"Horse whipping cart... cart pushing man...

'Project Focus'

I like the Dutch band Focus. Their 1971 album Focus II is a bit of a classic. As I yodelled my way through  'Sylvia' off their eponymous third opus, I pondered over the most recent nom de possible sackings as reported in the Manchester Evening News and the Times Higher, I made a corporate decision. As the contents of the document are in the public domain, I concurred with me that it's most definitely in the public interest that a chap publishes this document in its entirety. Staff, students and the public have a right to know.

Oh dear...

Project Axeroom?

UCU regional official Martyn Moss is quoted as saying that:

“The University of Salford already has the unenviable tag as Britain’s most prolific university for axing staff...  This damaging memo paints the university in a callous and uncaring light. It appears to have no regard for either its hardworking [sic] staff or students making potentially the biggest decisions of their lives. We are really disappointed the university has ignored the unions and pursued such a damaging approach.”

Tu t'es fait virer, toi? 

The article in the Times Higher goes on to quote a section of the document:

"Under a heading of risk, the document says of the unions: “Strike action a high possibility. Will certainly fan the flames via the media.”

The question has to be asked, is the above a realistic appraisal? Is strike action up there in the gods in the list of possibilities? Let's consider the evidence. The THE reports that this is the TWELFTH round of job cuts in eighteen months. Now according to my GCSE in maths and some corner-of-penis calculations, the Salford branch of the UCU has engaged in ONE day of strike action in response to this local 'jobs slaughter' over the last EIGHTEEN months. It's an encouraging start. I decided to develop my mathematical skill set further. Could the the prospect of Ms Sheehy leading 'the troops' over the barricades be easily increased by a ratio of 2:1 thereby inversely raising the disproportionately of lacklustre strike action from 0.055 (1/18) of a day of strike action for a single month to the almost unheard of heights of 0.111(2/18) to two days in eighteen months? Moreover, did my calculations and the threat of another SINGULAR day of strike action have the potential to imbue across seignorial gussets the human equivalent of 'dog bottom' or at least 'leafy Autumn camouflage'? I wasn't sure.

Will Hall's Saxon shield wall
hold or will he resign?

The cloth according to cutly

The previous Graves-Hall strategy of improving the student experience by spending vast sums on new prestigious buildings is clearly not having the desired outcome. Having been a student and knocked around with many thousands of them at Salford in the past, as well as having taught a good few, when asked what they want, the standard reply was smaller lecture groups, smaller tuition groups, investment in better libraries including more staff and more books. They'd also make the outrageous demand for more one-on-one time between tutors and students. I don't recall a single student ever saying to me "Duke you hair-faced buffoon, we clearly need more quality one-on-one time with consultants, a fully stocked wet room for senior managers, and regular refits of the Ole Fire station with concomitant chauffeur-driven cars." It's not rocket science.

We do have victories sometimes you know?

Sometimes it appears that your employer has all the cards stacked in his favour. When a group of workers face bullying and the threat of redundancies as well as having the Angel of D'eath pass regularly over their thresholds, it can be rather demoralising. It can readily imbue within a group of workers the idea that their bosses are hegemonic and that they'll always win. I mused for the moment on the manner in which I had without any support whatsoever from my own union, fought back over three long years against Hall, Graves* and the Chair of University Council Alan Mawson. Between them, according to a report in the Manchester Evening News, they decided to bypass the University Council and launch an expensive libel action using University money, 'something the institution now accepts was wrong'. It was expensive, costing somewhere in the region of £150,000 to stifle criticism of er... Hall and Graves. The strategy of filling lawyers mouths with gold (caution libel lawyers it's meant to be an euphemism) and choosing the terrain of England's libel courts to mount their attack disastrously backfired. Their ill-conceived and ill-advised case was thrown out at a preliminary stage by possibly the most eminent libel judge in the country. They had no case. In short I won.

The thinking chap

But the above got me to thinking, which as regular readers of this blog will know is nearly always a bad thing. Firstly, will Hall, Graves and Mawson now reimburse the money they spent on their libel claim to the University prior to announcing further job cuts?  And lastly, if I could beat them, surely a well-funded union branch at Salford could rally its members to give Hall et al another bloody nose? They could firstly refuse to negotiate about any matter to do with jobs or anything else with Executive Head of HR Keith Watkinson. They could do this because he admitted that he made up allegations that I had sexually harassed and criminally stalked a female member of staff, to gain access to my work computer, emails and file store in 2009. He admitted he did this on oath in my employment tribunal in 2011. It's not the sort of behaviour we should expect from someone negotiating over peoples' jobs and futures. The President of the UCU has had this information for some time yet has, as far as I'm aware, not acted upon it. Apart from a disciplinary investigation to be initiated by Hall against Watkinson over this serious matter, I still await a full apology from Martin Hall for Watkinson's libel against me and the stress it caused my family and myself. Hall should do the honourable thing. He should resign.

Apologise for  alleging you're a sexual harasser and criminal
stalker and therefore damaging your reputation?
Never you vile cur!

A glimmer of hope?

Feeling optimistic, I read the invitation to UCU members to attend the 'Protect the Front Line' meeting scheduled for 8th May 2013 at 12:45. Yes, the email appeared steep'd in the heady aplomb more usually associated with a car factory in the West Midlands in the 1970s. It reeked of confidence. Even the most demure statistical obscurantist with a penchant for underestimation would feel the need to lay out at least £12.99 on a bottle of Aldi's bubble-imbued finest as the UCU begin at last their long campaign to roll back the "damaging approach" of the University.

What did it for me was the heavy irony that permeated the final sentence: 'A light lunch will be provided'. I breathed a sigh of relief, content that my union and jobs of many former colleagues were in safe hands.

Notes and Resources

* Where is Dr Graves now? If any person wishes to further a cause and provide any evidence as to the whereabouts and details surrounding Dr Graves continuing lack of presence at the University of Salford, please feel free to send to the email address below. As usual, all sources of information (names) will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Author's request: If Martin Hall would like to supply this author with his revised Strategic Vision or Strategic Plan, we'd be happy to explore it over the coming weeks in the lead up to the 'controversial announcement' on June 5th. 

