My Offer To Stirling University

Stirling University has got so used to conducting sham hearings that they expect the Employment Tribunal to conduct sham hearings on their behalf. They have their story all sorted out, and they don't want any facts or any alternative positions to be considered; claiming that they are irrelevant. Here is their position, as viewed by Mark Toole who dismissed me.

Allan's female manager submitted a grievance against him, and he made allegations that she had bullied him and discriminated against him on the basis of his gender. After a fair and thorough investigation, his allegations were rejected, and the Deputy Secretary found him to be a bully. He appealed against that decision, but the University Secretary could find no flaw in the grievance procedure.

I received complaints against Allan from three other women saying he had bullied them over time. I arranged a fair and thorough investigation, and held a fair disciplinary hearing. Allan claimed the women were lying, but I could see no reason why they would lie.

I dismissed Allan for reasons that are fair and genuine. He appealed, but the HR Director and another Director could find no flaw in the disciplinary process. His email to the Principal does not qualify as a Protected Disclosure, and even if it does, he did not suffer any detriment as a result of it. The Tribunal asked us to explain why it does not qualify as a protected disclosure, but we refused to explain because we, with professional representation, believe it is not relevant to his case.

It certainly sounds like a very convincing case. There's just one slight problem with it. It's complete bollocks!

Here is my own position.

My female manager bullied me and discriminated against me on the basis of my gender for several years to the injury of my mental health. However, management failed in their duty of care for me by not handling my manager's behaviour appropriately. I made a protected disclosure to the Principal, and submitted a formal grievance against my manager.

Management immediately closed ranks. The Principal forwarded my protected disclosure to the IS Director and HR Advisor who I said had failed in their duty of care. I was immediately subjected to a sham grievance procedure which included a sham investigation that was designed to create friction between me and my colleagues. The Deputy Secretary dishonestly rejected my allegations and accepted my manager's vexatious allegations. Her decision was dishonestly upheld at appeal by the University Secretary.

Motivated by the sham investigation, three women made malicious complaints against me. These were women who had previously abused me, but their actions had not been dealt with by their manager, HR or management; all of whom had known about that abuse.

A sham disciplinary investigation was arranged by the IS Director, and was followed by a sham hearing conducted by the IS Director. Although he knew I was innocent, he dismissed me dishonestly. His decision was dishonestly upheld by two further Directors, including the HR Director. I submitted grievances against all of these dishonest Directors to the new Principal. He failed to action my grievances.

The University was issued with a request by the Tribunal to answer my questions on 16 November 2010. The questions seek to discover the facts that were said to have been relied upon to reject my allegations of bullying. Surprisingly, the University refused to comply with the request saying that the questions are irrelevant. I've now been waiting more than four months for the answers which are most certainly relevant. If, as I expect, they show that the investigation was a sham, then:

it supports my position that I was dismissed as a result of making a protected disclosure. This would make my dismissal automatically unfair.

it supports my position that the disciplinary procedure was also a sham, because Karen Stark took part in both procedures.

it supports my position that the purpose of the 'investigation' was to cause bad feelings, rather than to discover facts.

it would also represent detriment following my protected disclosure.

Mr Toole included the outcome of the grievance in his reason for dismissing me, and that would make it unfair.

it would support my claim of sex discrimination.

it would show that Mr Clarke had also been dishonest when rejecting my appeal, making it even more likely that my dismissal was unfair.

Tribunals can increase compensation by up to 25% where employers have failed to carry out grievance and disciplinary procedures appropriately.

the Uni has hinted that it may seek costs from me for raising a misconceived claim. This would help make that unlikely. Indeed I may seek costs from the Uni.

the Tribunal hearing would take far less time, and that benefits everybody.

Clearly it would greatly help my case. However, if the answers show that the investigation was thorough and fair, then it would greatly help the Uni's case. So ask yourself why they are so reluctant to provide the answers. Well, I was recently told that they are also concerned that I may publish the answers on my blog.

Stirling University now say they may voluntarily(?) provide me with the answers to my questions in the next few days. So here's my genuine offer. If they answer my questions fully and honestly in the next few days, I will guarantee that they will not appear on my blog. I make this offer in good faith, and in the hope that we can move forward, and towards a point when, hopefully, there may be no need for me to continue with my blog.

17 March 2011

=============================================
Timeline for the questions and answers.

8 November 2010
Tribunal orders me to provide answers to questions about my protected disclosures, including the obligations Stirling University had failed to comply with, the detriment to which I was subjected, and the facts that link the detriment to the protected disclosures.

15 November 2010
I answer the questions honestly, and in full with no legal assistance. My disclosures easily qualify for protection, because the University has failed to comply with multiple obligations.

16 November 2010
Tribunal asks Stirling University to provide answers to my questions. They are asked to provide the facts that were used to come to the decision to reject the allegations contained in my grievance, and to uphold my manager's allegations, and to explain how the investigation produced these facts. They are also asked to explain how my email to the Principal does not qualify as a protected disclosure.

23 November 2010
Stirling University refuses to answer the questions, claiming them to be irrelevant to my case.

23 November 2010, 20 December 2010 and 3 March 2011
I write to confirm that the questions are relevant to my case and clearly state why they are relevant.

11 March 2011
Anticipating an order from the Tribunal to answer the questions, Stirling University say they will consider answering at least some of the questions, depending on the extent to which Mr Toole had considered the outcome of the grievances when he dismissed me.

14 March 2011
I write again saying that all of the questions are relevant, and again I state why. I say that the extent to which Mr Toole allegedly considered the grievance outcome is not relevant. His reason for dismissal refers to it. I question if the Uni are now changing their reason for dismissal.

17 March 2011
I create this post in my blog.

18 March 2011
Stirling University write to say that they will answer the questions, but they still say the questions are not relevant to my case. They say it could take two weeks to provide the answers, and they blame me for this because of the level of detail that is likely to be necessary to satisfy me.

The level of detail I require is the same level of detail that would have been required by Mrs Schofield in order to come to her decision.

While I am pleased that, after more than four months, the Uni has finally decided to answer the questions, I am surprised that it should require another two weeks to provide the answers. They claim that they completed the thorough investigation itself within one week. The answers to my questions should already exist because Mrs Schofield had to use the facts that allegedly came from the investigation in order to make her decision. If they did indeed carry out the thorough investigation they say they did, it should take no more than an hour to answer my questions. However, in reality, it should take no more than ten minutes because the allegations were not investigated; or at least if they were investigated, the facts were ignored because they did not support the required decision.

