|
|
||
|
"Pathologies" and destruction of evidence The two versions of the Corner/Esler report |
Who lied?The most serious deceptions in this case were undoubtedly the many misrepresentations contained in the University's final submission to the employment tribunal that was convened to consider the author's claim for constructive dismissal. A list of these false and misleading claims was compiled by the author and submitted in turn to the tribunal (see response to University's final submission). In reply to this, the University's barrister said to the Chairman of the tribunal that: "of course what we submitted were simply proposed findings in fact" — and he went on to say that the tribunal members should not feel bound by these proposals. The Chairman assured the University's barrister that they would not feel bound by them. One might surmise that the reason that the University submitted a web of deceit as its final submission was because this was the only way to cover up earlier lying and other improper behaviour by University officials. Of course the reader will have to make up his or her own mind regarding who was telling the truth on various occasions. One may want to compare the University's final submission with the author's (see final submissions). There are so many examples of people lying in the episodes considered in these pages that it is difficult to know where to start. To take just three examples: Was Mr David Corner (former Secretary to the University, now Deputy Principal) telling the truth when he said he had decided to destroy evidence of pathological behaviour without consulting anyone else (see "Pathologies"...)? Either Mr David Corner or Dr David Riches (senior lecturer at the University) lied about the reason Mr Corner destroyed this evidence. Mr Corner stated to the employment tribunal that he had destroyed it following a meeting with Dr Riches during which Dr Riches had expressed concern about what was being on held on file in relation to him. Mr Corner stated to the tribunal that during this meeting he had agreed with Dr Riches to destroy all of the evidence. Dr Riches said that this was false and that the question of destroying evidence had never arisen during his meeting with Mr Corner. Mr Corner said that Dr Riches had not been guilty of any malpractice and indeed that he was a deeply honourable and esteemed colleague. His destruction of evidence was thus clearly not to conceal anything that Dr Riches had done... Did Ms Ann Kettle, then Dean of the Faculty of Arts, lie to a promotion appeals committee in relation to scores provided by a Head of School and thereby undermine the entire proceedings of the promotion appeal hearing (see p.49 of the author's witness statement to the employment tribunal)? The conduct of the promotion appeal hearing was the "final straw" that led to the employment tribunal. Either Dr Peter Clark or the author lied about a "deal" whereby the author would leave the University in exchange for seven months' salary. The reader can reach his or her own judgement by turning first to pp.11-12 of the author's summary statement of facts to the employment tribunal). ********** Skorupski's Law: "The more vain one's ambition, the more redundant one's grasp of morality" |