Author's second request: If Martin Hall would like to supply an apology for the actions and defamatory allegations made by Keith Watkinson, I'd be more than happy to publish such apology on this blog!

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

The Lido Shuffle revisited

It was with some unbounded glee that I read THE article in Wednesday's Manchester Evening News. And it got me to a thinking, which regular readers of this blog will know is nearly always a bad thing. First thing first. Some might be surprised to learn that Hall and 'Five Lane' Graves have decided to seek permission to appeal the decision of the Honourable Mr Justice Eady in the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Eady is probably the most distinguished and eminent senior libel judge in England. I have submitted my rebuttal.

Reputational damage?

The libel claim launched by the dynamic duo was premised upon protecting the reputation of the University which Hall and Graves alleged I had damaged through my online scribblings. Mr Justice Eady was quite clear and agreed with me that the libel claim as laid out by Ian Austin acting for the University, demonstrated no tort against the University. Readers may recall that Mr Austin sat on the University governing body and chaired their Audit Committee at the launching of the proceedings in the High Court. From the perspective of the University, this was a real shame because quite a considerable sum of University money was spent on legal fees for a case that was thrown out be a senior High Court judge AT A PRELIMINARY STAGE! Who, I wondered, would be footing the bill for this appeal: Hall and 'Five Lane'? Or would it be the University? Maybe the Salford UCU President Chris Sheehy would like to follow this one up with Vice Chancellor Hall in light of the recent attacks on staff redundancy payments and pay protection rights?

Information is a wonderful thing

On to the meatus of the matter. As luck would have it, they've just released information showing the costs so far of their High Court reputation protecting spendings. They currently stand at around £150,000 including VAT. Yes £150,000 spent to be cast out of the courts AT A PRELIMINARY STAGE! It appears that the vast bulk of this money was paid to legal firms for whom Mr Austin was working. Indeed a rather sizeable sum was paid to Heatons LLP. Mr Austin is currently a partner for this firm. Readers might also note that as evidenced by Heatons' website, at the date of publication of this article Mr Austin is still advertised as being the Chair of the Audit Committee at Salford and on the University governing body. According to the University's website,  he isn't.

Who worked for Halliwells LLP, HBJ Gately Wareing
(Manchester) LLP and Heatons LLP? Answers
on a postcard please

What price the reputation now?

I posed a question to myself. And I liked the answer. I re-read the report in the paper. It's alleged that a similar incident happened prior to this most recent altercation. It was serious enough for the police to be involved. I then mulled over what is alleged to have occurred between Graves and A.N.Other in the vicinity of the University swimming pool, adjacent to the water within the deep and heady miasma of the chlorine. I then drew a link between the spending of somewhere in the region of £150,000 and the recent removal of Graves from University grounds and the concomitant investigation against this less-than-lacklustre-libel-launcher. I then  factored in the most recent 'a seeking of permission to appeal the decision of Eady J' to the Court of Appeal by Hall and Graves in order to continue to protect the reputation of the University. Finally, I cross-referenced all of this against the report in the Manchester Evening News. This I managed to achieve with simple tools: an old buff-ended Crayola crayon covered in deep settee fluff, my eyes and a wizened Rizla. I fed this raw data into the REPUTOMETER. What sort of results would manifest themselves I wondered? I was worried. I didn't hang around to find out.

Maybe I should start my letter to Professor Hall 'what price the University's reputation now?'

Notes and Resources 

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

Jacques le tueur de géants

Ye odde looking antipode... get ye back to feck!

I'm not one for an over-reliance on biblical euphemia...*  I'll admit, I've toyed with references to the former Chas Hes on the odd occasion but I don't recall majoring on the oft used David and Goliath analogy. I do, however, hold a long-standing passion for ancient myths particularly Greek mythology. I also have a soft spot for the Philistines. I was drawn firstly to their be-feathered headdress. As the origin of these peoples is steeped in mystery, this allowed me to develop what some might describe as a rather romantic notion of a multi-cultured group of seafarers - the Sea Peoples - brazenly alighting on the shores of what is today is known as the Gaza Strip.

Rum

The Philistines got a rather rummy deal from the authors of 'The Good Book': from the Health and Safety eschewing Samson through to the 200 Philistines' foreskin-smiting David. As a consequence, the word 'Philistine' became synonymous with dullardry and uncultured lumpenism, both higher odour concepts. And such is one's inclination for the historical underdog, a chap has more than a deal of respect for their heirs, the courageous and unbowed Palestinian people. But as always, and before I crow about my own victory in the higher courts of this land, I hazard reflective caution: it would be utterly disingenuous and decency-lacking to try and compare my paltry three year long battle in the libel courts against Graves and Vice Chancellor Martin Hall, with the nearly seventy year struggle for justice of the Palestinians, against the armed-to-the-teeth vicious attack dog of the US, the Israeli state.**

What an emminent libel Judge said...

To business. There is much in the Honourable Mr Justice Eady's decision that in my opinion raise highly pertinent questions. A chap of some park-bench-stench would encourage you to read the fullness of the Honourable Mr Justice Eady's judgement . Let's start with the basics. Hall and Graves' claim was "an abuse of the court's process." Mr Justice Eady states:

"I regard it as wholly unreal, and indeed an abuse of the court’s process, for these proceedings to continue on the basis that the only claimant is the University when the conduct to be examined in any plea of justification or fair comment would be that of Dr Graves and Professor Hall."(Para 11)

and...