So they need an additional two weeks on top of the previous four months to try to come up with something that makes it sound as though they genuinely investigated all of the allegations within one week, and that the investigation produced facts which refuted all my allegations (including the ones that are irrefutable) and supported Kathy McCabe's allegations (which are all vexatious).

Alternatively, they may tell the truth and admit that the decision was based on something other than facts, while defiantly insisting that the questions are not relevant to the case. What's it to be, I wonder? So far, they have omitted to say why the questions are not relevant.

26 March 2011
It's now nine days since I made my offer to Stirling University, and I've still not received any answers to my questions.

I'm looking forward to receiving the answers. I know that there is no way that they could have discovered facts that support Eileen Schofield's decision, but University management has landed themselves in a very difficult position due to their corrupt activities. Not only do they have to produce facts that don't and can't exist; they also have to describe how their investigation produced those facts, while demonstrating that the investigation was thorough and fair, and that they have been even handed. This is made all the more difficult by me having copies of the witness statements. It means they can't just invent facts from those. They've now given themselves a further problem by promising the Tribunal that they will provide answers with a level of detail that they say needs twice as much time to put on paper than it took to investigate.

I'm especially looking forward to seeing how the Uni answers one of Kathy's most bizarre allegations; Constant threat of bringing a grievance but never acting on it. This is the type of stupid lie that I could maybe imagine a five year old spoilt child blurting out in the spur of the moment during a tantrum. However, even a child would quickly become embarrassed once they realised it was obvious to everyone that it was a lie. Mrs Kathy McCabe is over 50 years old. She has been a senior manager for 12 years and earns in excess of £50,000 a year. She didn't say this on the spur of the moment, but had taken the time to type it into her official grievance document. She sent that document to Karen Stark whom she must have known would instantly recognise that it was a lie. Karen did not question me or Kathy about this at the hearing. It is a very serious matter to make malicious complaints, and Karen Stark must know that.

Answering my questions will just be the beginning of their difficulties. At the Tribunal hearing, they'll be asked about the investigation and its purpose. What was the purpose of the hearing? Why did they ask the questions they did, and not the ones they should have asked? Why was a lot of evidence ignored? Why did they say they checked Kathy's statement when they obviously hadn't? Why did they not interview the obvious witnesses, including the one I suggested? Why was I never subjected to disciplinary action before I made my protected disclosure? Why was I not allowed to respond to witness statements as asked. Why was I only asked to summarise my grievance when the report falsely claims I was asked to present my whole grievance? Why was Kathy not asked to respond to my allegations? Why, when they knew of the mental injuries I'd already suffered, did they deliberately act in a way that was likely to rub salt in the wounds? How could Kevin Clarke fail to see the procedural flaws?

It will quickly become very clear that the process was a complete sham, and that Kathy McCabe, Eileen Schofield, Karen Stark and Kevin Clarke are all guilty of gross misconduct, for which they have not yet been punished. The questions I've asked are the questions that Principal Gerry (I focus on getting the best out of people) McCormac is paid a quarter of a million pounds a year to ask. So why didn't he? It will also be clear that former Principal, Christine Hallett had completely mishandled my protected disclosure in which I alerted her to the fact that management and HR were not taking the matter seriously, and that it was seriously damaging my health. She just allowed this farce to happen.

I have suffered the most severe mental torture in the 13 months since I told the Principal about it. I'm hoping that the torture will soon be over, and that justice will be seen to be done. However, I think it will take a very long time for me to get my life back on track. At this moment I can't visualise it. Six years of my life have been ruined, and the last year has been sheer hell. The shocking truth is that around 15 people were willing to lie in order to ruin my life. They were effectively happy to line up to stab me in the heart. The most shocking was Selina Gibb who, just weeks before, seemed ever so genuinely concerned about my health. Then I learned that she had lied in order to deprive me of my livelihood. Other 'friends' were unwilling to come forward and tell the truth. That is far from a confidence boost for someone who was already known to suffer from a lack of confidence and assertiveness. Another 'friend' enthusiastically asked me to phone him at home the following day, and then simply wouldn't answer my calls. He answered one of my calls, but wouldn't speak. He just pretended he wasn't there. How ridiculous! He, along with Jackie O'Neil, holds an executive position within the local branch of the UCU union. He was by no means a friend of Kathy McCabe, and was well aware of her discriminatory behaviour. The next day, I felt suicidal. It was not the first time, but it was easily the strongest. I had even changed my socks and underwear in preparation.

31 March 2011
It's now two weeks since I made my offer in good faith. It no longer applies.

Stirling University has one more day to comply with the commitment they made to the Employment Tribunal that they would answer my questions in full.

1 April 2011
On the day by which Stirling University said they would furnish me with the answers to my questions, they have written to the Tribunal to say that they need more time.

The information I've requested, which allegedly already exists, is going to take another two weeks to prepare. "Substantial progress" has been made they say, but two of the personnel involved in preparing the document are on pre-planned leave next week.

Stirling University is making a mockery of the Employment Tribunal process. The information I've requested should take one person (Eileen Schofield) MINUTES, not a team of personnel MONTHS. They say that they now hope to be able to respond by 15 April 2011. I'm not holding my breath.

Assuming the Tribunal allows this additional time, it gives the Uni two more weeks to consider their options. In my opinion, their options are now less attractive than they were when they first agreed to provide the answers. Their best option then was to have told the truth. I still think their best option is to tell the truth, but if they do that now, it will be obvious that they have been stalling, and lying about making "substantial progress".

Another option will be to stall again. We might find, for example, that two personnel have been on unplanned sick leave, or that a dog has eaten the document. The Tribunal will eventually lose patience with this, though, and of course, they would be no better off. They are just delaying the inevitable, and the longer they take, the worse it looks for them.

Another option is to lie and provide false answers that make the decision appear correct. That will be far from easy, and if they were intending to try this, they should have tried it before now, because they still have to make it appear that the information existed a year ago, but now they have to make it appear that at least three weeks was required merely to document this information that they said already existed.

The false answers option will be extremely difficult, and it is fraught with danger. The Uni would risk having their entire case thrown out or being denied the right to give evidence. It would probably be picked up by the media, and would severely damage the reputation of the Uni and of the individuals concerned.

