Seeing as how Mind in Croydon have made their last contribution to society

I may as well clarify what I was babbling about in my drunken glory. When I was suspended from Enterprise House following the letter incident it was done for two specific reasons.

Firstly it was that I had refused to return to work after lunch at 2pm. Secondly it was that I was being intimidating towards Sadie.

At the meeting of 23rd June we addressed the second issue first. I asked if they could explain to me exactly what element of my behaviour was considered to be intimidating. Their answer was that they didn't have to demonstrate that my behaviour was intimidating, all that was required was for Sadie to say she felt intimidated. I then pointed out that if a person felt intimidated by someone having an apparent anxiety attack then perhaps they weren't equipped to work in a mental health project. Although this is suspiciously missing from the record of the meeting the chair who was all twinsets and tight lips while clearly dreaming of an OBE responded by saying;

"Well no, if you're mugged being prepared doesn't stop you being intimidated."

To my eternal discredit I wasn't quick enough to respond with;

"Not if you're prepared for it. Then it's just a silly little girl waving a knife at you."

We then moved on to the first allegation that I had refused to return to work at 2pm. Here I brought up the minor technical point that earlier that morning I had agreed with the staff that as I had a doctors appointment I would finish work at lunch which began at 1:15pm. Therefore it was totally impossible for me to have refused to return to work at 2pm. The trustees then sort of looked at the floor, shuffled in their seats and agreed that they needed to look at that point in more detail because the previous investigations had failed to address it.

If they had been prepared to actually go and do that they would have discovered that in order to have me suspended Sadie, through her own free choice, had lied to her manager, Peter Phillips. To my mind there is no clearer example of workplace harassment then that. They would have also discovered that if the first investigation had addressed that point it would have to uphold my compliant. As at the time Sadie was a probationary employee they would have had little choice other then to dismiss her.

Instead that investigation chose to completely ignore the rather impressive play I made, rejected the complaint and even before the investigation was held allowed Sadie to move to full employment status.

As Peter's rather misplaced faith in his own abilities now makes it much harder, although far from impossible, to dismiss Sadie the trustees decided to ignore the fact that were completely wrong and upheld the original decision with the statement;

"I must resign myself to accept the constraints of the service"

The only response to that I can think off is to point out that a service is nothing but the sum of it's employees. If one of those employees places unnecessary constraints on that service by failing to do their job then it is the duty of the other parts of that service to either repair or replace the defective elements.

In other news I have to say I am being very entertained by the whole Max Mosley sex scandel saga. Here the wife of an MI5 officer has encouraged Max Mosley to engage in a Nazi themed sex orgy. At the same time she has proved the tapes of this orgy to the News of the World Newspaper. Obviously they printed the story and now Max Mosley is suing the newspaper group for libel costing both sides large sums of money.