"It is in the light of this pleading that I have come to my conclusion that, in substance and reality, this is an action about allegations against individuals rather than against the University itself... I am not convinced that there is a “real and substantial tort”, so far as the University is concerned, or that the proceedings should be allowed to continue purely for the purpose of the University’s obtaining an injunction to stifle criticism of Dr Graves and Professor Hall (for that is what it is about)."(Para 23)

Mr Justice Eady is clear: "this is an action about allegations against individuals rather than the University itself" and the instigators of this action are Vice Chancellor Martin Hall and the Chief Operating Officer, his subordinate, one Dr Adrian Graves. It is they who have sought an injunction, according to Mr Justice Eady, in order to stifle criticism of themselves.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

Hall and Oates

Hall and Graves as senior managers of a publicly funded University are 'entrusted with funds, both public and private'. They subscribe to the Nolan Committee's 'Seven Principles of Public Life'. I know this to be the case because its emblazoned on their Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Senior Officers. The Nolan Committee classes Higher Education institutions as 'public bodies'. The preamble to the Seven principles of Public Life (SPoPL) state:

"The principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the civil service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, NDPBs, and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also have application to all those in other sectors delivering public services."

Any reasonable person would conclude that that Hall and Graves are public office-holders because they are appointed to work in... well higher education. One of the Seven Pillars of Public Life is 'Selflessness': "Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest...". Have Hall and Graves acted in the public interest in pursuing this libel claim in the name of the University of Salford? I submitted to the Court of Appeal that there was no public interest in allowing this claim to proceed. The claim showed no nexus between the reputations of Hall and Graves and the reputation of the University. I further submitted that it should therefore be struck down by the Court. It is clear from Mr Justice Eady's judgement that he was in agreement.

Openness... the antithesis of shuttedness?

'Openness' is also a key principle of the SPoPL. It states: "Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner."

Graves (above) with Hall wanted an injunction against this
blog to stifle criticism of ... er Graves and Hall according 
to a top libel Judge. It's not known if he was
still smiling after the Court's decision

Many people reading this blog will be wondering why the two did not initiate an action in their own names and therefore fund it themselves? Others might be asking, who advised them to initiate the action in the name of the University of Salford? In my oral submissions to the Court, I made it clear that a claim in the University's name would serve to indemnify Hall and Graves from a potential costs liability, and act to protect them from negative publicity if the libel claim failed. But there are further compelling questions.

Questions... questions... questions...

In 2009 and again in 2010-2011, I made two separate Subject Access Request to the University for all information concerning me, held by the University. I have not received any documentation that suggests that the launching of the libel action against myself, was discussed officially at any University Council meeting. Indeed, I've asked on this website for such a record, minute or note of any such meeting to be supplied to me. None has been provided to me by either Hall, Graves or any other senior manager or employee of the University. Nor can I find any record of it in the minutes published online.

In order to ensure that'[h]olders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner'?, did the two people central to the launching of this libel claim, Professor Hall and Dr Graves, and former University Council member Ian Austin who acted in his legal capacity for the University***, ensure that the serving of Letters of Claim on me in March 2010 and the launching of this libel claim in the name of the University in 2011, were discussed and debated fully by the University governing body, the University Council? If so, can they point this particular libel claim diminisher to the minutes of just such University Council meetings and/or the full record of such discussions and decisions taken by the University Council in agreeing to the launching of the libel claim?

More importantly, given the sheer cost of this failed claim, prior to launching the claim did Hall and/or Graves, or any member of University Council inform the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE)?  It is after all a rather large sum of money. Neither Hall, Graves or indeed Mr Austin have ever denied that the University have funded this claim.

What is to be done?

So what has Professor Hall's and Graves' libel claim cost? It's certainly been an expensive adventure costing in the many tens of thousands of pounds, quite possibly exceeding £100,000. In the spirit of the Seven Principles of Public Life, ie 'Openness' and 'transparency' may I suggest someone immediately makes a Freedom of Information request for the exact figure? Even better, maybe Professor Hall or Dr Graves could make public the full costs to date of their failed libel claim?

Hall and Graves have made much since 2009 onwards about the need to cut staff and staff costs because of the cuts in funding of around £3.5 million. According to reports, Hall was reported as trying to justify the cuts saying that '58% of the University income is spent on funding staff'. In light of the huge sums spent by Hall and Graves on this failed libel claim, this must surely ring a little hollow to those staff who've recently lost their jobs?

A clarion call for at least two official investigations

I am of the opinion, in light of Mr Justice Eady's verdict, that given this huge waste of University funds, there should be an immediate inquiry into who exactly made the decision to allow University funds to be used to launch this libel claim. I will be writing to HEFCE asking as a matter of urgency, that it initiate its own investigation into this use of University funds in this way. I will also be writing to the Minister of State for Universities and Science, David Willetts, asking that he initiate a full investigation into this matter.

The failure of this misguided libel claim is in my opinion such a serious issue, that it must merit the immediate resignations of Vice Chancellor Martin Hall and Deputy Vice Chancellor Adrian Graves.

Notes and Resources

* Quite possibly the plural for euphemism and/or Euphonium
** Worth laying another myth to bed: yes I'm afraid, having a rather critical view of Israel and Zionism doesn't automatically make one an anti-semite as some would have us believe.
*** The Court heard how Mr Austin's tenure as a University Council member ended in June 2012

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). 

 The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. 

Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

An appeal, Mr Justice Eady and the obvious benefits of Betamax over VHS

Just to prove that a certain chap of some facial discomfiture has not been making this up for the last (nearly) three years,  the die has inexorably been cast. At 10:30 am on Monday 28th January 2013, in Court 13 in the Court of Appeal itself within the Royal Courts of Justice, a whisker-sodden sc'undrel's appeal is being heard before the esteemed Mr Justice Eady. 

Is there a public interest?

The overriding argument behind this appeal is to invite the Court to decide that there is no public interest in allowing a public authority such as a state funded university to sue in defamation, in this case libel. Readers may recall the Derbyshire Principle. Should a public authority be able to sue for libel? I've argued in court that it's a tad hostile to something known in the freedoms trade as 'freedom of expression'. How much? Well get your foot rules out and measure this: the Rat Catchers of the Sewers website has been unavailable to the public because of this claim since April/May 2010. Nope... no injunction has been served on this tweed-wearer so far. It's been achieved through a simple mechanism known among the libel fraternity as the 'chilling effect'. It's rather effective. Let's look at a hypothetical ramification if a university as a public authority is allowed to sue in defamation.