For each allegation that Kathy and I made, they would have to somehow demonstrate a fair and thorough investigation was made that included referring to supporting evidence we provided. Then they have to state the facts that the investigation uncovered that support the decision. Even by giving false answers, this will be incredibly difficult to achieve. I certainly wouldn't want that job. There are no facts that came from the interviews that support Kathy's allegations and refute mine. I can only think that the Uni could try creating documents, and claim they existed at the time. That would be very dangerous, and it still wouldn't solve the massive problem they are facing.

Let's take one example; Kathy's allegation of Constant threat of raising a grievance but never acting on it. There is simply no way they could say they investigated this, and didn't find it to be a vexatious allegation. It was not raised in any of the interviews, including mine and Kathy's. Karen Stark, who helped carry out the investigation, was fully aware that I had already raised two grievances against Kathy, and that Kathy was fully aware of them. There is documentary evidence to prove this. There can be no evidence of me constantly threatening to raise a grievance, unless they create it now. That would then raise the question of why Kathy didn't include it with her grievance to support her allegation.

Immediately before the investigation began, Karen Stark wrote to tell me that they were obliged to investigate the allegations thoroughly. That just increases the difficulty they have. Added to this, Karen had witnessed Kathy bullying me, with other witnesses present.

They have to show that none of my allegations were true or represented bullying, dishonesty or sex discrimination. Eileen Schofield, in her report, considered whether my allegations were vexatious. The answers will have to show that that was a reasonable consideration.

They will also have to show evidence of the merit award that Kathy claims she gave me, and also evidence that she promoted me to Trainee Database Administrator. These will prove very difficult to achieve since the Payroll Manager already confirmed to me in writing that these claims are both untrue. Yet somehow, Eileen Schofield claimed she checked these facts.

... and much, much more ...

My guess is that the Uni will stall again. Can everyone please try to refrain from slitting Eileen Schofield's throat until I receive the answers!

And we haven't even touched on Mark Toole's fake investigation yet. He will have to explain how the impossible is possible. I don't envy that job either.

I wrote to the Tribunal to complain about the university's stalling tactics. I reminded them that the information I've requested should already exist, and that I first asked for it 5 months ago.

8 April 2011
Stirling University rejects my suggestion that they are stalling. They say that they are merely ensuring sufficient time and resource is expended to ensure that their response is properly prepared. They don't say why it is taking so long, and they don't say why they think the information is not relevant to my claim.

15 April 2011
At 5:21pm, just five months to the day since I asked my questions, Stirling University has finally answered them; or at least some of them. For example, I really wanted to publish the details of their investigation into Kathy's allegation about me constantly threatening to raise a grievance but never acting on it; but unfortunately they've decided that, even though it was one of Kathy's main allegations, it would be best not to refer to it in their answers. I can imagine it would be very difficult to provide an answer that didn't include the word nutjob.

The reason Stirling University took 5 months to provide the details of the investigation, is because no real investigation took place. The details they have provided could not have come from any investigation that took place in March 2010 because it refers to information that simply didn't exist at that time. The reason they have been stalling is because they have been trying to invent a new, fraudulent investigation and pretend it happened in March 2010. They will have some explaining to do at the hearing.

Eileen Schofield death threat

Eileen Schofield, Deputy Secretary

Eileen Schofield, who conducted a sham grievance procedure between myself and Kathy McCabe, appears to have upset a Postgraduate researcher to the point where he felt the need to threaten to slit her throat if she ever lied to him again.

STV report here.

The report describes emails sent to Mrs Schofield with subjects 'You're an ignorant piece of sh*t' and 'C*nt'. One email said 'Your disciplinary procedures are a lot of sh*te. Mess with me again and I will kill you.'.

The report does not say whether, despite his threat, Mrs Schofield intends to continue with her corrupt practices.

BBC report here.

The report describes Mrs Schofield as "responsible for staff discipline". However, my own experience of Mrs Schofield is that she is corrupt, and she deliberately ignored evidence and came up with the dishonest decision that I had not been bullied by my manager to the detriment of my health, but that I had in fact bullied Mrs McCabe.

Since 15 November 2010, Stirling University has refused to provide me with the facts that Mrs Schofield used to arrive at her ridiculous decision. At first they claimed that these facts were irrelevant to the claim I brought to the Employment Tribunal. They now say that it is because I will "think about them", and that they are not sure whether I want them for the Tribunal, or for my blog which, despite its increased viewing figures, they say is not popular with certain members of staff.

It is unclear why the University thinks I would publish facts that would allow the public to see proof that I bullied my allegedly completely innocent manager who treated the team fairly and consistently. It is also unclear why the University would be opposed to me publishing these facts. One would have thought they would insist I publish them.

Bullying and suicide - Bullycide

I believe bullying is the single most important social issue of today, for the study of bullying provides an opportunity to understand the behaviours which underlie almost all conflict and violence.
Tim Field

Bullying can lead victims to utter despair. It's not just the bullying itself, but victims can find themselves isolated when friends desert them for fear that they too will be victimised. Friends and bystanders can also lie and deny that there was any bullying. Even worse, friends may believe there is something to be gained by toadying up to the bullies, and to join in with bullying their former friend, or to falsely claim that the victim is the bully. Believe me, it happens, and it is far from pleasant.

In addition, if you've been unfairly dismissed after complaining about being bullied, it can be difficult to get another job with no references, even if you are in a mental state, and have the confidence to work again.

I would love for me and my team, and others I've mentioned on my blog to spend a morning on the Jeremy Kyle show on TV to answer questions while we are hooked up to lie detectors. It would be a real eye opener for the public. Tim Field was correct; bullying has far reaching effects, and the public has to be made aware of it.

Here is the story of a young girl who was beaten up on a bus. Her screams were ignored by the other passengers pretending it wasn't happening because they didn't want to get involved.

Here is the story of a young girl who was gang raped in view of 20 bystanders for over two hours before anyone informed the police.

"I don't want to get involved" is the same as "I'm all right, Jack". You are sick in the head if you enjoy watching people suffer. You are also sick in the head if you add to the suffering by lying.

In desperation, victims may consider suicide. Undoubtedly, more victims would kill themselves but for the fact that it isn't easy. Sure, a lot of people have succeeded, but I suspect that many of them will either have had great courage, or they were so desperate that they didn't give enough thought to how difficult it really is, and may have suffered unbearable physical pain before they eventually died.

If you have found this page because you are thinking of killing yourself, then I am not going to discourage you, but I won't be encouraging you either. Obviously, councelling (Samaritans and Pieta) may help you make your mind up, but ultimately the decision is yours. However, if you eventually decide that the only solution is to kill yourself, then you ought to be fully aware of what you are doing.

