UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs
2764.png


7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Amin Yasister said:
HMRC worker wins £25k payout after boss sent unwelcome birthday card https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...assment-25k.html?ito=native_share_article-top

Interesting that caring for someone's welfare means that the "victim" of their actions get a payout.
Click to expand...
  • Kani Toure 'clearly explained' she wanted contact at a minimum while off sick
  • But she was contacted 'more than once every other day', then sent the card
A HMRC worker who complained after her boss sent her a birthday card when she had said she didn't want to celebrate the occasion has won £25,000 for harassment.

Kani Toure was off sick with work-related stress when she 'clearly explained' she wanted correspondence to be kept to a minimum and via email, an employment tribunal heard.

But they sent her a birthday card anyway despite expressly telling her manager she didn't want to mark the occasion.

A judge concluded this was 'unwanted conduct' and that the 'repeated contact' she received while off sick was harassment, adding that HMRC's duty of care would have been 'more effectively observed by complying with her expressed wishes'.

After winning ten claims of race and disability harassment and discrimination, Ms Toure has now been awarded £25,251.62 in compensation including £20,000 for injury to feelings.

The tribunal in south London heard Ms Toure - who is a French national of African origin and Muslim - started working as a customer service consultant at the Croydon office in October 2019.

In March 2020, due to Covid, she started working from home.

In July 2020, after difficulties claiming utility expenses, she told boss Hugh Henderson via email she had been discriminated against, 'mostly because of my foreign accent and origin', although this was ignored.

Then, on Ms Toure's first birthday during her time working there - on August 2, 2020 - he mentioned in a meeting that it was her birthday.

'He had a practice, at that time, of keeping a list with the birthdays of each member of his team on it,' the tribunal heard.

'His evidence was that he would use the list to wish members of his team a happy birthday, and if it was a "special" birthday he would arrange a card from the whole team.

'His evidence was that more than half of team leaders would have done similar things at the time.'

The next day, Ms Toure emailed him saying although it had been 'very kind', she wasn't celebrating it for 'personal reasons' and asked her details be taken off any birthday list, which they were.

Mr Henderson apologised and explained that he would remove her birthday from his list.

By September 2020, the tribunal heard Ms Toure felt she was being 'left out' of training opportunities compared to her colleagues and made an informal complaint which she later said should be treated as a grievance.

In November 2020, she submitted a formal 11 page long grievance which contained 'a number of allegations against a range of colleagues'.

As a result, she was transferred to HMRC's Canary Wharf office on a temporary basis for six months. It was heard she was told she would have to withdraw her grievance if she wanted the transfer to be made permanent.

In June 2021, she saw occupational health, where a report found a tumour caused her pituitary gland to produce too much of a hormone called prolactin which could trigger migraines.

The panel heard the report said she suffered from symptoms of stress, anxiety, migraine, vertigo, weight loss, poor sleep and low mood. She was subsequently on sick leave from June 30, 2021.

The tribunal heard Ms Toure asked that correspondence only be done if 'essential' - and be conducted by email, as interactions made her 'emotional'.

However, in the month that followed, she was sent 11 emails to check she was 'alright' as well as a birthday card.

As Ms Toure had transferred to a different team with a new manager, Mr Henderson had not had the chance to brief her new boss about her birthday wishes.

As a result, she was sent a birthday card in August 2021 - something that the panel heard 'always' happened to new members of the team.

The panel heard this 'repeated contact' had 'exacerbated' her symptoms.

Ms Toure remained absent from work until she was sent a letter in November 2021, warning her she faced 'formal steps regarding her sickness absence'.

She then took HMRC to the tribunal, making over 20 allegations of race and disability harassment, as well as discrimination and victimisation. Ten of her claims were successful.

Employment Judge Adam Leith said: '[HMRC]'s conduct, in repeatedly contacting [Ms Toure] during the early part of her sickness absence, was unwanted.

'She had asked for correspondence to be kept to a minimum, and to be by email only.

'While she could have been more proactive in reporting her absence, she had clearly explained why she wished for correspondence to be kept to a minimum.

'The birthday card was also unwanted, in the sense that she had told Mr Henderson that she did not want her birthday to be marked.'

The judge said the 'repeated contact' created a 'hostile and intimidating environment' for her.

'[Ms Toure], having asked [HMRC] to keep correspondence to a minimum, was then contacted 11 times in a three-week period - on average, more than once every other day.

'It is in our judgment impossible to separate the treatment (continuing to contact Ms Toure repeatedly despite being asked not to do so) from the fact that she was absent for a reason which was linked to her disability.