Hypothetical Ramification #5 - it's not on the White Album

You are an employee of a public authority. This public authority has itself published surveys that show senior managers are responsible for significant levels of staff bullying and what a reasonable person might describe as extraordinary levels of harassment. You're a rep in your trade union and decide to speak out about your own experiences and the experiences of members of your union. You decide to raise them at a forthcoming lunchtime public union meeting. You read in the press that your employer - the public authority - has decided to sue one of your members for libel. You shiver.

A much-valued Sony Betamax in happier days,
taking in some much needed Vitamin D

Legal representation - open to everyone regardless of ability to pay

Now you're a principled person. You want to do right by your members. Yet there's a problem. You can't get Legal Aid for defending against defamation claims. So you decide to lodge your pride and joy - a 1982 technically superior Betamax video cassette recorder (with an unaligned but recently degaussed playback/record head) with your local 'Your Stuff to Cash Transformer'.  You receive an almost kingly ransom of £12.30 and wonder why staff are pissing themselves in paroxysms as you leave the 'shop'. After checking over the health of your current account through the wizardry of modern online banking techniques, you decide that as your overdraft doesn't extend to several hundreds of thousands of pounds for lining the pockets of the legal profession, you might be better served keeping your gob shut and not standing for re-election next year as union rep. It's an employer's dream strategy and it's only gone and ruddy well worked. Soon word gets round, and across the country the fear sets in. Everyone's terrified that there might be a management stooge in their union meetings with a concealed digital voice recorder. Collectively they shudder at the thought of that Pre-Action Protocol dropping through their letter boxes.

Back to the events of tomorrow

Deputy Vice Chancellor Graves and Professor Hall have for this appeal, decided to secure the services of  Counsel in the shape of one Mr Justin Rushbrooke. I'm told he's very good indeed. I wonder how much his services are costing? It's likely that former Chair of Audit for Salford University governing council Ian Austin will be there in his legal capacity representing the University. I wonder how much his services have cost so far throughout this whole process?

I as usual, will be representing myself.

Notes and Resources

Before considering taking legal action in the form of a libel claim, all the above has been asserted in open court, so there!

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). 

 The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

Style over Substance

I'm a third cousin twice removed of a chap called 'mouth aghast'. I'm rarely lost for words. But I received an email a couple of weeks back which caused a degree of slack-jawedness not seen since the release of Deliverance in 1972. For those new to this blog, this matter centres on the case of one Dr Gary Paul Duke who is the recipient of a libel claim which is being pursued by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Salford Professor Martin Hall and his subordinate Registrar Graves under the name of the University of Salford.

Regular readers will know that like an unshuttered silicone-based visual extramural augmenter in a strongish New York wind, I've rattled on to some fine tune about the University of Salford's Particulars of Claim. It's a pressing concern premised on a series of fundamentary* issues. One in particular hopped of the page, assaulting a chap's common senses.

The rudimental

Now I'm sure I've raised this on more than one occasion both in this blog and in the libel courts. I've been assured that it's customary practice in libel claims, that the exact words alleged to be defamatory of a claimant, to the very last full stop, be included in the Particulars of Claim. There's a very good reason for this. The words as well as being the 'meat' of the alleged tort (the libel), are of course the basis for the defendant's defence. They are the facts in the matter. On page 652 of the ninth edition of Gatley on Libel and Slander, it states:

"Where the words used are the material facts and must therefore be set out verbatim in the statement of claim, preferably in the form of a quotation: it is not enough to describe their substance, purport or effect. The law requires the very words of the libel to be set out in the declaration in order that the court may judge whether they constitute a ground of action...He must in his pleading set out the word with reasonable certainty... The court will require him to give particulars so as to ensure that he has a proper case to put before the court and is not merely fishing for one."

The O.C.D.. of law

The above quote suggests that this chap the law is a rather pedantic fellow. When he says '[t]he law requires...' it sort of means... well... it's required BY LAW. Now I'm many things. But being 'unthorough' in such matters is rarely one of them. I've been likened to our old friend Naucrates ductor on more than one occasion. Like my coral-dwelling compatriot monsieur cheval marin, once I've got the bit between my teeth, I tend not to let go.

Ductor Naucrates PhD

I've fairly asked on more than one occasion, that the University reparticularise their claim. It's a decent enough request. You see I need to be able to answer to the allegations against me. And I know one shouldn't begin a sentence with 'and', but in order to do this I need to produce a fullish defence. So logically I need all the words relied upon, not a reference to an annex that includes thousands of words (including thousands of words not alleged to be defamatory) culled from the deeply investigative Rat Catcher of the Sewers blog, which it seems have been pegged onto these Particulars.**

An lawyer

The Reasonable Man

I'm always interested in what a reasonable person might think. If this person were prone to slipping into the odd metaphor or two, he might think that so full of holes are these particulars of claim, that if they were a square of tissue de toilette, that he'd likely gain an excess of rect-O-fauna over his freshly starched cuffs. Oh Lord! how I've endeavoured to make it reasonably clear to the lawyer acting for Vice Chancellor Hall and his underling Graves (who when acting in their professional capacities it is claimed are therefore the University of Salford), that the Particulars of Claim that carry the esteemed Hall's signature are far from complete. I worry about them - the Particulars that is. After all, this is going to be heard in the  Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is a tad 'big time'.

Few would accuse me of shying away from sharing an opinion. And my opinion is that if I'd produced them, I'd be fearful that a legion of pre-Reformation paid jovials, hired for the occasion, would snigger at them from a quiet corner of  the public gallery in the Queen's Bench. And this would in all likelihood detract from my piss-poor attempt at a deeply serious courtroom 'vox magister'.***

Skeletons and closets

At the last hearing in front of senior judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Bean, the matter of the University's statement of case came up.  Mr Justice Bean asked the University to provide a Skeleton argument to address the matter of why all or part of the University's claim should not be 'struck out on the principle established in Jameel v Dow Jones(1) or any other reason.' Christmas presents rarely come early. Particularly the one's you want. I particularly liked the '..or any other reason' bit.

