Why Our Police Farces Are Doomed...

No, not because they lost a tribunal they were bound to lose, but because they hired someone like this in the fisrt place:

A judge said it was 'unusual' that she had a pair at home but did not raise it, but added it did not 'undermine her case' as 'the duty to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer not the employee'. The judge ordered that Ms Vale's bosses should pay her £19,141 in compensation, including £15,124 for injury to her feelings.

That was the correct decision but questions need to be asked how this woman was ever employed. 

Ms Vale began her employment as a victim and witness care officer at the force in a temporary role to cover a long-term absence in September 2023. She was new to policing as she 'had a background in creative arts' and had owned her own creative arts business.

You couldn’t make it up and in the UK in 2026, you never have to…

She said she was previously a self-employed artist because her ADHD made her not want to work with others. Ms Vale had only been diagnosed with ADHD via an online consultation with ADHD360 in May 2023 after her GP had refused to diagnose her because they thought it was simply 'low self-esteem'.

Upon beginning work at the police force, Ms Vale requested that she be supplied with noise cancelling headphones and informed them of her ADHD.

The ADHD that she didn’t officially have… 

She requested noise cancelling headphones again after a four-week probation review in October. Ms Vale's line manager Jennie Clarke asked: 'These are noise cancelling ones not the routine ones - is that correct? 

'I will be asked can I confirm why you need those as opposed to a normal headset. Let me know.'

The manager is clueless, and obviously can’t use Google! 

Shortly after, in November 2023, Ms Vale had a health scare at work in which she believed she was suffering a heart attack.Ms Vale confided in a colleague who had worked as nurse during this episode that 'her GP has no awareness of what she is taking' because her health was being handled solely by ADHD360.

Ms Vale had a meeting with Miss Clarke shortly after where she disclosed her own 'doubts' about ADHD360.

Aha, the manager has learned how to use Google in the interim! 

Ms Vale went on sick leave in December 2023, but when Miss Clarke wrote to the support officer to check on her, Ms Vale raised a grievance and asked not to be contacted again.

Not a serious issue, simply a delaying tactic. 

She did not attend any grievance meetings and her employment ended in March 2024, although this had been the plan as the previous member of staff returned from their absence at this time.

And no doubt everyone reathed a HUGE sigh of relief. 

Ms Vale then took the police force to an employment tribunal in Bristol, alleging that the staff had spread cruel rumours about her and made dismissive remarks. The tribunal concluded that the staff had actually been supportive of her throughout her employment and dismissed some of Ms Vale's claims.

And why did she lie so blatently? Why not? There are, after all, no reasons not to. There are no sanctions for frivolous claims, just as there are no sanctions for the police HR department when they hire unsuitable flakes fot temporary roles.

It's About Time!

A judge has told a non-binary health worker who tried to sue their NHS Trust over being ‘deadnamed’ and ‘mis-pronouned’ that they should not have been so offended.

Hurrah! Sanity at last! Well, almost...

Using preferred pronouns to live as non-binary does not have the same protected status as reassigning sex, employment judge Ann Nicola Benson found. The case was brought against Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust and six staff members by Haech Lockwood, a cognitive behavioural therapist.

She's a therapist!? I know they say 'set a thief to catch a thief' but I didn't think it worked for nutters too!  

Among the claims from Lockwood, who was born female and was previously known as Heather, were that they were referred to as ‘her’ on a series of IT servicedesk tickets and as ‘she’ or ‘her’ by colleagues during several interactions.

Not a very convincing troon, then, like so many of them? well, actually, not one at all!

The panel, led by judge Benson, said it was relevant that although Lockwood had changed their name and preferred pronouns, they were not proposing to reassign their sex from female to male. ‘We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,’ the judgement added.

In other words, if she'd been a pretend man, the Tribunal would have probably ruled in her favour? 

Lockwood had claimed that the incidents had violated their dignity and left them feeling ‘unsafe’ – but judge Benson said there was no evidence of the conduct having that effect. Dismissing the claim, she wrote: 'Offending against dignity or hurting is not enough.'

No doubt the gender activists will be urging a change in the law to ensure this is recognised in future. 

Reality And Common Sense Makes Another Labour Crackpot Idea Obsolete....

 ...even before the bill can get voted on! 

The Free Speech Union said: 'This is a landmark victory, not least because it renders the Government's efforts to roll out an official definition of 'Islamophobia' largely pointless.

Mr Lee, an atheist, holds the belief that Islam 'particularly in a traditional form - rather than a reformed, modernised, moderate and Westernised form - is problematic and deserving of criticism', the tribunal heard. He argued that his intention is to raise legitimate questions and generate debate, saying that the IFoA's treatment of his beliefs is 'problematic' for western democracies.

