A senior council official accused of violently raping a colleague has been awarded £25,000 in damages.It gets even murkier than that, though...
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was awarded the payout after successfully suing his bosses for wrongful dismissal.
He was sacked on the spot by the council's chief executive after his alleged victim, a director of a separate department, claimed he had attacked her.
Although she refused to give police a formal statement the council chief, a close friend, was convinced she was telling the truth.A 'close friend' of this deranged woman? What kind of staffing procedures allow this to happen?
He told Mr A, an assistant director, he believed that 'in all probability' he had 'raped and sexually, physically and mentally assaulted, harassed and abused' his colleague.
I'd expect the council's legal department to step in and ensure a totally neutral panel for...
He was then refused a disciplinary hearing on the basis that he would only deny the attack.Wait, what...?
That's some disciplinary process! You can only have a say if you admit guilt! The Spanish Inquisition would have loved this guy.
Not that we are allowed to know who any of these people are, or even where it took place, even though the £25,000 awarded comes out of our pockets...
After a six day hearing at Newcastle's employment tribunal last August he was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and sex discrimination.It took six days...?!
Documents revealed he was originally awarded £25,000 for wrongful dismissal and a further £16,385 for sex discrimination.Eh...?
After the appeal hearing, however, the council's claim against the award for sex discrimination was upheld.
...Mr Justice Underhill upheld the appeal by the Council and its Chief Executive, ruling that the man would not have been treated differently by them had he been a woman.Oh, pull the other one, Judge!
It seems this started when the woman confided in her council friend that she had been sexually harassed and then raped by the man:
Days later the council's chief executive met with Mrs X and a police sexual offences liaison officer who listened to a fuller account of the alleged rape.And that was good enough for the council chief, who took action. And the police?
She claimed she was pushed into a disabled toilet by her alleged attacker who, she said, held his arm across her neck, before raping her.
He told her that no one would believe her if she ever spoke out and left. She returned home, showered several times and placed her clothing in a black bin liner which she threw into a skip outside her property.
The police informed the council that they believed she was telling the truth and that there were reasonable grounds to arrest Mr A on suspicion of rape.
Mr A was later arrested and interviewed. He denied the attack and the police took no further action due to lack of evidence as the woman still refused to give a statement.So, to sum up - the taxpayer has shelled out 25,000 smackers, plus the cost of the police investigation and tribunal, and not only are we not informed what action was taken about the council chief and the female, but we can't even know which council this is?
Nor would she give evidence at the tribunal hearing.
Though, to be fair, it could well be any of them...
But this is the logical consequence of allowing this myth that women never lie about rape to fester unchallenged, and allowing anonymity for accusers (the man can't be identified in this case, presumably to avoid identifying the other participants?).