From the fusty top shelf of my overstuffed personal credit-card funded libel closet, in my eagerness did I crouch daily-nightly. I awaited the imminent arrival of the University's response, often with only an ill-adjusted distended left knacker for companion. It wasn't much in the way of company. The copper telephonic wires that spanned several greasy, vomit-ridden ginnels (which I'm told by Sylvia with the prolapse, also doubles on occasion as a unitary bird-shitter), for weeks thrummed with semi-diabolical theoratum. It was as if someone had shifted the Kennedy conspiracy into reverse: where the fatal bullet had instead emanated from an arsey troll. Yes I, and a cohort of unreconstructed specialist well-wishers sought to second guess the precise character of the devastating riposte that would any day be winging its way to my letterbox. Why devastating? Well the initiators of this claim lodged in the name of the University of Salford - Hall and Graves - have after all secured the services of a lawyer of some distinction. Yes, I refer to Ian Austin. They also have counsel. Inwardly, I thought 'it's bound to be good'.

A bit deflated

As a rule, unlike my bowels, my hysteria is rarely unregulated. Unlike my local family practitioner, I've not yet been able to establish a convincing link to the infrequent yet annoying pangs of gout, the odd twinge in an otherwise over active urinary tract, the recent additions to my right palm, and a hellish reliance on high-octane 'purple juice'. Some have suggested removing my mobile phone from my front 'Hampton-holder'. It does get a bit warm. But as those who've experienced exceptions to the rule will know, there are always exceptions. And one such candidate appeared via my email inbox on the 19th October 2012 courtesy of lawyer Austin's office. It was the billy-bones of a skelington argument. It was quite long. The bit that raised a smile came right at the end in paragraph 20. It was very short, consisting of a mere few lines. It dealt with my concerns regarding the POC. Well actually it didn't.

An example of styli over substance?

I firstly considered scaling it but couldn't decide on whether to place 'serious' at one end and 'shite-ing thy pantalons with Chaucerian laughter' at the other. What could be construed as 'obvious' to the serious internal-framework-contestation****  reader was that it contained the word 'averred' twice. It suggested that the lack of full particularisation in the Particulars of Claim (or pleaded case) was simply a matter of 'style over substance' and that the lack of fullness in the pleaded case was necessary because to reproduce the entirety of the blog would be cumbrous. It is, in my opinion, a novel approach to libel law.

An unreasonable man?

Was I being unreasonable I wondered? Yet, the potential got me to thinking which as regular readers of this blog will know, is nearly always a bad thing. Clearly I hadn't asked for those parts of the blog alleged to be defamatory of Hall and Graves and therefore the University, to be reproduced using the finest traditional Assyrian styli laid out precisely in pre-Akkadian cuneiform. Nor was I expecting it to be presented to me through the tried and tested format of a children's pull-out book?  Given that style was trumping substance, I wondered if it was legally possible to get measured like an half decent whistle, for a half decent defence? 

Almost immediately I rejected this a silly. Instead I decided to write to the Honourable Judge Bean asking that the Court grant two witness orders so that the initiators of this libel claim - Hall and Graves - appear at the Court of Appeal hearing so that they may speak to the Particulars of Claim and witness statements that bear their names.

I'd like to hear it from the horses mouths so to speak.

Notes and References

* Hideously concocted by the author merely for effect.
** This blog is currently password protected and not accessible to the public because of  the 'chilling effect' imbued by the University's libel claim. In effect, a public authority (as established in the Freedom of Information Act 2000) I have asserted in the High Court, has interfered with my Convention rights (Article 10 European Convention on Human Right to enjoy freedom of expression without interference from a public authority). Oh dear...
*** 'Teacher's voice'
**** skelington argument

(1)Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel [2005] EWCA Civ 75 (03 February 2005, Para 57) hinges on the question of proportionality as enshrined in the Overriding Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.
(2) Higher Education Funding Council of England

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). 

 The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

The Locus Eaters

Ebb and flow

An allegedly libellous chap entered court number 45, floor ten of the Manchester Civil Justice Centre on Friday 5th October 2012 a little before midday, expecting little and exited quite excited. The inauguration of this excitement began when senior judge Mr Justice Bean suggested that the statements pleaded by the University (Statement of Case or Particulars of Claim) have Jameel written all over them. A concise interpretation of what is referred to as a 'Jameel abuse' can be garnered here. It was suggested by Mr Justice Bean that there is some discussion to be had as to whether all or part of the University's claim should be struck out on the basis of a Jameel abuse or for other reasons. In this chap's opinion there are many reasons for striking this claim out such as:

• That the statement of case, specifically the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant (them) to the defendant (me), disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and is an abuse of process,
• The claimant's claim has no reasonable prospect of success,
• The claimant's claim is an abuse of the Court's process and that the claimant is using that process for a purpose that is in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use,

The interesting matter of a chap called Locus Standi

The hearing became even more interesting when the judge raised the matter of whether the University could sue in libel (locus standi). As readers of this blog will know, I have up to this point, consistently raised this matter with the courts, it has to be said, to no avail. There are two conjoined strands to this argument. The first goes something like this: as the University is a public authority, it is by way of an important legal precedent, precluded from suing in defamation. This precedent is known as the 'Derbyshire Principle'. 

