A Libel Claim

The McLalford One

By now purveyors of this website will be aware that I am being sued for libel by the University of Salford. Yes it's now official! The claim was served upon me on day one of my recent (adjourned until August) Employment Tribunal. It was a nice touch if a little predictable. It's a very interesting case that The Claimant makes all of which we shall be exploring in greater of detail over the coming weeks and months. That is, as long as I can fend off an injunction restraining my good self and my 'servants or agents from publishing or causing to be published the same or similar words defamatory of the claimant.'(1) This I see as a gross calumny as being unemployed, I simply cannot afford any servants or chauffeurs and I'm not yet the Director General of MI5 as I've only just sent off my completed application. It never occurred to me that when first applying the quill of scrutiny to the yellowed parchment of accountability (the first January Vice Consul's Newsletter) that many years down the line, I would be vested with the unenviable role of defender of freedom of speech (FoS) and upholder of the right to criticise (RtC) without fear of penury at the University of Salford. But there we go. 

Now before I heave-to, I'd just like to state for the record that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Professor Hall and his immediate corporate subordinate Dr Graves are diligent and judicious officers of the University. Taking this nautical theme a stage further, few would disagree that steering such a great ship is vested with a great deal of authority and calls for decisive leadership skills. However, when it comes to matters of law it also calls for a deal of precision particularly when one sets in motion the formidable behemoth known as English Libel Law. One mentions this because one or two anomalies have emerged in the fabric of space-time situated directly over very specific geographical coordinates within the 'Particulars of Claim' sent to me by the University's lawyers. Being a generous chap, I thought I'd take the opportunity to share them with readers.

One is partial for certain particularities within the Particulars of Claim

One of the grounds for suing me for defamation is that I am alleged to have suggested through the use of words organised in a satirical fashion on a Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog "[t]hat Dr Graves and Professor Hall and therefore the claimant [the University] have acted wrongfully and unlawfully and in a secretive manner by keeping from the students and the general public matters which both the students and the general public are entitled to know."(2) The allegation is also made that through rearranging more words into critical satire with a hint of lampoonery and other writings on the Rat Catchers blog, I have stated that "the claimant's senior members of staff and therefore the claimant itself has deliberately flouted and ignored the law and its legal obligations and in so acting considers itself to be above the law and acts in a way that is above the law."(3) Pretty straight forward on the face of it.

One might also say with a degree of certainty that Professor Hall must have read through the 'Particulars of Claim'. I say this with some puissance because it appears to have his signature on it (see below). Now I'm generally regarded to be about as quick on the uptake as a tectonic plate in full reverse, but as I read and absorbed the detail of the claim something occurred to me that readers might be able to help explain. 

One signature from a Vice Chancellor and the facts stated are in his belief true

Dates are not the only fruit

On the 17th November 2010 I made a Subject Access Request to Mr Matthew Stephenson of UoS. Under an SAR, the University by law (Data Protection Act 1998), must provide all information and data that it holds on the requester. My letter went something like this...

Dear Matthew

Further to my email to you dated November 9th 2010, I enclose a cheque in the sum of £10 made payable to University of Salford in lieu of payment for a Subject Access Request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I would like you to supply me with all data held on me by the University between the period 1st November 2009 to the 17th November 2010.

I can appreciate the immense pressure that you must be under in your role as Head of Information Governance, and the volume of work that must pass through your office daily. With this in mind I have included below a list of the individuals/employees and former employees who may hold, or have held information pertaining to me or who have been involved in any University business pertaining to me. This list may not include all individuals/employees of the University that hold information on me. I would of course expect you to supply any information to me from individuals who are not included on this list.

I will not accept the claim that any correspondence that has been courtesy copied (Cc’d) to University solicitors or legal representatives is legally privileged and will expect any such information to be supplied to me under the terms of the DPA 1998.

Given the past reticence of University employees to supply all information held on me, as well as those who have lied claiming they hold no information, or indeed who have withheld information, only supplying such information when I have raised the issue with you - I refer specifically to my email to you dated 11th February 2010 - any dissembling such as this, or indeed any attempts to circumvent the legal obligations of the University under the DPA 1998, shall immediately be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner. I also reserve the right to bring matters such as these to the attention of the Employment Tribunal panel, and to the attention of the Court in any future libel proceedings the University wishes to pursue against me.

