to laughing and joking, then back to frightened and anxious. Does she have a mental disorder perhaps?And Mr Toole will have to explain how he was at least 50% sure that she was telling the truth. Does he have a mental disorder perhaps?

Gail and Graham will also have to explain their performance as investigators. How can two investigators both perform so badly? You would think that if one was making a mistake, the other would point it out and correct it. These are both Grade 9 managers. Yet neither of them thought it was important to ask me for my account of the conversations I had with Selina. How convenient!

Selina's defamatory evidence could and should have been caught and stopped long before that point, but Selina now has them, Karen Stark and Mark Toole to thank for the nightmare in which she now finds herself. Not forgetting herself, of course!

The investigator's report is so malicious in its description of me, that I believe it is also defamatory. Mark Toole had promised me a fair and thorough investigation. So why does it not refer to Selina frequently laughing and joking with me? That is an indisputable fact. The investigator's report is only supposed to contain FACTS. But the facts are conspicuous by their absence. Why did the investigators include conclusions when they were not supposed to, and when they were in no position to, not having gathered the facts?

Selina is a bully. She is a special type of bully who bullies a certain type of individual. She targets people who are already targets of other bullies. This is called mobbing. She attacks people who are already weakened by the damage caused by other bullies.

People can be categorised by how they react to witnessing someone being attacked; for example a rape or assault victim. Some people will walk on by because they don't want to get involved. Some people will try to rescue the victim, even though it may put themselves in danger. They might not have thought it through before acting, but their instinct tells them that they should rescue the victim. Selina belongs to the third group. She 'smells blood' and wants to join in on the kill.

I can understand the first two types of people, but for the life of me, I can't understand the third. And apparently they are not rare. It frightens me. But it makes me wonder how these people would feel if they or their loved ones were being attacked, and passers by joined in on the attack. Would they think that was normal and to be expected?

I strongly believe that bullies and people who take part in mobbing must be punished in order to deter the next set of would be bullies. It is probably one of the most important things in the world today. Ideally it should be covered by systems of justice. If not, then what options do victims of bullies have?

Maybe that's a question we should ask Selina. What would she see as an appropriate and proportionate punishment for her behaviour that would deter others from copying her behaviour?

Alternatively, we could ask the victim what would be an appropriate and proportionate punishment.

However, the bully and the target are both emotionally involved, and are possibly not the best judges of appropriate punishment. Perhaps an independent judge could consider the punishments suggested by both the target and the bully, and decide which one of the two is more justified.

I spoke of how I considered Selina to be a friend, because that's how she presented herself to me face to face. Ironically, it was during our private conversation around January or February 2010 that I confided in her the toll that Kathy's bullying had taken on my health. She appeared sympathetic and genuinely concerned about my health, saying that I needed to look after myself. It was all an act. She was simply gathering and making up dirt on me to feed to her bully buddy.

The very last time I was with Selina, we were laughing and joking together when she came to talk to me about her skiing lessons. That was just a few days before I was suspended in March 2010. The next time I will be with Selina, we won't be laughing and joking. I will be cross examining her at the employment tribunal about the statement she gave for the disciplinary investigation, and comparing it with the irrefutable facts that show she lied. Ironically, I expect she will be frightened and anxious.

What I find fascinating about Selina's predicament is how other people have reacted to it. How have our colleagues reacted to it, and in particular, the witnesses? Bullying, scapegoating and mobbing had made the team become dysfunctional. But in a team of 16, you would expect some 'normal' people not to be effected by it. What are their thoughts on this? What about Selina's husband? Has she told him? Did she lie to him too? What about her parents and her sister? What will she tell her kids when they come home from school having learned from their friends that she is a bully who lied to get an innocent man sacked?

The investigators' performance in the process was horrendous. It will look terrible to the tribunal who will not be fooled for a second that it was ever meant to be genuine, especially since there were two of them at such a senior level. Even worse for the uni is that when I received their report, I wrote to Mark Toole several times saying that it was obviously a sham, and I pleaded with him to carry out a proper investigation. He simply ignored my pleas which I copied to the Occupational Therapy doctor. He knew that I was already suffering from stress and that this was making it a whole lot worse. And remember, I had just a few weeks earlier made a protected disclosure to the Principal informing her that the uni was failing in its duty of care. And Mark will have to explain how he could possibly have been happy with the investigation, such as it was. All of this means that it is likely to greatly increase the compensation I receive, and it will draw attention to the corrupt nature of senior management. The uni wishes to challenge my reinstatement. It might be that they won't be able to afford not to reinstate me. Their lawyer drew the tribunal's attention to their limited resources on Wednesday. To top it all, the university had known that their actions had caused me to become suicidal. I had discussed it with Occupational Therapy. It couldn't look much worse for the uni. I would be surprised if it didn't make the national news. This could even become one of the UK's landmark cases.

Then I may also have to seek damages from the individuals who chose to defame me. This may include Gibb, MacDonald, O'Neil, Forsyth, McCabe, Stark, Schofield, Toole, Kemp, Millar and Miller.

From Selina's statement, I now see that she said that she had told a colleague about the alleged frightening conversation. It was her colleague who informed Eileen MacDonald.

To be continued...