They sacked him for his beliefs, not even expressed in the workplace, but on social media.  

At a preliminary hearing held by video link at the London Central Employment Tribunal in July of this year, Employment Judge David Khan ruled that Mr Lee had established that he genuinely held the pleaded belief, which meets the definition of a 'protected belief' under section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The judge wrote: 'I do not find that these tweets and the pleaded belief are mutually exclusive. Nor incompatible.

'I find that the claimant's evidence in relation to these tweets, that he was inveighing against the offending doctrines and practices because they continued to be treated as authentic and officially sanctioned by Islamic leaders, was not inconsistent with the pleaded belief.'

Another triumph for the Free Speech Union! 

'If describing Islam as "backward", "a con trick", "a dangerous cult", "the root of the evil" and calling the Prophet Mohammed a "monster" are all expressions of an "Islamic-critical" belief that's protected by the Equality Act, trying to ban people from saying these things in the workplace won't be possible.

Not that it'll stop HR Karens from trying in future, after all, it's not their money, is it?  

'The judge in this case has grasped the important distinction between disrespecting a belief and disrespecting a person who holds that belief. 'Too often, robust criticism of Islam is treated as a form of harassment against Muslims and conflating the two has had a chilling effect on free speech.'

Indeed so. I hope the Met Police is watching this verdict closely. 

This Man Never Heard The Phrase 'Quit While You're Ahead'...

Martin Bentley, 67, was 'prepared to use whatever means he could' to avoid going back to the office when Covid lockdown rules were relaxed, a tribunal in Liverpool heard. He got his way and worked from home until his retirement in 2024, despite an Occupational Health report suggesting he could work in person with no issue. 

But that wasn't enough for him, oh dear me no...

After attempting to sue HMRC for disability discrimination, Mr Bentley was branded as 'vexatious' and ordered to pay £20,000 as his claims would never have succeeded.

That's for his share of the costs of his hopeless case. Anyone else would keep their mouths shut, but not Mr Bentley, who has rushed to press to blame - his union! 

Mr Bentley has not blamed himself for what happened, but instead holds his union accountable, claiming it encouraged him to take legal action. At his home on the 12th floor of a block of flats in Bootle, Mr Bentley told the Daily Mail: 'I have to pay back £240 every month until the money is all paid back.

'I am more angry with my union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, than anyone else. They encouraged me to go down this path, saying they had never seen a worse case of victimisation.''But then they abandoned me. They didn't even turn up for the hearing, leaving me on my own.'

They could clearly see the way the wind was blowing, given the wealth of evidence presented at the tribunal about the way HMRC bent over backwards to accommodate his claims. 

During his time at HMRC, he gave evidence for a female colleague's employment tribunal. Her allegations had been against Michael Connell, who, upon finding out that Mr Bentley had given evidence against him, sent him a Teams message describing him as a 'spineless little f***ing worm' and a 'sneaky slimy prick'.He later claimed he had been abused and that his department had done little to support him.

It shows just what sort of idiots they hire for HMRC when someone decides to abuse a subordinate on a recordable communication app open to the rest of the team. 

The Description Of The Complainant That I Fully Expected...

A fire service worker has won an unfair dismissal case after he was sacked for 'assaulting' a female shopper at Tesco who pushed to the front of the self-checkout queue. London Fire Brigade's Ryan Shearwood was getting his lunch from Tesco when he got into a bust-up with another customer, a tribunal heard. Mr Shearwood, a mechanic with the fire service, was waiting by the self-checkout tills when he called the woman out for skipping the queue.

Good for him! But no good deed goes unpunished, I guess… 

There was an altercation and the woman claimed she was 'shoved to the ground' by Mr Shearwood, it was heard. The woman later complained to the London Fire Brigade, claiming she was 'physically assaulted' by Mr Shearwood during the lunchtime row. Mr Shearwood argued he did not shove her and said all he did was simply extend his elbow to the side to 'defend' himself from being 'barged out of the way'. Mr Shearwood, a fire hydrant technician, was fired for misconduct after the fire service investigated the incident and concluded he had assaulted her.

Wait, what skills do the Fire Brigade have to investigate anything other than arson? And why weren’t the police involved? 

There was a lack of CCTV footage because Tesco would not release it unless there was a police investigation, and it was then destroyed after 30 days.