The University of Salford like most other British universities, is a Higher Education Corporation created by statute specifically to carry out a public function. Like grant-maintained schools, local authorities, the former National Coal Board, and the much lauded former British Rail, the Olympic Delivery Authority, the National Assembly for Wales, Channel Four Television amongst a host of others, the University of Salford is classed as a 'core' public authority. District Judge Richmond and the University have a contrasting view of the University's legal status - that it exists in the wider commercial world and therefore is not like a local authority. Clearly Mr Justice Bean has adopted a more pragmatic view of the University's legal status which in all likelihood corresponds to that given by Lord Keith in a landmark ruling:

"It is of some significance to observe that a number of departments of central government in the United Kingdom are statutorily created corporations, including the Secretaries of State for Defence, Education and Science, Energy, Environment and Social Services. If a local authority can sue for libel there would appear to be no reason in logic for holding that any of these departments (apart from two which are made corporations only for the purpose of holding land) was not also entitled to sue. But as is shown by the decision in Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2) [1990] 1A.C. 109, a case concerned with confidentiality, there are rights available to private citizens which institutions of central government are not in a position to exercise unless they can show that it is the public interest to do so. The same applies, in my opinion, to local authorities. In both cases I regard it as right for this House to lay down that not only is there no public interest favouring the right of organs of government, whether central or local, to sue for libel, but that it is contrary to the public interest that they should have it. It is contrary to the public interest because to admit such actions would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech. [Derbyshire County Council v The Times Newspapers and Others, [1993] AC 534, [1992] UKHL 6]"

I'm no fan of common sense. I prefer to see Mr Justice Bean's assessment of the University's legal status as corresponding to 'good sense'. After all, if the head teacher and governors at a grant-maintained school are classed as a 'core' public authority, and cannot sue in libel, where then does that leave the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor and the governing body the University Council (including its members)? It's worth mentioning here that the Derbyshire ruling was a House of Lords decision - IN 1993! It may seem a bit pernickity to point out something called 'chronology' but the legal authority cited by the University's barrister Mr Simon Vaughan, entered to buttress the claim that the University can sue in libel (Hong Kong Polytechnic v Next Magazine Publishing Ltd [1977] HKLRD 514 HKCA) has the date 1977 affix't. 

Martin Hall: Has he invested tens of thousands of pounds
of University money on a fundamentally 
flawed libel action?

Freedom of speech - a human right?

I'm sure Martin Hall would agree with me that freedom to criticise is a key component of democracy. It does after all underpin our university system. How ironic then that it is an esteemed Vice Chancellor and his subordinate that are pursuing a course of action which is intrinsically hostile to this concept. Without wishing to be labelled 'a churl', it might also be worth mentioning another powerful piece of legislation which came into force IN 1998 one referred to in the judicial trade as the Human Rights Act. There is another known colloquially as the European Convention on Human Rights. Oddly enough, both have something to say on the subject of the right of a 'public authority' to interfere with an individual's Convention rights. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is quite straight forward:

“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”

Simple causation

It's clear that Hall and Graves' libel action raises all manner of incongruities and questions. But I'm sure they fully considered the implications of their actions when they first embarked upon this course? Tiny ripples in a pond etc... And it must be eminently clear to any member of the wider public who wishes to access the Rat Catchers of the Sewers, a website that has consistently raised matters of public interest and concern in what is after all a publicly funded university, that it is clearly no longer accessible to the public. It's effectively been 'chilled' by the issuance of Hall and Graves' libel proceedings. And let us be clear as to what Hall and Graves real intentions are with regard to this libel action. It's about securing an injunction to close down Rat Catchers of the Sewers and to close down this blog, Vagrants in the Casual Ward of a Workhouse for good. I can say this here without fear of retaliation because I've said it in open court earlier in the year. And on this matter, District Judge Richmond agreed with me.

Yet I'm sure many readers of this blog have a keen interest in establishing precisely why Martin Hall and Adrian Graves, who steer an institution that espouses and promotes enlightenment values, a core value of which is the promotion and enhancement of freedom of speech, should embark upon a course of action in the civil courts that in a rather unambiguous manner, tramples underfoot like so much night soil, my Article 10 rights to freedom of speech? I take the be-sodding of my rights rather seriously for it is a serious matter in the eyes of the highest courts... a very serious matter indeed. And rest assured, the restitution of my human right to freedom of expression will not end when these libel proceedings themselves collapse in an ignominious defeat.

Adrian Graves: before launching this libel action, 
did he and Hall run this past University Council, 
did they give them the green light and 
can I have a copy of the minute of this 
meeting and the written authorisation?

The outcome of Friday's hearing

Having taken a crash course in libel law, I am by no means versed in the subtleties of what is inferred when a senior judge calls into question a claimant's statement of case, or for that matter an institution's locus standi (legal standing or right) to sue in libel. A good friend with many years of experience in this matter put Mr Justice Bean's words into perspective: this libel claim is, in Fraserian terms "DOOMED"!

What they wanted.... what they got

They asked for 28 days to provide the court with a copy of its constitution which I take to be the Royal Charter and the accompanying statutes (I could find no evidence of a University of Salford 'consitution' via a quick Google search) and a skeleton argument as to why the University's statement of case should not be struck down either in parts or as a whole as a Jameel abuse. The judge gave them 14 (that's fourteen days) which any person with some knowledge of legal niceties should be able to interpret quite easily.

I eagerly await the skeleton argument that University of Salford's lawyer, libel supremo, Mr Ian Austin who is well versed in such matters as he specialises in commercial litigation, property litigation, contractual disputes and general commercial claims, will be placing before the court. It'll have to be based on compelling legal argument backed by one or two legal precedents that trump Derbyshire and the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Justice Bean was very clear. If they can't provide a compelling argument as to why this public authority can be viewed as an exception to the rule and can sue in libel, then this very expensive libel case will fall. In many respects, a failure on appeal might be the most humane way of ending this debacle. One wonders how this case would be viewed by a Mr Justice Tugendhat at full trial?

Mr Justice Bean has now directed this matter to the Jury Lists in London. It will be heard in front of the UK's most preeminent defamation judges. In the immortal words of Windsor Davies "oh dear, how sad... never mind"!