Kind regards

Gary Duke

And the list went something like this...

Martin Hall
Adrian Graves
Keith Watkinson
Scott Mullholland
Mark Rollinson
Paul Jenks
Prof John Wilson
Ms Xiang Li
Prof Cynthia Pine
Alison Purnell
Ian Austin
Prof Michael Harloe
Matthew Stephenson
Phillip Hopwood
Simon Atwell
Linda Puttick
Heather Mortimer
Richard Morford
Paul Rowlett
Chris Wells
Alan Mawson
Tony Britten
Martin Bull
Prof Chris Andrews
Christine Sheehy
Phillippa Whitakker
Liz Bromley
Ms Lynsey Harris (any correspondence that is not privileged)
Phillip Benton
Edward Rowan (acting for the University in matters relating to Dr Duke)
Jamie Brown
Matthew Webber
Ricky Chotai
Paul Farrall
Jan McKenzie
Any correspondence between the University and the police concerning Dr Duke
All information held by University security or any third party security employed by the University
Any correspondence held by the University between itself and the UCU regional officials or now or past serving UCU branch officials concerning Dr Duke
Any correspondence between the University and any UCU reps and the University concerning Dr Duke

An authoritative letter received

After much to-ing and fro-ing, the sending of large numbers of documents to me (including many copies and some documents that had large parts and names redacted) delays, not sending documents I knew to exist, and vigorous letters to University lawyers, as if to draw a line under my request Martin Hall wrote to me on the 23rd February 2011. It was a nice gesture.

Another signature from a Vice Chancellor

Having received the Vice Chancellor's personal assurance that I had "all" the information I was entitled to, and there was nothing else to send to me, I girded my loins, grabbed the nearest jawbone of an ass and braced myself for the forthcoming battle in the Employment Tribunal. This I did in the knowledge that any documentary evidence held by the University that I might need to rely on in evidence, was safely in my own hands. However, it was with great alarm that the doorbell rang on Monday afternoon. This was odd as I don't have a doorbell. On the other side of the door was a postal worker who handed me a rather large bundle of documents and then walked off barely suppressing her imprudent laughter. This formidable bundle was from the Information Commissioner and supplied to me courtesy of a Subject Access Request made by me to the ICO around the beginning of February 2011. 

Should the owner of this finger plan an extension for all the extra documents?

The bundle contained lots of emails and documents but also included this...

...which is the top part of this and was signed by...

A quick refresher

There were a few documents in this bundle that I'd not seen before. They were from the UoS to the Information Commissioner and they concerned me. They'd have to as it's highly unlikely that the ICO of all people would supply me with documents about someone else. Before we journey any further it might be prudent to take a moment to refresh our collective RAM - part of the claim against me for defamation is that in their words, I am alleged to have suggested on a Rat Catchers blog "[t]hat Dr Graves and Professor Hall and therefore the claimant [the University] have acted wrongfully and unlawfully and in a secretive manner by keeping from the students and the general public matters which both the students and the general public are entitled to know."

Ever so slightly contradictory

This led to a question or two springing forth in the dysfunctional cerebrality of a serial Morrisons shopper like some irked Greek goddess of wisdom who's having to resit her GCSE in maths. Questions such as was Prof Hall aware before he affix't his signature to the 'Particulars of Claim' that his second-in-command had written letters to the ICO? Did he know that the ICO had taken the unusual step of having a face-to-face meeting with Matthew Stephenson and Alison Purnell which is recorded in emails between the ICO and the University? Did he know that the University's lawyers Pinsent and Masons had also written to the ICO on the 1st February 2011 explaining why the UoS had refused more FOIs on the grounds of vexatiousness prior to the ICO making his decision regarding my complaint against the University? He was clearly aware of the decision of the ICO as he'd received a letter dated the 7th February 2011 announcing the ICO's decision. It was all in the bundle and more.