Do not attempt suicide unless you are 100% certain that you want to die. I do not say this to discourage anyone who is already completely sold on the idea, it's just that if doubts creep in, they will increase the risk of failure. If what you want is for the pain to go away, councelling might be worthwhile. If you obtain some relief through harming yourself, be sure that it doesn't develop into something that can put your life at risk or cause you serious damage.

If you attempt suicide and fail, you could leave yourself a lot worse off. You could be permanently disabled or disfigured. You, or someone else, could be financially worse off. Your failed attempt may result in you being prosecuted due to damage or distress you may have caused. As well as the problems you already have, people will learn of your attempt to kill yourself and some will think that you have mental problems, and of course, they will be right.

I would certainly discourage you from attempting suicide as a cry for help. You could easily end up dead, and nobody can help you when you're dead. Get councelling now. I genuinely feel for you, but this page is not for you. God only knows how many apparently successful suicides were, in reality, unsuccessful cries for help.

You must consider the people you leave behind. Who will find you, and how will it effect them? What will the scene be like when you are found? If you have dependants, what will happen to them? You must make it very clear why you are doing it, otherwise innocent people may blame themselves. If you write a note, read it back to make sure it is legible and makes sense. Provide contact details of people who should be informed, and put your note somewhere it is sure to be found in good condition.

If you haven't thought about it already, you need to consider the best method for yourself. If you are like most people, you will want it to be quick and painless. You definitely do not want half an hour of excrutiating physical pain, even if you do attain your ultimate goal at the end of it. So if your chosen method is to slit your wrist, you need to give it a helluva lot more thought. By using that method, you could be in terrible pain for a long time during which you will be tempted to call for help. When you eventually return from hospital, you may find your home and belongings covered in thick, deep red blood. You would also have cost taxpayers the expense of saving you, which is the opposite of what you had in mind. You would also have the scars that announce your mental illness to everyone.

You need to be aware that you will be fighting against your natural human survival instinct. For example, if you can swim, it would be almost impossible to drown yourself, because you would instinctively come up for air. Other methods could have horrendous consequences if you instinctively change your mind at the last moment.

As well as considering the time and pain factors, each method has a success ratio. So you need to investigate which methods have low failure rates, and consider if you have the courage to employ any of those methods. You may need to do a fair bit of research.

I'm writing this in the UK where it's difficult to gain access to firearms. Even if you do manage to get hold of one, you may be surprised to learn that some people have made botched attempts with a gun, leaving themselves in a dreadful condition. I say this because you may believe that pulling a trigger is an option that requires less courage than others.

People who survive after jumping from a bridge frequently admit that while they were falling, they wished they hadn't jumped. Often they go on to live happy lives. So maybe you should try to visualise yourself plummeting to your death and wondering if you made the right choice.

Apparently there is a suicide pill available in Mexico. That might sound attractive for its simplicity. It's not risk free though, because it has a shelf life, and there are people who sell these pills knowing that they have gone past their sell by date. Yep, there is even profit to be made by keeping suicidal people alive.

If you are religious; you may wish to consider what comes after death. It might be 72 virgins or it might be an eternity of burning in maggot infested fire. Although I'm not religious, I still wonder if there might be something after death. I also wonder if people who kill themselves are punished for it. It used to be against the law to attempt suicide, and the bible says "Thou shalt not kill." In modern language, that means "You must not kill." I haven't read a whole bible, but I doubt if it says it's okay for priests to sexually abuse children. Maybe it's time for somebody to write a newer testament that clarifies the rules and penalties on these matters.

In almost every country, men kill themselves far more often than women. Instead of killing yourself, perhaps you should first consider a sex change?

In the UK, farmers and people in the medical professions have the highest suicide rates. I don't think that it's because they have depressing jobs, but because they have the knowledge and weapons required for the most efficient suicide methods. It's much more difficult for the rest of us. You could become a farmer; but what if you enjoyed it? What a dilemma!

Perhaps one day in the future people will be able to arrange an appointment with their doctor for to be killed humanely and painlessly, just like a vet kills a lame or stray dog. Or maybe Tescos will sell DIY suicide kits.

There is a strong case for a risk free, private, quick, painless, clean, dignified suicide. It would be far less expensive in terms of damage to property, searches for bodies, police investigations, clearing up the mess, medical staff and families having to care for permanently damaged relatives, etc; and children wouldn't be traumatised by finding pieces of human bodies while out playing. However, there is no sign of 'drop in suicide shops' coming soon, so people have to come up with their own home made plans.

None of us receive training on how to commit suicide; you have to teach yourself. It won't help if you're a slow learner; you'll just have to think longer, or rule it out.

I'm not a doctor, and I haven't attempted suicide. I don't have all the answers for you. You have to find out all your answers for yourself. Once you come up with your plan, you should run it past the Samaritans just in case there is something you have not thought of.

If you decide to kill yourself as a result of bullying, it means that the bullies get their ultimate victory. Don't think for a second that they'll feel any guilt. More likely they will dance on your grave, make up stories about you, and make fun of you on facebook. Where's the justice in that? Why should YOU die to please THEM?

Best wishes and lots of love
Allan

Eric Hall - Brown Nose

Ever since Kathy became the team manager around 1998, she began filling just about every vacant position either with a friend or with someone she knew. I can only think that she did this in the hope that those people would be beholding to her, and support her. That's not to say that none of them were any good, but there were certainly some who could not have been selected on merit. Almost all of the people who she took on by this method were women; the one exception that I can think of being Eric Hall who happened to be a friend of an existing female colleague, Suzie, who in turn was a close friend of Kathy's, and who Kathy chose to include on the interview panel for Eric's interview. This was a new post that Kathy created for a Project Manager, and it was slightly odd because we already had the luxury of a full time Project Manager. Added to that; whenever a high profile project came up, Kathy would take it for herself to manage. We all felt that the Project Managers were under occupied, while for years I was doing the work of one and a half employees.

This recruitment method resulted in the formation of a clique, but it also created a millstone round Kathy's neck. She's a very poor people manager, and she had only made things worse for herself by creating a team that was difficult to manage. Those in the clique felt it was their right to receive favourable treatment, and to keep them sweet, Kathy gave them it. On the other hand, at one point it felt like 80% of the work was done by 20% of the team; Jaana, me, Marco and Bruce - all non clique members. Later, Stephen, Suzie, Paul and David did more than their fair share.

