Zoe
You asked Stephen W to intervene and all parties present, including yourself, reported that there was some progress from that meeting. This is why I don’t understand your bringing up past complaints when I thought that you are working with Stephen to move forwards.
Z: I frankly think you are being disingenuous N and that you ‘understand’ more than is convenient for you to let on.
N: I have explained why it was not appropriate to respond to your emails in the past but all communication was done through your care co-ordinator, the Clarenden (sic) Centre and then through the official complaints procedure in line with policies, all of which were sent to your chosen advocates in this issue.
Z: I am informed by the National Bullying Helpline that if you did not mention my right to appeal in your reply to my grievance, that you are in breach of procedure and I can therefore take you to court.
Re these ‘chosen advocates’ I said nothing about choosing advocates at any stage. If they were supposed to represent my rights to you, they would appear to have dismally failed. Why could you not communicate directly with me? Why do you seem to feel the need to turn me into a victim who necessarily requires someone else to speak for her (like your colleagues A and B)? Can you not see that I am more than capable of representing my own rights, and as the person directly affected, am indeed best placed to do so? Why bother teaching assertiveness on your course if you do not believe us capable of practising it?
N: I recalled the email to you last night because I am not prepared to start having a series of email discussions with you Zoe, it will achieve nothing on either part. Z: Please do not speak for me!
N: When you wrote and asked me to meet with you or Stephen I agreed to do so as you said this closure would help you to move on in your recovery.
Z: Until I have heard all of you account for your behaviour, closure is still very far off.
N: I have said each and every one of your chosen advocates from the outset that there was little that could be achieved in satisfying your grievance as both you and Equals would always have differing opinions about what happened, but that if they thought it would really help your mental health that I would do this. This was my position right from the issue start in February and it remained so whilst you sent all emails, wrote negatively about and named Equals on your blog and also sent letters of serious complaint to commissioners in the borough. These contacts were primarily by phone and if you discuss this with your care co-ordinator he will have to admit that my requests for his intervention were both to get you support through your complaint on this issue and also to assist in your clear distress.
Z: Regarding our ‘differing opinions’, please remember that I was excluded from your course in front of about ten witnesses N. Nearly all of them appear to have been very confused by what happened. R admitted to not being able to see what I had done wrong. (Sadly that was no bar to him subsequently blaming me for the abuse meted out to me by himself and Equals, rewriting history, distorting facts and so on).
Several people openly protested that I should be allowed to stay. Others maintained a stunned silence. There was lengthy discussion of the matter after I had left, and R reported to me that the atmosphere took a dive and that he couldn’t concentrate properly after I left. Stephen was puzzled as to why a firm devoted to social inclusion was excluding someone!
Once again N, the fact that you apparently were willing to meet was not divulged to me by these non-existent ‘advocates’ which I have only just now learned about. It is a shame that you felt the need to communicate via a third party throughout, because it would have been far easier to reply and write to me directly as I repeatedly requested.
Also it would obviously have been better to put your intentions in writing if you genuinely wanted them communicated to me. But bullies are rarely willing to do this, because they know they must then be accountable. All of you, including R, have demonstrated a fear and dread of the written word that is frankly anything but professional. It is a sure fire indicator of shady dealings, dishonesty and being on shaky moral ground.
How dare you expect my care coordinator to pick up the pieces of my shattered mental health directly caused by you and your organisation’s actions! That is not his job. It is way beyond his remit and his capabilities! Or do you believe him to have magical powers?
Regarding my writing negatively about Equals on my blog and in emails to commissioners, it seems to me you believe that thinking or feeling negatively about your firm in any way is in itself some sort of crime. Can you honestly see no link between your behaviour toward me as a group of four people, and my subsequent complaints? Quite simply, what on earth do you expect?
N: Your contact with A and R are about your relationships’ and are not my business as I have repeatedly said. Mental distress that I am witness to in my colleagues is a different issue and whilst one did choose to continue contact with you the other was advised by professionals not to do so. Again, your care co-ordinator will be able to give you details about this if he feels it would be helpful to you.
Z: ‘Not your business’. How very convenient. N, as one of the two people responsible for my being excluded from the course in the first place, and my ‘line manager’ at the time, I’m afraid you are actually more responsible for this awful mess than anyone else!
‘Mental distress that you are witness to in your colleagues’. In other words, their distress, however self-inflicted (or phony and affected), counts and mine does not because you do not witness it? What about ‘being sectioned in hospital ‘ do you not understand?
‘One did choose to continue contact with you’. Uh, N, I am just asking you for one good reason why he would not? We had been close friends and partners for eleven years prior to his ill-starred involvement with you – which would not have happened but for me, as A was my friend. I find your statement offensive in its implications and would ask you to please expand on it in case I have misunderstood.
Possibly even more obnoxious is your revelation that A had been advised by professionals to cut off contact with me. I almost don’t know where to start with that one. I’m simply out of my depth, but I wonder what Wayne (care coordinator) will think about it.
N: This matter has been thoroughly investigated by the management according to the complaints policy which was sent to you and your care co-ordinator. If a copy is required I am able to send it again to Wayne G, otherwise this matter is now closed.
Z: Once again, who is this ‘management’ and where is this thorough investigation? I was under the impression that you had no management but are basically a law to yourselves. If you have now found some management I would like to deal with them direct.
To reiterate: if you did not mention on your response to my grievance that I had the right to appeal, then you are in breach of procedure.
Your last statement is wishful thinking and delusional on your part N. I will be the judge of what is closed or not. I am the injured party. Not you. Not A. Not R. This is not a ‘dispute’. It is bullying, it is a very serious abuse of power by a group over a vulnerable person, and you all of you need to account for the individual actions you took which were, collectively and cumulatively, devastating to my mental and physical health, and continue to haunt me every single hour of every single day.
Please see our website : www.equalstraining.