Now I might be missing something here. Martin Hall is an honourable man and a man of integrity. As such he would never put his signature to a document called the 'Particulars of Claim' that was false or untrue? Clearly, if the University illegally withheld information that it was legally obliged to provide me with, then the suggestion that the University have acted wrongfully in keeping secret information that students and the general public are entitled to know would be proven. Of course this is all argumentative... little more than the highly abstract theoretical musings that are characteristic of an over-excited dialectical historian with pretensions towards heinous logorreah (look it up). But unraveling the ethical machinations within the higher echelons of University administration is almost a physical impossibility for someone who finds it challenging simply putting his trousers on in the morning. It may be the case that the Vice Chancellor did not know any of the above. If he did know then he is open to accusation of lying. If he did not know then the question arises as to why did his subordinates not give him the information?

Far from being 'a berk' Dr Duke is taking necessary preemptive precautions in the
event that Hall and Graves are successful in silencing his laptop...

An interesting question arises or does it?

Now a few more interesting questions have crossed a gin-soaked mind. Was Hall deliberately misled by his subordinates or was it incompetence? If the former then surely it amounts to gross misconduct? If the latter then whose incompetence? There is of course the possibility suggested by Hall that he considered that he did not have to provide any further information. If this was his opinion it would be interesting to know who provided this advice to him? This latter suggestion that Hall considered he did not have to provide any more information is somewhat undermined by the speed with which the ICO provided this information. Moreover, the ICO's response and the provision of specific documents gives lie to the idea that the University did not have to provide the information. The ICO's response shows that Hall's personal assurance, that I had been provided with "all" the information I was entitled to, was worthless. When the leader of an august institution such as the University of Salford writes, one can usually rely on its accuracy and veracity. After this incident can anyone place the same degree of reliance on what the University says? There may be a perfectly acceptable reason for all this, yet given the University's reluctance to share even material it's supposed to share with the great British public, please don't hold your breath waiting! I don't want to be on the end of a medical malpractice suit as well.

Dear Dr Duke... Dear Mr Stephenson...

Even now, despite the ocular evidence, the University denies it has any other information that according to Data Protection legislation it has to supply me with. Embarrassingly for the University, and, as if on the whimsy of a Paul Daniels or some other esteemed purveyor of magical entertainment like the long-deceased David Nixon, an email from Mr Stephenson arrived yesterday in response to an earlier letter from my good self to him dated 23 February 2011. It said:

Dear Dr Duke,

Your letter has been considered. The University’s view is that you have received all information to which you are entitled under the Data Protection Act 1998.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Stephenson

Maybe I should write back along the lines of "Dear Mr Stephenson. I did receive quite a bit of information to which I am entitled. The problem is that I did not receive all the information I was entitled to from you!

Yours faithfully

Dr Gary P Duke"

I think I'll not bother and save this one for the High Court.

(1) Page 11, Particulars of Claim signed by Martin Hall 28th February 2011
(2) Page 8, Particulars of Claim signed by Martin Hall 28th February 2011.
(3) Page 5, Particulars of Claim signed by Martin Hall 28th February 2011.

Dear Mr Kafka...

In lieu of the seven percent solution

Like most people, I've had my share of joints. The Sunday ones which are a bit of a rarity these days. The type that are immensely satisfying when they slide together like... well a dovetail. The big fat ones that have on a few occasions led to a recurring theme many readers will be familiar with: a floor, a foetal position, a green face, a swift conversion to the nearest available religion in order to allay the creeping certainty that your increasingly laboured insufflations are to be your last, a desperate attempt to retain some semblance of dignity, a rigid repudiation of an almost canonical desire to expel your full stomach content (including the lining) at a velocity close to light speed over the nearest excuse for a threadbare Wilton. For that reason I've decided to eschew the latter in favour of a churchwarden pipe and a forty five pound a day crack habit. I do of course jest. But I do take some considerable enjoyment from a pinch or three of rough Kentucky Nougat shag stuffed almost to overflowing into a polished briar bowl.

But of late it's the aching ones that have insinuated themselves into the everyday. Despite being rather irksome, these I can deal with utilising the oft-used traditional remedy of swearing. Or should I say I did, as my right foot's this week taken out a grievance against my mouth and my jaw's been suspended pending a disciplinary investigation. This is of course silly. But on a more serious note - and I hope this article can help others in a similar situation avoid pitfalls - it deals with a novel type of joint that has inculcated itself into my routine far more insidiously than the odd appalling rheumatic twinge in a right hallux. I have unwittingly become habitué to another abhorrency, a type of joint that is I believe peculiar to either Employment Tribunals (or possibly other matters of a legal nature). The particular joint to which I refer is in some circles known as the 'Joint Bundle'. A definition and an explanation is in order.