Notes and References

Derbyshire County Council -v- The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1993] AC 534, [1992] UKHL 6
Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones and; Co. Inc. EWCA Civ 75; [2005] QB 946; [2005] 2 WLR 1614; [2005] EMLR 353

'Public Authorities' under the Human Rights Act 1998 sourced at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6
European Convention on Human Rights sourced at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/CONVENTION_ENG_WEB.pdf

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below).

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

In defence of academic freedom

The 1988 Education Reform Act says this about academic freedom:

(2) In exercising those functions, the Commissioners shall have regard to the need— "(a) to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions;"(1)

I put forward controversial and unpopular opinions and lost my job. Surely as an academic, I was entitled to protection under this piece of statute law?  According to my skeleton arguments provided to the Employment Appeal Tribunal last week, the University's entire disciplinary process including the sanction imposed upon me (dismissal), as well as the conclusions drawn by the Employment Tribunal should have been framed by this piece of legislation. So important is it that the University have incorporated it into their Royal Charter at section 13.

A definition of academic freedom and why it exists

The level of protection afforded to academics is unique in employer-employee relations. By the way, this is not to suggest that academics are special. It's a by-product of the function universities play in society, at the forefront of cutting-edge research, analysis and as cauldrons of contentious, innovative ideas and theories. It's what drives society and technological advancement forward. The more conservative or traditionalist minded might argue that academic freedom should only offer protection to academics whilst acting and producing ideas and theories within their particular fields of knowledge. It's an interesting argument. It's also entirely mistaken.

Academic freedom as a human right - a European perspective

A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights expands upon this:

"35. In this connection, the Court underlines the importance of academic freedom, which comprises the academics' freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction (see paragraph 21 above)."(2)

I'll posit for the record the assertion that academic freedom in our public universities must be regarded as sacrosanct by academics, the trade unions who represent academics and lecturers, and wider society. It must be defended at all costs. Why? Well the ECHR elaborated on why academic freedom is vital for democratic societies:

"21. In its Recommendation 1762 (2006), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted the following declaration for the protection of academic freedom of expression:
“...
4. In accordance with the Magna Charta Universitatum, the Assembly reaffirms the right to academic freedom and university autonomy which comprises the following principles:

4.1. academic freedom in research and in training should guarantee freedom of expression and of action, freedom to disseminate information and freedom to conduct research and distribute knowledge and truth without restriction;...

4.3. history has proven that violations of academic freedom and university autonomy have always resulted in intellectual relapse, and consequently in social and economic stagnation;...”(3)

It's a debate that's raging in Canada. If as academics, we lose the right to speak out or publish freely on the way our universities are run or on important matters of public concern in our universities and other issues outside the rarefied atmosphere of academia, what might this mean for the rest of society? Societies would become stagnant. Industries moribund. If the freedom to question and speak out is lost in our universities, the corollary of this would be that our political systems would become even less accountable and increasingly opaque. Yet as we daily lose civil and political rights as the market takes over functions and services once provided by democratically elected councils and the state, the erosion and assaults on academic freedom becomes another battle line. It's intimately linked in the wider sense, to the marketisation of Higher Education and the student as a 'consumer' of knowledge and the walking piggy-bank to the HE sector. According to the mantra, managers should manage, academics should research and teach. Never the twain should meet.

July the 4th and the decision of the EAT

It's within this context that I wish to discuss the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal last Wednesday 4th July, to not permit me to raise the issue of important Article 10 convention rights to freedom of speech in particular, academic freedom of speech. It might be worth reiterating for the benefit of the judiciary and the professionals that labour within the legal system, that all law must be applied within the context of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human  Rights as established in 1950 by the then Council of Europe. Human Rights don't have to be raised, its a given that they exist.

The logic behind the EAT's refusal was that I had not fully pursued the matter of my human rights in the Employment Tribunal last year. Apparently if they are not pursued in the lower tribunal, they cannot be then raised in the higher tribunal. I find this odd given that I'd raised them in my appeal because of the the ET's reliance on their interpretation of 'academic freedom' which according to European law is considered central to Freedom of Speech. But don't take my word for it.

An Employment Tribunal's interpretation of 'academic freedom'

If one peruses the Employment Tribunal's judgement, one can read the Tribunal panel's interpretation of academic freedom:

"43. We think it is worth noting that freedom of expression is very important in universities but primarily applies to academic freedom to make whatever statements are justified in the academic’s view founded in their research, knowledge etc. It does not apply across the board to any issues arising with[sic] an academic institution."

"44. We appreciate the claimant's position that it was felt that there were elements of corruption involved but there were legitimate ways in which the claimant could have raised these issues and the fact that he did not attempt to do that, we think, was unfortunate and ill-judged. (4)

Firstly, before we sink our teeth into the meatus of the matter, it's worth reiterating that the ET raised the matter of academic freedom in their judgement. Therefore, the conclusions they drew in relation to their judgement concerning my authorship and the distribution of the Vice Consul's Newsletters, as well as the sanction imposed by the employer against me (dismissal) and whether this was fair or unfair, was informed by the ET's interpretation of 'academic freedom'.

Secondly, the ET's interpretation of Academic Freedom is simply wrong in law. According to the law, academic freedom does apply across the board to any issues arising within an academic institution. It's the '...without restriction...' bit in Sorguc v Turkey [2009].

Thirdly, according to the law, the Vice Consul's Newsletters were a perfectly "legitimate way" to raise such matters of corruption and corporate governance. It's the "...freedom to distribute knowledge and truth..." bit in Sorguc v Turkey [2009]. Academic freedom as laid out in the judgement of the ECHR, ensures that any mechanism by which one wishes as an academic to raise important matters, is legitimate. In arguing that they were not, the ET have erred in law and breached my Article 10 rights.

Lastly, the only limitation placed upon academics exercising their right to academic freedom of speech (which is a qualified right), is that they act within the law or that they do not violate the rights of others. Now this is the interesting part because the ET have accepted that I produced the Vice Consul's Newsletters in order to highlight issues pertaining to corruption and corporate governance. So it's implicit that there's a public interest issue at stake here. Moreover, the University never claimed that the Newsletters or the contents were 'illegal'. Indeed, the University have never denied any of the allegations contained within the Vice Consul's Newsletters. In fact their own external TCM Report concluded in 2010 demonstrated that managers had manipulated the appointments process in the Salford Business School. 