Kathy desperately wanted to be liked, but that shouldn't be the main goal of a manager. Ironically some of the clique strongly disliked her, and in the case of Eric; hated her. "I hate the fucking bitch!" he told me one day while he was with me and Lynn. Just as ironic, Eric also intensely disliked Suzie after she divorced David Gardiner; his chum from schooldays. It became an obsession with him, and he would work it in to just about every conversation.

Lynn had made Eric aware of a meeting that Kathy and I had with Mark Toole where Kathy had behaved like a lunatic. She had gone on an astonishing rant where she desperately invented reasons to criticise me. This was because at a similar meeting a few weeks earlier, Mark had got her to agree to stop criticising me unjustly and publicly. My union rep who witnessed it, strongly agreed that it was serious bullying. He advised Mark to take action to stop it, and he made him aware of Kathy's mistreatment of a former colleague.

Although Eric hated Kathy, he knew which side his bread was buttered on. He defended Kathy's behaviour and said that she was entitled to behave that way because I had submitted a grievance against her. He then added that if I was ever to submit a grievance against him, he would kick my "fucking" head in. I commented on his aggression, and he quickly apologised, but he'd shown just how irrational he was on the topic. His experience in the team was the complete opposite of mine. Kathy treated him with dignity; he was never overworked, or anywhere near it; he was allowed to attend training courses and conferences; and there's probably more that I don't know about. I told him that during my grievance, I was asked what outcome I wanted, and I said that I wanted Kathy removed from the team. If that were to have happened (and it SHOULD have happened), it would have been a shock to Eric's system to have a new manager that treats everyone equally, and expects a day's work from him. A new manager might even decide that there just isn't enough work to justify having two full time Project Managers, and that the team needed people with development skills. Every year, Kathy would present the team with a list, several pages long, of development work that had been requested, and every year we barely scratched the surface of that list. Mark Toole got rid of a whole team to meet his staff budget cut. In my opinion it would have made far more sense to have looked at each role in the department and considered what it was actually accomplishing. I know that Lynn and Eric had both been nervous about the cuts. And how could Mark justify getting rid of Alison, Oron and Rob while keeping Eileen, Jackie and Selina?

David had told Eric about how Jackie had screamed at me a couple of weeks earlier. I said it was ridiculous, and Eric tried to play it down by saying something like "That's just how Jackie is. You're never going to change her." I said that Kathy had had 12 years to do something about her. He again defended Kathy by saying that she had attempted to sort Jackie out a couple of years earlier when Jackie had been sending out overly aggressive and overly technical emails to other (non technical) teams. Kathy had told Jackie not to send out any more emails without checking with her first. Jackie then went off sick on work related stress because of it, so Kathy backed off and dropped the matter.

There was an improper, unhealthy work relationship between Kathy and Eric. The deal was that they would support each other even when they were wrong or being dishonest. One time at a full team meeting, Eric, who is non technical, made a suggestion. It would have been an excellent suggestion except for the fact that it was technically impossible. I pointed out why it couldn't work, and how if we attempted it, we would simply cause ourselves more work. Kathy completely ignored me, and said it was a good idea, and that we would implement it. This was in a room full of technical experts. It wasn't rocket science, but nobody backed me up. Two minutes after the meeting, Eric came to me privately to say that after he had thought about it, he realised his suggestion wouldn't work. It was never mentioned again, but I was left to look like an idiot.

On another occasion, Kathy had sent me a cheeky email criticising me for not knowing the time in lieu procedure. She was wrong, and this was just more unjust criticism. I'd had enough of it, and I booked a meeting with her to discuss her behaviour towards me. On my way to Kathy's room, I asked Eric what he understood the TIL procedure to be. He said there was no procedure, and that it was taken on trust. I asked Kathy to explain her criticism. She said that I must follow the correct procedure like everyone else, and she said that Eric always does it correctly. I told her that Eric had just told me that there was no procedure. She quickly changed the subject. It transpired that I was the only person following the correct procedure because I was the only person she had told to follow it. I suspect she was planning to get Eric to say that there was a procedure, but I had accidently spoilt her plan. The reason Kathy had asked me to follow a TIL procedure was because Jackie had been spreading rumours claiming that I was taking TIL I wasn't entitled to.

It demonstrates how warped Kathy's mind is that she would unjustly criticise me for something she has dishonestly invented like not following a non existant procedure when I am the only one following the correct procedure for something as trivial as time in lieu, while someone like Eileen MacDonald can repeatedly breech university security procedures, and rather than discipline or criticise Eileen, she would rather change the procedure and reduce security. It's no wonder she desperately avoided discussing her behaviour. How could she possibly explain that?

Kathy also inappropriately involved Eric in matters that were private. For example she wanted him to attend my return to work interview. When I asked her if she did that with other employees, she told me it was none of my business, yet she wanted Eric to know all about MY business.

On another occasion, there had been a minor issue with a computer system. Normally she wouldn't have cared much about the issue. However, she wrongly thought that I was at fault, and decided to criticise me. She had criticised me a number of times before, only to find out she was wrong. This time she was sure. It wasn't sufficient to pop into my room and have a quiet word. She made a big song and dance about it, and sent a lengthy email. In order to gain further satisfaction, she copied her email to Eric, even though it had nothing to do with him. Sad to say; she was wrong again! Unlike Kathy who waited until after the event to appear clever and say that I should have anticipated the problem, I had actually anticipated the problem and done everything in my power to prevent it, and had even worked late doing so. Furthermore, I could prove it. Just like every other time she criticised me inappropriately, no apology was forthcoming. Kathy doesn't do apologies.

Kathy took part in a training course that was to last more than a year. Eric was one of four team members required to answer questions in order to rate Kathy as a manager. Kathy was rated very badly. She received scores of 2 and 3 while the others on the course scored 7s and 8s. Eric told me she received the worst scores that anybody had ever received on the course. When Kathy found out, she met with the four team members, and tried to persuade them that they hadn't understood the questions. They said that they had felt intimidated by this. At the end of her course, the same four were asked to answer the questions again. Eric admitted that he had lied in order to give Kathy better scores than she deserved, just for a quiet life. This angered Jaana who also answered the questions, because she felt the whole exercise was a waste of time if they weren't honest. It was worse than a waste of time, it produced inaccurate data that was intended to improve Kathy's performance.