The new kid in town

For those new to this blog, I am currently taking my former employer - the University of Salford - to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. I lectured in International Studies and was the branch secretary for the UCU. I was dismissed in 2009 for allegedly bullying and harassing two members of staff through writing satirical exposes based on the former VC's monthly electronic newsletter. This is the general context. 

Back to matters in hand. The 'joint bundle' for an Employment Tribunal (ET) consists of all the documents that both parties wish to be entered as evidence. As the employer most usually has the resources available, it is expected that they will collate all documents and order them date-wise into the bundle which is then provided to both parties as well as one each for the three Tribunal panel members. In order to ensure that this is achieved in a timely fashion, Case Management Orders are provided by the Tribunal which must be rigidly adhered to on pain of circumcision. I jest with ye further. Breaching the deadlines within CMO's will largely leave one's foreskin intact but can be punished by a not inconsiderable fine and possible forfeit of your claim. For anyone who is moderately organised, this all seems reasonable and easily manageable... or so it should be. As one might expect, an Employment Tribunal and all the concomitant preparations is a highly charged affair and as such, the joint bundle is a highly contested arena as is the issue of document disclosure.

That absurdity of a beard'll not get ye past us. Begone ye fecker!

Document disclosure or lack thereof

One can almost taste the next salty statement issuing forth from your collective lips - how does one know all the documents available have been disclosed by the employer? Well the short answer is that one doesn't. An example may enlighten. There is no provision in the University of Salford Disciplinary Procedure for disclosure of documents which by any stretch of the imagination places any alleged miscreant at a distinct disadvantage. The Procedure at 3.1.5. states that 'members of staff have a right to':

be treated fairly and consistently. This includes representation, the right of appeal, and the right to be provided with all the evidence and relevant documentation prior to attending a disciplinary hearing.(1)

The sting in the tail here is the word 'relevant'. And who decides what's relevant? Hazard a guess. Clearly, an allegation of bullying and harassment is a serious matter so there is one document that should be disclosed to you. It's called the complaint.

Where is the complaint?

Only an unreconstructed dolt would welcome the idea of being treated unfairly and inconsistently. But it is entirely within the realms of possibility that one can be treated consistently yet unfairly. The two are not necessarily correlates. To elucidate. Let's explore a hypothetical case such as my own.* 

You've been accused of bullying or harassing two people by writing about them in a satirical manner. Yet the alleged 'victims' of the bullying or harassment haven't made any complaint against you. There's no record of any complaint. Neither have they made a witness statement to HR regarding the alleged bullying or harassment. It seems that no one on the employers' side has thought it necessary to invite the alleged 'victim[s]' to an informal or formal meeting to discuss the alleged bullying. No note of such meeting exists. Indeed so important is this issue of alleged bullying and harassing that the investigating manager doesn't think it's necessary to interview the two 'victims' or take statements from them.

And just to reassure you that you've not been engulfed by a particularly malevolent universal parallelogram, the non-existence of any complaint has been confirmed from the horses mouth so to speak. Both the Chair of the Disciplinary Panel Mr Philip Hopwood and the former executive director of finance Mr Simon Attwell (the chap who chaired this writer's appeal hearing against dismissal) admitted under the withering cross examinatory skills of the 'persistent' Mr Eric Longley during last week's Employment Tribunal, that there were indeed no complaints. You see it's all very consistent.

It's in the Code

The UoS Code of Practice for Dealing with Harassment and Bullying is quite clear on this matter:

"... complainants must understand and accept that copies of all notes and correspondence concerned with the complaint will be given to the alleged harasser at his/her request."