Taking on the establishment:
It's a shit job... but someone's
got to do it

The value of night-soil versus the value of 'truth'

Now that's a huge night-soil cart load of information to take in. But there's one further little silage-nugget that may give my former colleagues within the Salford branch of the UCU as well as non-union academic and teaching members of staff some cause for concern at Salford. You see according to the judgement of the Employment Tribunal, truth is no guarantee of protection under the aegis of academic freedom. It sounds a little perverse doesn't it? Again, consider the paragraph below of the ET's judgement:

"23.13 It has been suggested from time to time, including at the Tribunal, that the Respondent should have investigated the truth of the allegations before dismissing the claimant, however, the issue was clearly how the matter had been raised allowing the matters to willy nilly enter the public domain and the failure to follow legitimate pathways."

We've already dealt with the 'legitimate pathways' aspect above. It is however, an astonishing admission by the ET that the establishing of the truth (the truth of the allegations in the Vice Consul's Newsletters) by the University in their internal investigations, really should play no part in the University's internal disciplinary procedure on this matter.

An idealist doltmund?

Call a chap a bit of an idealist but surely any reasonable person would conclude that in order to prove that the contents of the Vice Consul's Newsletters were 'malicious' as alleged by the University, and demonstrate that they brought 'the University into disrepute' as alleged by the University, one would need to investigate the 'truthfulness' of the allegations, wouldn't one? If the University found upon completion of their investigation that the issues in the Newsletters were indeed true as I stated in the Employment Tribunal, then how could I bring the University into disrepute. It would already be there. It's quite logical really. It's a bit like blaming a newspaper reporter for bringing an MP and the government into disrepute because he happened to report that the aforesaid MP fiddled his expenses.

Wetting the bed

Look at it the other way round. If all a chap is doing is spreading untruths or truths for that matter, that are not rooted in matters pertaining to public interest or matters of public concern in a publicly funded institution, then 'malice' could easily be concluded and proved. Some elaboration might be necessary. There is no public interest in an academic at University of Fleeceham publishing a document that states that Manager A wets his/her bed, which may be the truth. There was a public interest in publishing a document that focused on bullying and the manipulation of the appointments process in the Salford Business School as highlighted in the Newsletters. Of some note, it was also highlighted in the University's own TCM report published in 2010 which looked into these matters within the Salford Business School. This is more pertinent when public monies are involved. Did the TCM Report bring the University into disrepute...? 

Doin' the right thang

So you see, it may be the case that senior managers and certain staff members were upset about the content of the Newsletters. That happens when a privileged and powerful minority are publicly held to account. The ET accepted that I was only interested in matters of corruption and corporate governance and my reason for producing the Vice Consul's Newsletters (see paras 23.2, 37 of the ET Judgement). According to Sorguc v Turkey [2009] I was perfectly within my rights to author and publish the Vice Consul's Newsletters. It places no restrictions upon how I or any other academic staff at Salford or in any other university in Europe choose to raise such issues.

Wrong in law

There is no court higher than the ECHR. Law established in Strasbourg trumps even the UK courts. 'It's unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right' according to section 6 (1) of the 1998 Human Rights Act. The University as a public authority, acted in a way that is incompatible with my article 10 rights. As an academic, I was entitled to the protection afforded to academics in the University's own Charter, the Education Reform Act 1988, and in European Law. Indeed, I should still be entitled to this basic human right. In upholding the University's decision to dismiss me as fair, the Employment Tribunal have compounded a breach of my Article 10 rights. This has been further compounded in that the ET clearly erred in law with regard to their narrow interpretation of 'academic freedom', one that bears little resemblance to that as established in law.

Perfunctory... a nice word

What's more, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dealt with this important breach of my human rights in a perfunctory manner in deciding to refuse me permission to discuss the breach of my Article 10 rights at the hearing. In doing so, the EAT has in my view committed a more serious breach of my Article 6 rights:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."(5)

In the context of employment law, human rights may be irksome. It might explain why in my opinion the EAT chose instead to bat this contentious issue into the long grass.

Twenty one days

The Tribunal also refused me permission to appeal which is standard. So now I have 21 days to lodge my appeal with the Court of Appeal in London. I find it odd that at a national level, my own union hasn't picked up the baton on this one. They've twice refused me funding for legal representation.** It's down to lil' 'ol' me, with only a single penny to rub against the trouser of a threadbare de-mob suit, who finds himself not only fighting for the rights of academics to enjoy academic freedom in the UK, but the fight to gain access to some notion of equality of arms and justice within the wider UK courts system.


Notes and references

*This does refer to the Salford Business School prior to the investigation conducted by TCM Group and not the Salford Business School of today.
** I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Salford UCU branch including its President Chris Sheehy, the membership, the Committee and the branch officers for continuing to help support my fight for justice. The UCUS have been invaluable in providing some financial support by covering ancillary costs associated with my ET and EAT hearings. Without this support, I would have holed me below the hemline many years back. I hope the branch will continue to support me in this battle to protect and and reaffirm 'Academic Freedom' as laid out by the ECHR.
(1) Education Reform Act 1988, section 202, (2) (a) 'Academic Tenure' sourced athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/section/202

(2) Sorguc v Turkey 17089/03 [2009] ECHR 979, paragraph 35
(3) Sorguc v Turkey, para 21
(4) Reserved Judgement Dr Gary Paul Duke v University of Salford, Manchester Employment Tribunals, 16th November 2011, paragraph 43.
(5) Schedule I, Human Rights Act 1998, sourced athttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested. To make any such request press here.

The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. So, to save £££sss please avail yourself of this opportunity if you really feel it necessary, which you can do by clicking here or by emailing garypaulduke@gmail.com