Eric was one of he people that Karen Stark and Eileen Schofield interviewed as part of their fake investigation for my grievance. Some of those interviewed had denied things they had done to me, including things done in front of a dozen or more witnesses. Eileen took their denials to be proof that I had just made it up. In a fake investigation, that's what you do; you certainly don't ask the witnesses, and you don't ask the the complainant if they have evidence. You also ignore the fact that Kathy had already admitted that she was fully aware that the incidents happened, and that she had signed a document saying so. Eric went a stage further and made stuff up to help Kathy in her hour of need. He said that he felt I had "a problem with women". In the fake investigation, Eric wasn't asked to give any examples of this problem he felt I had with women. Eric knows I don't have a problem with women. When I first read his statement, I didn't see the point in him saying it. It wasn't something that Kathy had ever suggested. I found out later when I saw the notes of Kathy's meeting with Karen and Eileen. It was Karen Stark who, completely out of the blue, had planted the suggestion in Kathy's mind. Kathy took the opportunity to run with it. No doubt she passed the suggestion to Eric and Eileen MacDonald. The suggestion was then used in an attempt to get me sacked, and by the time Una Forsyth made her statement for the disciplinary investigation, the story had grown arms and legs, and I "only got on with two out of the eleven women in the team". Of course, in a fake investigation you don't ask those other nine women if they get on with me, and if not, why not. You also wouldn't ask Una why she cooked me a meal and asked me to be her Facebook friend when she didn't get on with me. Una didn't cook Eric a meal. They weren't friends on Facebook, and I don't think she showed him her photo of her stepping out of the shower with just a towel to hide her modesty. Maybe she has a problem with men?

Eric said "Kathy treats everyone professionally and equally", and that she had "an excellent way of managing the team". He didn't say anything about him "hating the fucking bitch" or how he only scored her 3 out of 10 then lied just for a "quiet life". If there was an award for the team's brownest nose, Eric's the winner!

To be continued...

David Black - Spineless Twat

David Black, 10c Bruce Street, Stirling, FK8 1PB

David, my Database Administrator colleague, had some idea of what it is like to be singled out for bullying by a manager. Before joining the university, David had suffered a measure of bullying by one of his bosses while he worked at Prudential UK in Stirling.

He worked 18 hours a week at the university, and this allowed him to spend time on other interests. He worked in radio as a DJ on Central FM, and sat in on Council related meetings in Stirling on a voluntary basis, such as Mercat Cross Community Council, Stirling Boys' Club and Stirling City Heritage Trust. He portrays himself as public spirited; a man who uses his time to benefit the community. You would certainly think he would stand up for justice and what's right.

Kathy McCabe had been bullying me for some time before I was even aware of the term Workplace Bullying. Before that, I thought bullying only happened in the playground at school. The first effect it had on me was that I couldn't sleep. I'd spend most of the night worrying and thinking "Why is she doing it, and why has she chosen me to do it to?" We had got on fairy well, and she could always rely on me with any work, and I required almost none of her time. For about seven years I had sacrificed about 15 hours of my own time every week to ensure everything ran smoothly. I thought that I would have been the last person she would ever want to bully. However, I think it's for that very reason that I became her target.

To help get some sleep and reduce the intrusive thoughts, I increased my alcohol intake until I was eventually drinking more than a litre of whisky a day. I used to do a lot of running, but I had to give that up. When you're running, there's nothing to do but think. Playing squash was much easier because my mind was forced to concentrate on the game. Eventually I had to give that up too. Gaps between points were being filled with unpleasant thoughts. I gave up dancing too when it began to feel as though I was trapped. I only felt safe dancing with Ruth. If I sat down for a rest, I'd immediately be approached by a woman. It would be extremely rude to turn down a dance, so I'd feel trapped dancing and hating every second of it, and as soon as it finished, I'd need to grab hold of Ruth before any other woman came for me.

During the time I was suspended from work, I began to hyperventilate, and there were a couple of panic attacks. There were also a couple of times when I was outside and everything sounded much louder than normal, and it made me feel extremely uncomfortable. I literally had to run home with my hands covering my ears. For a while, I only felt safe at home.

One day I suddenly realised that I hadn't eaten for more than three days; yet I wasn't hungry.

It was effecting Ruth too. Once she said she was feeling overcome with worry. Half an hour later, she passed out. She had to spend the rest of the day in hospital.

Just as she had done a few times before, Jackie O'Neil screamed at me in the office and slammed her hand on her desk in anger. This was because a job she was working on failed, and she wrongly thought that I was to blame, when in fact, she was to blame. David was standing right next to us at Jackie's desk. He was also with me when I informed Kathy McCabe that Jackie had screamed at me again. Jackie had spoken to Kathy about it, and had told Kathy that she had to work till 10pm that night because of the failure. David told Kathy that the failure would have only held Jackie up for a short time. I then confirmed this in an email to Kathy who then passed my email to Mark Toole. Mark offered to arrange a meeting with me and Jackie to discuss the matter. I accepted, but that meeting never took place. Instead Jackie made a malicious complaint against me. She insisted that I was to blame for the failure, and denied that she had screamed. I had told Mark that David had seen the incident, and Jackie confirmed this. Mark carried out an investigation, but deliberately avoided speaking to David. He then instructed Graham Millar to carry out a formal investigation. Graham, who is an arse licker, carried out a fake investigation, and avoided speaking with David too.

Mark wrote to me to say he was arranging a disciplinary hearing. I wrote back saying it was obvious that by failing to speak with David or any one of about a dozen witnesses who had heard the incident that he had already made his mind up to dismiss me. If it had been a genuine mistake by the investigators, they could still have spoken to David. It wasn't a genuine mistake.

I had been suspended from work and wasn't allowed to speak to colleagues. So Ruth phoned David, and David confirmed what had happened. He said that Jackie had been very angry and shouted at me. He also confirmed that he hadn't been interviewed for the disciplinary investigation. He was very clear on all of this, and he had no problem recalling it. You wouldn't expect him to have forgotten, because thankfully it's not every day that you get screamed at by a colleague sitting four feet from you, and we had talked about it afterwards, and again with Kathy present. David had also discussed it with Eric. And you wouldn't forget being interviewed as part of a disciplinary hearing in a hurry. Ruth asked him to confirm this in an email, and he said he would send it to me that same day.