It goes on to say that:

Formal resolution may be pursued where the individual regards attempts at informal resolution as inappropriate, or informal attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful. The formal complaint should be made in writing to the Head of School... [i]t must be understood by the complainant that any such formal complaint, and any further written communications will be passed to the alleged harasser... [o]nce an individual has made a formal complaint he/she is entitled to expect managers to instigate a formal investigation... [n]o further action will be taken without the consent of the individual concerned. The matter will be dealt with as confidentially as possible but in some cases the allegation may be so serious as to require immediate action (such as invoking the Disciplinary Procedure or involving the police)...(2)

Where are the witnesses?

So you decide that as no verbal or written complaint has been forthcoming as per the University's own Code, nor a witness statement provided to you laying out any complaint, it's reasonable enough to take the initiative and ask the alleged 'victim[s]' to testify at your forthcoming disciplinary hearing to explain how they were bullied and harassed. They refuse. You've also written in a satirical manner about two Vice Chancellors so you invite them to give evidence as to how they've been bullied and harassed but oddly enough they also refuse. They didn't make a complaint either but clearly a lack of complaint is no barrier to being designated a bully and harasser despite what the employer's own rules say. You attempt to follow this thread of Carrollian logic to its denouement but you immediately conclude that maybe you should exchange the daily crack habit for the more mundane and profitable pastures of an extended LSD induced feedback loop.

My dear chap, like your arse, you'll find the document referred
to down there in two parts

Au revoir jus-naturale?

Now except in the realms of a piece of fiction written by a chap called Kafka, one might imagine it might be quite difficult building the meanest sort of defense against allegations of bullying and harassment where complaints do not exist. By any sense of what's known in the trade as fairness or 'natural justice', a reasonable person might have discerned in the distance the muted peal of an alarm bell or two or at least the cordite stench of a latent structural paradox in crisis. Given this elemental Gordiana, you find that inevitably, the bony finger of unemployment beckons.

Dear Dr... I'm afraid it's irrelevant... irrelevant... irrelevant...

If one is experiencing this kind of difficulty in the run up to and during a disciplinary hearing, it follows that once lawyers are involved (on their side as one is hardly in a position to afford legal representation) the job becomes incrementally arduous. The alleged perpetrator of vileness (the Conscientious Claimant) wants to collate as much documentary evidence as possible but the employer is under no obligation to make documents (other than those used in the disciplinary process) available. One can seek through the Tribunal a Document Disclosure Order but they're about as likely to be granted as a back-dated UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq.

You could elect to utilise the Freedom of Information Act which is an essential tool. It's also largely useless tool. If one's employer is a public authority, they can refuse any of your FOIs on the grounds of say vexatiousness and like a brown immovable thing covered in bark, one is largely stumped. However, there is a small hint of daylight in this crepuscular envelope. It's known as a Subject Access Request which resides under the glorious aegis of the Data Protection Act 1998. I've had occasion to make two SARs and some very interesting documentation and emails have come to the fore.

It's not uphill but it is a shitty job all the same

Even if you manage to lay your hands on the documents through friends and the odd voluntary disclosure of a ream of emails by some unknown individual, there now ensues a battle for relevancy. You receive documents under the Data Protection Act and some are shall we say discommodious to say the least. Like an over-extended ball-bag, this leads to much toing and froing. Even within the Tribunal  this contestation continues. The Conscientious Claimant says that the extensive series of emails between the above two members of staff that were received anonymously, do indeed indicate a close friendship and should therefore go in your 'unagreed' bundle. The Respondent's barrister say they're not relevant and objects to the Tribunal judge a little too successfully. The Conscientious Claimant asks that a recently received copy of a rather interesting report into appointments in a business school should go in. The Respondent's lawyers again oppose its inclusion again stating it's not relevant. Yep, that one's also ruled out. You think this rather odd as you'd sort of mentioned both these issues in a highly satirical publication or two, which played no small part in raising the two issues to the fore in the first place.

Praise be and hallelujah... hallelujah... hallelujah!

Some days it appears that not much is going your way. But, having rejected the notion that the world is going to end next year, I also wish to avoid diving headlong into the perfidious waters of conspiracy theorem. Besides, I now have a lovely crisp copy of the TCM Executive Summary and interesting reading it makes too. An associate but not someone who is involved in any perceived wider campaign with my good self, has decided to put it online so you too can read it by clicking just here. In closing, I'd like to thank Chris Sheehy for providing us with access to the TCM Executive Summary.