Seems the complainant went straight to the FB and none of them said, ‘Wait, let’s see if there’s a case to answer before firing him’ As I’m reading this, I’m thinking there can only be one possible reason for this sort of overreach…

'He is an extremely unreasonable person and even the staff were saying a simple apology or acknowledgement of the misunderstanding of the situation could've rectified it, but he refused to do so. '

Calling me names and escalating the situation further by loudly saying there was something wrong with me and I have "mental health issues" which I know was a predictable attempt to paint me as angry crazy black woman, which is not something that I take lightly at all.'

Aha! I love it when I’m proved right!  

The judge added the fire brigade did not carry out a fair investigation on procedural grounds.

You’re not kidding! 

A decision on compensation will be made at a later date, with a hearing listed to take place next month.

I hope the tribunal soaks the FB for every penny they can! 

Then Surely, a Better Question Is ‘Why Are They Allowed To Stay In The UK?

A couple sued Waitrose for race discrimination after they came back from an illicit holiday with a tan.

They aren't black, so one wonders how deep this tan was that they thought they could get away with such nonsesnse. Luckily, the tribunal wasn't having any of it.

Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova were sacked from the supermarket for going on an unauthorised trip abroad, an employment tribunal heard. They sued the upmarket retail giant, claiming that they were discriminated against because of their 'tanned skin'.

The tribunal was told the retailer's position was that the couple 'had been dismissed for gross misconduct namely, unauthorised absence'.

As would have been quite clear in their contract - let's hope no taxpayer money was used in this futile attempt, eh? 

Mr Hedger told the tribunal that the situation had come about because neither he nor Miss Dimitrova had anywhere to live. He added that 'neither he nor Ms Dimitrova had worked since their dismissal as it was difficult for them to get work on the same shift, their financial means were not good and they had no income'.

Then off you fuck back to Bulgaria, both of you!

Another Nail In The WFH Coffin?

A London employee who was sacked from his job for working from home over the summer at his parents' house in Cornwall has won a claim for unfair dismissal despite being found to have completed no work.

Could he have got away with that in the office? Probably not. So, if there were concerns about his work rate, why was he allowed this? 

Now, the London-based employee has won his case for unfair dismissal after a judge found that the company's investigation into him had not been carried out fairly. The central London tribunal heard that Mr Kitaruth had verbally agreed with Mr Stride that he would work from home, but the line manager insisted that nothing about Mr Kitaruth working out of London had been firmed. Employment judge Tamara Lewis said that Mr Kitaruth had 'misled' his managers by not doing any work, but the tribunal found that the security manager 'genuinely believed he had been given permission' to work from Cornwall and that there was possibly some miscommunication between him and Mr Stride.

Remember, folks, a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's not printed on! 

Ms Lewis said if Mr Stride had been interviewed formally before a decision to dismiss Mr Kitaruth was made, it would have shown how informal the arrangements were and that such a system 'always had the potential for misunderstanding'.

But he didn't, and hence, the tribunal has no option but to uphold the verdict. Though it makes its opinion pretty clear: 

However, the tribubal had doubts that Mr Kitaruth 'did any work' and ruled that his total compensation would be deducted by 50 per cent. '[OCS] dismissed [Mr Kitaruth] because it believed he had gone to Cornwall without authorisation from Aug 14 to 17 in 2023, and that not only was this unauthorised working from home, but that the claimant had misled his managers and was not in fact working in that period, and had not completed tasks he had been given in that period', Ms Lewis said.

So he might win but he won't get much.  

Double-Barrelled Name Quadrupled!

My maths isn't up to this!

A primary school headmistress who was sacked and accused of assault after tapping her own toddler's hand while he played with a bottle of hand sanitiser has been awarded more than £100,000. Shelly-Ann Malabver-Goulbourne was trying to get her three-year-old to stop playing with the bottle in her office when she used two fingers to attract his attention, an employment tribunal heard.

Wow, usually, this wouldn't even be worth mentioning, let alone calling the police over. The police, Ambush? Yes indeed, Reader... 

Despite the police ruling that her actions were 'reasonable chastisement' by a parent, Ms Malabver-Goulbourne, 46, was found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked.Yet an employment judge concluded there was no evidence that she had committed 'physical chastisement or an assault' and ruled her dismissal unfair.

So who instigated this, and has lost the school £10k as a result?  

'It was around 6.20pm and [Ms Malabver-Goulbourne] was packing up her things to go home after having a meeting with Ms Bhagwandas, the designated lead for safeguarding,' the hearing was told.

Ah! Well, if you sack a teacher for tapping a child on the hand, what do you do to someone who lies about a colleague's actions and files a false report, I wonder?