By the following day, we still hadn't heard from him. I began to worry because I knew that he had let me down very badly before during the role evaluation process. I had included a statement in the role description about planning. As full time DBA, our roles differed in that I would receive the work and would plan and allocate it between us. I checked with David that it was okay to include it. He agreed enthusiastically, saying it's what happens so we have to include it. I checked with him again two more times, including just before our meeting with Kathy to verify our description. He assured me it was absolutely fine and told me not to worry. During the meeting, Kathy challenged David about it, and he immediately backed down and agreed to take it out; making me look foolish.

I feared that David was going to let me down again, so Ruth sent him an email confirming what he had said on the phone. He couldn't deny saying it because I had been listening in when he said it. The following day, David wrote to us, and my heart sank as I read his email. He was now claiming that when he spoke to Ruth, he was tired and stressed. He was retracting his statement, and was now giving a different, false version of what took place. In his new version, Jackie wasn't "very angry", she was just frustrated; she didn't shout, she just raised her voice. In addition, he could no longer remember if he was interviewed for the disciplinary investigation. He did this knowing that Mark Toole was trying to dismiss me unfairly, because Ruth had told him. He also did it knowing that about a dozen people had witnessed what really happened.

When David clicked his mouse to send that email to me, he knew that he was damaging me just as though he was pounding on an open head wound with a baseball bat.

By lying, David has put himself in a situation where his account of the incident makes no sense. He remembers clearly, almost word perfect, what I said to Kathy. He knew that I wasn't trying to get Jackie sacked. He can recall what I said, so is he now saying that I told Kathy that Jackie had spoken to me in a raised voice? Hardly likely! Or is he saying that I dishonestly told Kathy that Jackie had shouted at me again and slammed her pen on the desk, and that he didn't correct me? There is no doubt that we were talking about the same incident because he took part in the conversation.

He knew that Jackie was dishonestly trying to get me sacked, and he was happy to let that happen. David isn't a boy in short trousers. He's a 42 year old man.


The telephone conversation he had with Ruth lasted 11 minutes and 44 seconds, and they discussed nothing but that incident with Jackie and my general situation. He even expresses his fake concern for me.

Is he going to claim in court, that when he told Ruth that Jackie shouted at me, he was asleep for that 11 minute and 44 second period?

What a mess he has managed to get himself into. I hope his sister and parents come along to the hearing and watch him in action.

Peter Kemp - Lying bully supporter

Peter Kemp, 10 Finlay Rise, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 6EQ

Peter joined the university around the same time as me in 1997, but up until 2008, he would walk past me in the corridor without saying hello. He wasn't being rude; he just didn't know who I was, even though I held a senior position in his department. It's a pity it didn't stay that way because I found the interactions I had with him to be very frustrating. I could never work out for sure whether he was exceedingly stupid or if he was just pretending to be. Finally, I discovered it was all a pretence, and he's just a liar who, for whatever reason, supports bullies.

One of the things I complained to him about was Kathy McCabe criticising me in relation to matters where it would have been more appropriate to have thanked me. Peter ended up doing exactly the same thing in order to support Kathy and Eileen MacDonald. He also slagged off a well respected colleague who nobody, apart from Kathy, has ever said a bad word against.

When I first submitted a grievance against Kathy, Peter arranged mediaton for us. The mediation was almost completely useless because Kathy simply refused to participate properly. However there was one good thing to come from it; at least in theory. I had raised the matter of Kathy criticising me inappropriately, and I said that the cause of it was Kathy listening to gossip. She had even admitted to doing so when she criticised me about something she claimed she overheard in the corridor from nameless people. At mediation, Kathy agreed that, in future, when anyone complained to her about me, she was to get it in writing, then send it to me and ask for my response, and then hold a meeting with me and the complainant. For most managers, that would be the natural thing to do, but Kathy had to be persuaded by a mediator.

Just three weeks later, Kathy forwarded a complaint to me that she had received from Eileen MacDonald. At last it was confirmed that it had been Eileen who had been filling Kathy's head with nonsense about me. Although I spent huge amounts of time helping Eileen with her work, she had been jealous of me because I had been promoted. I was a man in a team dominated by women, and there was resentment that I was in a higher grade.

I was delighted to receive the complaint. Eileen was claiming that I was a poor teamworker, and that I was confrontational. However, the truth is that these were terms that described Eileen herself. At mediation, I had explained this to Kathy. I had also explained that Eileen had a very weak understanding of technical matters, and that she wasn't interested in improving. Kathy just denied this, claiming that Eileen had strong technical skills. That was either a lie, or it was based on work she thought Eileen had done, but which was actually done by me or someone else.

I replied to Kathy and included lots of evidence that it was Eileen who was the problem. As Database Administrator, I was responsible for database security, and for two years Eileen had been breeching security procedures and encouraging others to do so too. It's a sackable offense in most employers, but rather than report it, I tried to persuade Eileen not to do it. I had tried to find out from her why she was doing it. I had written to her a number of times explaining the correct procedure, and I said that if she felt there was ever a need to step outside the procedures, she should let me know, and I would work out what the problem was. I couldn't possibly have been more helpful, but the only reason she was doing it was to be bloody minded.

On this occasion, she had told one of her employees to breech security procedures and to log on to a database using an account that wasn't her own. I spotted this, and phoned her up to ask her to log off. Her employee agreed to log off, but Eileen told her to ignore me. After ten minutes I saw that she was still logged on, so I disconnected her. I then spent time helping them with the problem they were having, which was of Eileen's own making.

Realising that it was Eileen (Kathy's favourite) who was to blame, Kathy immediately cancelled the meeting. I submitted grievances againt Kathy and Eileen to Peter. Eileen found out and was worried about the grievance. Peter told her not to worry and that she was doing a good job. He completely ignored my grievance, and Mark Toole ignored it too. In fact, Mark criticised me for submitting it.

In her complaint, Eileen had asked for the database security procedures to be changed, and I had confirmed to Kathy that the problem wasn't with the procedures, but that Eileen, allegedly a Senior Programmer, needed to improve her skills. As a manager, Kathy should have tried to find out from Eileen what the real problem was and then spoken to me if she thought it was something I could help with. Instead, Kathy wrote to the entire team instructing us to debate whether or not the procedures should be changed to suit Eileen's preferred way of working. This was simply bullying by undermining me. I wrote to Peter Kemp to complain. To take the heat off Kathy, Peter said that it was he who had instructed Kathy to send that email. He went on to say that he would be asking for a report from the debate. He acknowledged the fact that I had to demonstrate to auditors that the correct security procedures were followed, but added that it was important that people are able to carry out their duties.