If anyone would like to provide me with a copy of the full TCM Group Report you can email it to me at vagrantsintheworkhouse@gmail.com

NOTES and REFERENCES

* For the avoidance of doubt it's not really hypothetical case but a real one.
(1) University of Salford  Disciplinary Procedure, Revision Date, 12 May 2008

(2)University of Salford Code of Practice for Dealing with Harassment and Bullying (ref: Harassment and BullyingcodeofPractice/29.01.04

Related articles

• Employment tribunal reforms will further erode workers' rights (leftfootforward.org)

The sham nature of a disciplinary hearing

It's self-evident that he has the potential to produce satirical writings and annoy those
in positions of power... therefore with reference to the laws of Soderic, his
facial hair can never be permitted to freely associate on our grounds

As readers may be aware, last week saw the first two days of the eagerly awaited Employment Tribunal into this writer's claim for unfair dismissal. Given the body of documentary evidence submitted, it has now been adjourned for a three day hearing beginning 15th August 2011. Two University of Salford witnesses - Mr Philip Hopwood and Mr Simon Attwell - gave evidence and some very interesting issues emerged which will be forensically examined over the coming weeks. Firstly a brief chronology might assist us in our deliberations.

The ology of Chronos

April 29 2009 - GPD elected branch secretary UCU Salford

May 18 2009 - GPD suspended as part-time lecturer

May 23 2009 - First disciplinary investigation

June 10 2009 - Second disciplinary investigation

August 4 2009 - Disciplinary Hearing

August 6 2009 - GPD summarily dismissed

A cursory glance at the timeline might suggest that all is above board. Yet one or two anomalies emerged in the course of Mr Hopwood's testimony that proved... well intriguing to say the least. A little background might serve to enlighten.

All above board

In January 2011, as I've mentioned before, I was in receipt of a large number of documents which were provided under a Subject Access Request (DPA 1998) procured in mid November 2010. One among many caught my attention. It was a simple document that contained two press statements prepared by the University prior to last September's postponed Employment Tribunal. It went under the heading 'Gary Duke tribunal standby statements':

To be used if the case goes in the University's favour:"The University is satisfied with the result of the tribunal and would now like to focus on the future and, as always, to delivering excellent service to our staff, students and partners."

ln the event that the University loses:"The University is disappointed with the result of the tribunal and plans to fully consider the verdict before taking a view on how to proceed."

This is of course good practice. It demonstrates that the UoS and senior managers are even-handed, judicious and prudent doesn't it? Mr Hopwood in giving evidence concurred. For those who remember, my suspension and sacking was quite high profile both locally and nationally for a variety of reasons all of which I'll be delving into over the coming weeks. I have my own views on the legitimacy of my disciplinary hearing. I've always maintained that its outcome was a foregone conclusion. But you'd expect me to say that wouldn't you?

Nevertheless, it's one of the principal reasons for taking this to an employment tribunal. Yet despite my ongoing scepticism, Mr Hopwood assured the Tribunal that proceedings were fair and that no one could know the outcome of the hearing prior to the panel's decision being announced. I breathed a sigh of relief increasingly happy in the knowledge that the decision of the disciplinary panel could only have been arrived at during and after proper process, careful deliberation and proper consideration of all the evidence and any other substantive factors. As if to affirm this perspective, Mr Hopwood stated that they were under "no pressure to come to a decision". According to Mr Hopwood, it took the panel around two hours (2 hours) to ruminate, deliberate and adjudicate. ACAS has a considered view on this:

Adjournment before decision 52: Adjourn before a decision is taken about whether a disciplinary penalty is appropriate. This allows time for reflection and proper consideration. It also allows for any further checking of any matters raised, particularly if there is any dispute over facts.(1)

Despite severe arse-burn, his Petard has been successfully hoisted

Timeline -v- Timescale

Mr Hopwood was also very clear when he stated that there was a "timeline not a timetable"for progressing the hearing and the decision making process. Again all good and proper. However, a piece of documentary evidence was brought to the attention of the Tribunal which cast considerable doubt over the veracity of Mr Hopwood's assurances. The piece of evidence was an email.

Dear Martin...

