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...

e-petition: Criminal Penalties for Workplace Bullies

Responsible department: Ministry of Justice

In 2010, Unison reported that more than one third of workers had been bullied in the previous 6 months, double the number a decade ago. Complaints of bullying are now more prevalent in claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. However, the current law does not provide adequate protection for the targets of bullying. This petition urges the Government to introduce individual criminal offences and corporate criminal liability for bullying in the workplace, similar to the provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Penalties should include imprisonment, unlimited fines and compensation orders. Bullying and harassment in the workplace was recently criminalised in Australia following the suicide of 19 year old Brodie Panlock, a waitress who was bullied at work. Tragic events should not be necessary to catalyse legislative change. This petition urges the Government to criminalise workplace bullying and harassment.

Sign at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2380

Justice or Revenge

In simple terms, justice comprises a set of rules that a group of people are bound by. If you break a rule, you receive a proportionate punishment. The punishment acts as a retribution and as a deterrent. The deterrent aspect acts as a form of protection to any potential victims of potential wrongdoers.

Revenge is personal. Punishment is less likely to be seen as proportionate.

Adultery

In some cultures, adultery is a crime that is punishable by death. The adulterer is buried up to their chest, and crowds of people throw rocks and stones at the adulterer's head until they die a slow, painful and humiliating death.

Rape victims can be considered adulterers too.

Proving adultery under Muslim law is difficult, as it requires four witnesses to the act of sexual intercourse. Each witness must have a good reputation for truthfulness. This makes me think that it is just an excuse for victimisation. Who on Earth would have adulterous sex in the presence of four people well known for their truthfulness? Surely there must be safer ways to spice up your sex life.

In the UK, adultery is not a crime, but it is grounds for divorce. Often the spouse of a repeat adulterer will choose to stick with the marriage. The UK has an online dating agency for adulterers. It boasts over half a million members.

Two different cultures have completely different views on adultery. Which one is correct? Is either correct? How would we measure correctness? A referendum?

Individuals may be devastated to discover that their partner has been unfaithful. They might feel that justice isn't enough, and seek revenge. They may even kill their partner and then themselves. Would society have sympathy for such an individual, or their partner? When they married, they knew there was no law against adultery, and although they vowed to remain married until death, that is not enforcable.

Honour killings

Honour killings are often connected to accusations of adultery. Honour killings continue to be legal in parts of the world.

Part of article 340 of the Penal Code of Jordan states that "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty."

In Syria, Article 548 states that "He who catches his wife or one of his ascendants, descendants or sister committing adultery or illegitimate sexual acts with another and he killed or injured one or both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty."

Bad justice

Consider the situation where several wrongdoers perform punishable acts against a victim. Due to corruption, there is injustice, and instead of the wrongdoers being punished, the victim is punished with devastating effect. The wrongdoers and the corrupt justice deliverers are aware of the devastation they've caused the victim. How would society react to the victim causing devastation to one or more of the wrongdoers? What if the victim's act is seen to be way out of proportion to the acts of the wrongdoers? The victim may consider that the effect of the act is more important than the act itself, and he wants at least one of the wrongdoers to suffer at least the same amount of devastation as he did, and to bitterly regret their wrongful acts every day for the rest of their lives. They may have carried out their wrongful act on a whim, for a bit of fun. The victim would want them to desperately wish they could go back in time and make a different choice. How much sympathy would society have for such a wrongdoer?

The fear of revenge is a form of deterrent, but revenge is a very poor and dangerous substitute for proper justice. Justice not only protects the innocent, it can protect the guilty too by ensuring that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. How would the devastated wrongdoer feel about those who delivered the injustice that left them vulnerable to the disproportionate acts of revenge?

Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder

In an earlier post, David Yamada describes Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED). "Those with PTED were hard working and mentally healthy people until a
triggering event destroyed their core values and shattered their basic beliefs. People feel wronged, humiliated and that some injustice has been done to them."

According to psychiatrist, Dr. Michael Linden, those with PTED suffer from intrusive thoughts and memories long after the triggering event, phobicly avoid places related to the event and are pathologically consumed by an intense desire for revenge.

"The critical part is this [long] lasting and very intensive emotional embitterment, a mixture of depression and helplessness and hopelessness. It's a very nasty emotion."

Dr Linden estimates that 1-2% of people become so stressed out by the triggering event that "they can barely function other than to ruminate about their circumstances."

Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.

One wonders how much violent crime has been triggered by bad justice.

Detection and deterrent

Potential wrongdoers are also deterred if they believe there is a great risk of detection. Improved forensic science, including DNA evidence and an increase in CCTV must be putting off some would be criminals.

What is the purpose of punishment? It is believed that most people in the UK think that the death penalty should be brought back for murder. This suggests to me that they want revenge, because all the evidence shows that murder rates are higher where the death penalty exists. Murderers either don't think they will be caught or they don't care if they are executed. On the other hand, the threat of the death penalty would act as an excellent deterrent for crimes that have a high detection rate, such as illegal parking, and putting a washing out to dry on a Sunday.

Against all odds, I'm still alive.