This was insulting, not just to me, but to the auditors too. Firstly he was implying that I was so stupid that I didn't know that people needed to be able to carry out their duties. He was also implying that I was so bad at administrating databases that I had set up a procedure that prevented employees from carrying out their duties. I wrote back to him confirming that everybody was indeed able to carry out their duties. It was an absurd situation where the Director of Information Services for a university was considering adding risk to data security for no other reason than to show support for Eileen MacDonald; a bully.

The team had the debate, and thankfully nobody wanted the procedures changed. During the meeting, I was explaining a technical matter when Eileen, who really needed to be listening, repeatedly heckled me with "You're inconsistent! You're inconsistent!" I asked her what was inconsistent, and she said that security was different on the XYZ database. She was referring to a different type of database for which I had no responsibility, and which was the responsibility of Paul, an employee that she managed. You would think that when you make a fool of yourself as often as Eileen, you would learn to keep your mouth shut.

Peter was interviewed as part of the grievance investigation. He gave his full support to Kathy and Eileen. He described me as someone who just doesn't understand that sometimes procedures have to be changed to allow people to carry out their duties. Of course, Peter had already learned from me that everybody could carry out their duties within existing procedures, but he would also have received his report confirming that everybody was able to carry out their duties. I don't think Peter will be happy until students are able to access the databases and amend their own grades.

Karen Stark was aware of all this as she was included in the correspondence. She carefully avoided raising this with Peter during the interview. A good question would have been "Please describe a situation whereby an employee could not carry out their duties within the agreed security procedures." Answer "Well there might be an occasion where a bloody minded woman could decide that it's just not her style, and that she is special and needs to be treated differently from everyone else. Obviously the security of the University of Stirling's data is nowhere near as important as that woman's feelings of superiority."

How stupid of me and the auditors not to have spotted that flaw in the security procedures!

I wonder if Peter ever told his wife, Joan what he really got up to at work.





He describes me as demanding that things are done my own way. Anybody attending meetings in our team would know that I was the one who would rarely even offer advice, because I knew it would be ignored. I was merely trying to ensure that the University's security procedures were followed correctly. That was my job. The person who was out of step with the university and the team by insisting she do things her own way was Eileen MacDonald.

Peter obsessively defends Kathy who obsessively defends Eileen. So the person who was proving to be the biggest risk to security was being put in charge of security; just like putting a lunatic in charge of the asylum. Meanwhile I'm criticised for merely carrying out my job with great patience. Peter says that I don't understand that the job has to be done, but the only person being prevented from doing their job was me.

Peter then claims that he didn't know why I was off sick for five weeks in 2008, despite the fact that I had written a lengthy letter to him explaining it was due to Kathy's behaviour, and when he received it he arranged mediation for me and Kathy.

Then he slags off a well respected colleague, and in stereotypical fashion he slags off people whom he sees as good programmers.

Gerry McCormac - Corrupt or What?

Gerry McCormac

Gerry McCormac became Stirling University's Principal in May 2010. He described the university as one of the most respected in the UK. He said his focus would be on providing leadership and "getting the best out of people".

In accordance with the university's grievance procedures, I wrote to Professor McCormac in September 2010 and sent copies of my letter to Alan Simpson, Chair of the University Court, and Dr James Naughtie, University Chancellor. I alerted them to the widespread corruption that exists within the university's senior management.

You might expect that someone who agreed to take up such a responsible position, and who accepts around a quarter of a million pounds a year to perform his duties, would be horrified to learn of this and would be eager to rid the university of corruption as a matter of priority. You might also expect that he would be eager to speak with me to obtain as much information as possible in order for him to fully understand and deal with the very serious problem at Stirling University.

However, you would be wrong. Professor McCormac decided that it would be best to sweep the issue under the carpet.

It is ironic that a university Cleaner earning around £15,000 a year would probably be sacked for sweeping dirt under the carpet. Cleaners are expected to work with integrity; Principals and senior management are not.

Corrupt or what? I see no evidence to suggest that Gerry is anything but corrupt.

Shame on you, Gerry!

Oh dear! Hot off the press; Gerry has been appointed by Education Secretary, Mike Russell to head up a review of teachers' pay and conditions. Labour and Liberal Democrats are worried that the review may be a sham, and that this is just a cost cutting exercise. With Gerry at the helm, I believe they have good reason to be worried.

Gerry is aware that Mark Toole had decided that I should be dismissed because he couldn't deal properly with my grievance against Kathy McCabe's bullying behaviour. It is likely that Kathy's husband, Liam, being the Finance Director was also a factor. I had made protected disclosures about the university's failure to comply with its legal obligations, so the heat was on for the Uni. Mark's lack of integrity caused him to call in well known 'arse licker', Graham Millar, to carry out a sham investigation which was to produce a report recommending a disciplinary hearing be held. Mark would have told Graham not to allow the facts to get in the way of the required report.

Despite all of the evidence that made it obvious I was innocent, Mark dismissed me, and other corrupt directors upheld his decision.

Immediately prior to this, Mark had arranged for Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield to carry out a sham investigation relating to my allegations that I had been bullied by my manager, Kathy McCabe, for several years, including bullying that took place in Mark's presence. Amazingly, despite all of the evidence, Eileen produced a report stating that I had not been bullied, but that I had bullied my manager. At appeal, University Secretary, Kevin Clarke upheld her incredible decision.

Gerry knew about all of this when he shrugged off my complaints of corruption. Interestingly, he offered no evidence to refute my claims that senior management is corrupt.

Not satisfied with being paid £250,000 a year and ruining an innocent man's career, Gerry will be hoping to be recommended for inclusion in the honours list for carrying out this review. In my opinion, he should be in jail.

Gerry has a wife and three sons. I suppose he is 'lucky' not to have a conscience.

I suppose it's unfortunate from Gerry's and other corrupt people's point of view, that we now have the internet. The world is becoming more transparent. Corrupt dinosaurs, like Gerry, will hopefully become a feature of the past.

My parents were born more than 70 years before most people had even heard of the internet, but that didn't stop them from raising me to be honest, hard working and ethical. Gerry is the type of person they warned me not to mix with.

I feel sorry for his sons who have been deprived of a normal non corrupt life in which they could achieve their goals based on their own genuine desires and honest abilities.

15 April 2011
He's not been in charge for a year yet, but as well as bullying and corruption, Gerry is now proud to add fraud to his list of skills.