This origin of this email was a freelance public relations chap known as Edward Rowan. He was brought in by the University to deal with press issues around the time of my suspension and dismissal. It was sent to Vice Chancellor Martin Hall dated 31st July 2009. Under 'Subject' it said 'Email as discussed - OFF THE RECORD' and it went something exactly like this:

Martin

The email exchange below is for information. I've copied it to Adrian and Keith Watkinson.

The current timeline for next week, agreed with Keith, is that the Disciplinary Hearing will be held Tuesday 4 Aug, their decision will be announced face-to-face, in person on Thursday 6 Aug in the afternoon. I will then immediately brief my media contacts off the record. We will then distribute the news release to all media.

I have produced a draft news release (attached) which is now with Keith for his consideration and submission to the University's legal advisor.(2)

I plan to meet with Catherine Cairncross on Monday to finalise arrangements with the University Press Office

Regards Ed.

If you float you're up the road, if you drown we'll renew your contract!

A job thoroughly well done

Ordinarily, this email might not normally draw a second glance. But on closer inspection provocative questions begin to spring forth like militant Siphonaptera in a state-owned flea circus run by the tyrannical Colonel Gadfly. Readers might wish to reflect on the date. Like me, many of you might be asking how Mr Rowan, Vice Chancellor Hall and the Registrar Dr Adrian Graves could know precisely four days before the Disciplinary Hearing what the outcome was going to be? How could they know four days before that the decision would be reached and transmitted to me on the 6th August? And indeed it was. How could they know that I was going to be dismissed?

Oddly Mr Rowan hadn't prepared two statements in case any decision went my way. Why? It's not beyond the realms of fantasy in fair proceedings that one might have received a good telling off, a metaphorical slap on the back of the hands from the Disciplinary Panel with an accompanying final written warning.

It seems that neither Hall nor Graves, the two most senior officers within the University, had asked for Rowan to prepare a second press release. Shouldn't Watkinson as head of HR have flagged this up given his training? Rowan did send it to him after all for his "consideration". Didn't the University's legal advisors who must specialise in Employment Law, suggest to Watkinson and Rowan that they knock together a second press release just to be on the safe side?

I've given the University every opportunity to provide all documentation under two Subject Access Requests including the missing second statement and countless letters to Matthew Stephenson and the University lawyers reminding them of their obligations under the law. Indeed Vice Chancellor Hall wrote to me personally a few days before the ET and assured me that the University had now supplied me with all the documentation I was entitled to under the Data Protection Act. So I now have everything according to Hall! Oh... and before you ask, he didn't send any second press release.

Oh the specificity of it all...

I've read and re-read Mr Rowan's carefully drafted email to Hall... 'I have produced a draft news release...' Yes it's clear. He means there's only one. But as the Tribunal heard there is a very good reason for this and it was a simple but instructive point made by Mr Longley who is representing my good self. The reason why the University prepared two statements for the Employment Tribunal and only one for the Disciplinary Hearing was that they can exert no direct control over the decision of the Employment Tribunal. It is a different matter when it comes to their own disciplinary processes and disciplinary actions.

Below is the draft press release. It seems that Mr Rowan couldn't even get my age right nor the allegations made against me by the University not that I mind having a few years knocked off my age!

NOTES and REFERENCES

(1) Discipline and grievances at work: The Acas guide, sourced at http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=981ap=0

(2) DRAFT NEWS RELEASE - STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL PART-TIME LECTURER DISMISSED 

It is University policy not to comment on disciplinary matters concerning its staff but given these matters have already been reported in the press as a consequence of the actions of others it is incumbent upon us to comment to your enquiry. A part-time lecturer at the University of Salford has been dismissed from his post after admitting that he was the author of several newsletters defaming a number of his colleagues.

He is 38 years old Gary Duke and his dismissal followed a disciplinary hearing at which he acknowledged that he had anonymously published a series of newsletters containing malicious and personally damaging defamatory racist and sexist (not included in the disciplinary & subject to grievance so not sure we should use these words)remarks concerning fellow colleagues.

The disciplinary panel heard that the female lecturer who was the target of Mr Duke's remarks is extremely distressed by his comments.

A spokesperson for the University said "Mr Duke has been dismissed from the University's employment owing to alleagtions that amount to gross misconduct."

-ENDS-