In 2005, when I began to realise that Kathy McCabe was mistreating me, I increased my alcohol intake to help dull the psychological pain, and to stop the intrusive thoughts that prevented me from sleeping at night.

In case you only intend to read a small part of this post, let me tell you that that was not the correct response to bullying. So if you are being bullied at work, I do not advise you to drown your feelings in alcohol. The correct response is probably to see your own doctor. If your employer has an Occupational Health doctor, then you might want to visit them, however you should be aware that they may not be completely independent. They could just be an extension of management, in much the same way that HR may be. Yes, I had foolishly thought that HR was there to look after the employees. Many people still do!

Unfortunately, I didn't seek help from a doctor. For one thing, I didn't have a doctor, but even if I had, I probably wouldn't have visited them. I'm a man, and it seems that we men have a natural tendency to bottle up our problems. 'Doctors are for people who are REALLY ill. They don't need the likes of me taking up their valuable time.'

To be honest, I thought the alcohol was helping me. It helped me get some sleep, and if you're sleeping, then all those nasty intrusive thoughts can't fill your head and make you toss and turn all night. To be honest, that still seems to me to have been a tangible benefit from drinking alcohol at that time, but I think the problem lies in the longer term. The underlying problem of the bullying didn't go away, and I found that I was having to increase my dosage in order to gain the same relief. My main choice of medicine was whisky, although I also added wine, vodka, brandy and lager to the mix. By 2009, I was consuming roughly 120 cl of whisky every day. That's almost two bottles, or nearly 3 pints.

Looking back, the weird thing is that it didn't effect my work or my attendance. I didn't need or think about alcohol while I was working. Ironically, work was therapeutic and helped to reduce the stress. That is until there was a bullying incident, or a discussion related to bullying that would cause the stress to go through the roof.

I've never suffered from hangovers. That may not be a good thing though. Maybe hangovers are nature's way of telling you to cut back. And I should have cut back, because while I was enjoying the benefits of the alcohol, I wasn't giving any thought to the damage it was causing me.

Firstly, alcohol is a depressant. It's like Kathy McCabe in a bottle. Secondly, it kills. It kills people who drink far less than I did for far shorter periods than I did. I've read up on this a bit, and I'm amazed to still be alive. For several years I was drinking as much as 16 times the recommended limit for a man.

It still wasn't enough to prevent the intrusive thoughts. Around the same time that I began over-drinking, I began to gamble excessively. The theory was that while I was thinking about gambling, I couldn't be thinking about anything else. And to some extent that worked. However, the higher the level of stress I was under, the higher the amount of money it was necessary to gamble. Like work, it was therapeutic. But under the conditions of stress and alcohol, my gambling was erratic and out of control.

I had a particularly stressful meeting with Mark Toole and my union rep in December 2009. He pretended that he hadn't witnessed Kathy bullying me. After the meeting, I was shaking like a leaf. When I got home, I filled up with alcohol, and gambled away almost £10,000 (ten thousand pounds) that same evening. Losing that amount of money is depressing too, but only for a relatively short period. It's not like being bullied for years. In a two week period in June 2010 when I knew that Mark Toole was conducting a sham disciplinary process and I was about to lose my job, I lost £32,909.47 by gambling erratically. It was different from my previous gambling. I had given up on life. I had no need for money because it was inevitable that I was going to kill myself.

I was seeing the Occupational Health doctor regularly at this time. He was aware of the alcohol and gambling and my intention to kill myself. He had advised me to cut back on the alcohol, but there was no point in that. I wanted to be dead, and it was killing me, while at the same time, providing a measure of relief.

I hadn't intended to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal, because I thought I would most likely be dead by the time the case came to court. However, I was aware of the three month time limit for claims, so just before time ran out, I lodged my claim. Unexpectedly, I was still alive, and I thought I'd better make the claim just in case I didn't kill myself. Ironically, I think it's the ET case, and the possibility of justice that has kept me alive. Initially, my blog was intended to be my suicide note.

However, the suicidal thoughts haven't stopped, and I still have intrusive violent thoughts and intrusive memories too. Eventually, I visited my GP. I'd had a couple of days when I'd felt an improvement, so I made an appointment. By the time I was due to see my GP, three things had happened to make me feel worse, but I attended anyway. I was prescribed anti-depressants, but I didn't notice any difference. I was referred to a psychiatrist. The problem is that the psychiatrist felt nothing could be done to help me until I had greatly reduced, or even eliminated my alcohol consumption. As I said earlier, alcohol is a depressant, and an obstacle to treatment.

I've managed to reduce my alcohol consumption by a large amount, but I've still a long way to go. I was referred to a substance misuse expert. They want me to go into hospital for about ten days to detox, but I said No, No, No! I keep a daily diary of every drop of alcohol I take. I have good days and bad. When I was working, I generally drank between 6pm and 1am, except at weekends when I'd start earlier. Without work, I now start to feel an urge to take alcohol around 3pm; earlier if something causes me to feel anxious. Unfortunately, by reducing the alcohol, my sleep has reduced too. I'm told that alcohol induced sleep is not good quality sleep, but for me it's a case of 'never mind the quality, feel the width'.

A word of caution to anyone who intends to reduce their alcohol intake. Please seek advice from your GP as it can be very dangerous to do this too quickly, ie cold turkey.

Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder and workplace bullying

From MINDING THE WORKPLACE hosted by David Yamada.

Can some targets of severe workplace bullying become so angry and embittered by their experiences that they are unable to move forward in their lives?

In 2003, Dr. Michael Linden, a Berlin psychiatrist, proposed recognition of a new condition, Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED), asserting that a traumatic event could trigger “embitterment and feelings of injustice” that impair one’s “performance in daily activities and roles.” These reactions can be so strong and enduring that they render someone helpless to address the situation.

PTED is not listed in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and this absence limits its application as a formal diagnosis. Linden believes the evidence merits its addition to the next version, now under deliberation.

While some disagree with creating a separate psychiatric diagnosis, others cite PTED as an important breakthrough in our understanding of trauma. For example, I recently cited Cheryl Dellasega’s invocation of PTED in her new book When Nurses Hurt Nurses (2011).

PTED and workplace bullying

I do not have sufficient expertise to pass judgment on the DSM debate, but the concept of PTED rings true based on my knowledge of the experiences of some bullying targets, especially those who have experienced job loss and career impacts. At times, the anger and embitterment run so deep that they disable individuals from taking actions in their self-interest.

This is not a negative judgment on someone’s character, and I wish to distinguish it from the maddening “it’s time to get over it” line that so many targets of abuse hear from well-meaning family, friends, and associates. Furthermore, I’m not talking here about the normal angry feelings that bullying targets often experience, some of which can be awfully hard to let go.

Indeed, words like “angry,” “bitter,” and “embittered” carry very negative connotations when used to describe people. They paint individuals as unpleasant and unsympathetic figures, while downplaying or ignoring the events that caused them to be this way.

By contrast, the concept of PTED helps us to understand that anger and bitterness may be natural responses to trauma and injustice, in some cases becoming disabling. Equally important, it may lead us to, as Linden suggests, “specific therapeutic interventions.”

PTED and workplace violence

On occasion, acts of severe workplace violence have been committed by those who purportedly were bullied at work. Could PTED explain why? As reported in the blog Living the Scientific Life (link here):

Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

At the Employment Tribunal hearing, Karen Stark gave evidence, and the university's lawyer, Alun Thomas asked her how often HR has to deal with grievances. She replied that there are not many. The impression they were hoping to give was that HR and management take great care to ensure that staff and students are happy, and that therefore I am unusual, and perhaps the type of person who complains for no good reason. It would perhaps have provided the tribunal with a more accurate impression if Mr Thomas had asked how many grievances are taken seriously, and how many people who raise grievances end up sacked. However, in this case, it's not Mr Thomas' job to present the tribunal with the whole truth, but to persuade it that I am the problem, and that the university acts in a highly professional manner. That means he has to create barriers to prevent the tribunal from learning the whole truth.

In 2009, Mr Thomas represented the university at an employment tribunal hearing dealing with a complaint from former Psychology Researcher, Dr Rhodes. She had previously complained to the university that David Donaldson, a Senior Lecturer in her department, had removed her name from a research funding application, and replaced it with his own eleven times. Her complaint resulted in her being sacked, and Donaldson was later promoted to a professorship. The university conceded that Dr Rhodes had been unfairly dismissed. But they had achieved their main aim by getting rid of a whistleblower and deterring other unfairly treated employees who may have been thinking about making a complaint. Story at Times Higher Education.

In 2010, a Postgraduate Researcher complained to the university about bullying. Deputy Secretary, Eileen Schofield was supposed to handle his complaint, but instead she ended up lying to him. This made him very angry, and he threatened to kill her if she lied to him again. You would have to be in his position to understand just how frustrating it is when your complaint is not taken seriously, and the person who is responsible for dealing with it takes part in a strategy to cover up. It is a form of torture. The Researcher who has gained an MA, a BA and an MSc has been expelled from the university. More important than his qualifications though, just like me, he is a man who considers honesty and integrity to be important. Like me, his natural instinct is to trust people in authority, and he is shocked and overwhelmed to find that they are corrupt.

Since I began writing my blog in September 2010, at least one university employee has written to me saying that they had made a complaint of bullying, and that HR was not taking it seriously. I've also heard a rumour that there are more.

By raising the subject of the number of grievances the university receives, they may have scored an own goal, because it is my job to ensure the tribunal learns the whole truth.

Andy Coulson - a bully!

It was widely reported on TV and in the press that yesterday (8 July 2011) Andy Coulson was arrested in connection with phone hacking and police corruption. Fewer people will be aware, however, that David Cameron's former spin doctor is also a bully.

In November 2009, an Employment Tribunal ordered the News of the World to pay Matt Driscoll £792,736 in compensation for being the victim of "a consistent pattern of
bullying behaviour", led by the paper's former editor, Andy Coulson. The bullying continued when Driscoll was signed off on sick leave for stress related depression.

Story at the Guardian.

Tommy Sheridan's lawyers have called for a police investigation into Mr Coulson's suspected lying on oath after he told a perjury trial that there was no culture of phone hacking at the News of the World.