'[HMRC]'s explanation for the treatment was that (in essence) they had a duty of care to [Ms Toure] and had to check on her welfare.

'We have some doubts about that.

'In the circumstances, [HMRC]'s duty of care would on the face of it have been more effectively observed by complying with her expressed wishes.'

The judge said Ms Toure had been victimised by Mr Henderson when her complaints were 'ignored' and said the offer of a permanent transfer in exchange for withdrawing her grievance amounted to race harassment.

Ms Toure also won a claim of disability harassment after an HMRC report claimed her complaints were 'baseless' and 'made as a result of the medication she was taking for her tumour'.

She also won a claim of disability discrimination after being told 'formal action' would be taken about her continuing sickness absence.

Archive

EDIT: Comments on the archive.
1742645934563.png
 
22 men
Click to expand...

Those doctors and engineers look very industrious. Must be the economic rocket fuel the cunts in power keep importing.
Also can we crush everyone at the bbc. They’ve got some wog worship crap on now about the 100 most influential people and it’s a fucking poet.
Whoopdefuckingdo.
 
Chaos Theorist said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70e72gk78po?xtor=AL-71-[partner]-[BBC+England]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_format=link&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBCSheffield&at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_id=267874D8-04AF-11F0-91C6-A588C58A3427
Click to expand...
Here's an idea. The police should have issued these photos as soon as they had them, not 10 months later. I imagine everyone of them is now back in Eritrea, when they are not allowed to protest, even peacefully, without getting arrested/being beaten to a pulp
 
anklyscr said:
Those doctors and engineers look very industrious. Must be the economic rocket fuel the cunts in power keep importing.
Also can we crush everyone at the bbc. They’ve got some wog worship crap on now about the 100 most influential people and it’s a fucking poet.
Whoopdefuckingdo.
Click to expand...
I’ll just reply to my own post but the only person the bbc can find to interview about the Heathrow fire is either an exceptionally ugly woman or a Troon.

Squash all of them into a pink paste.
 
>IMPLYING said:
Seems odd to talk about demographics, immigration, but then end it on some CivNat stuff with a Sikh but I'll play devil's advocate and say it might have been necessary to avoid getting removed from his shadow secretary position and removed from the party altogether for doing a racism.
Click to expand...

Aw man, I'm going to risk the neg-rates for saying this. What are The Farms for, if not unpopular opinion? It's true from my experience:-

The Sikhs are mostly alright, if not proper Anglo. If we're going to have oddities here, they're the type we want. They know they stand out as different, what with their funny hats and everything, but they tend to absolutely respect and love our culture. For the most part, anyway. No Sikh ever nail bombed a children's concert here (did they?)

I'm not a fucking softy. I can see what's wrong with how multiculturalism has played out. It can be shit. Ruinous.

What I'm saying is that, of the immigrants, turban-type is the model the rest should follow.
I'd be okay inviting one to my barbecue (because they strictly refuse to eat halal meat – based indeed).
 
DreinMeinVein said:
If we're going to have oddities here, they're the type we want.
Click to expand...
Why do people still think along these lines ? What about we just have none at all instead of 'oh mr singh from the paki shop is alright let's import millions'. Canada has a massive Sikh population and look how that's worked out for them. You have to start from zero and work your way down to even begin to fix the mess of multi culti.
 
BrightonAndHoveAlbion said:
Why do people still think along these lines ?
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Australia has Sikhs and they're notorious for child abuse and domestic violence.
They're great at astroturfing the internet and pretending to be good because they're not Muslim or Hindu.

Yeah, and E.Coli is better than botulism and Hepatitis A but I still don't want it in my food.
 
DreinMeinVein said:
Aw man, I'm going to risk the neg-rates for saying this. What are The Farms for, if not unpopular opinion? It's true from my experience:-

The Sikhs are mostly alright, if not proper Anglo. If we're going to have oddities here, they're the type we want. They know they stand out as different, what with their funny hats and everything, but they tend to absolutely respect and love our culture. For the most part, anyway. No Sikh ever nail bombed a children's concert here (did they?)

I'm not a fucking softy. I can see what's wrong with how multiculturalism has played out. It can be shit. Ruinous.

What I'm saying is that, of the immigrants, turban-type is the model the rest should follow.
I'd be okay inviting one to my barbecue (because they strictly refuse to eat halal meat – based indeed).
Click to expand...
I think it operates on the same logic as some people having a zero-tolerance outlook on the gays and LGBT as a whole — stick with me a moment — since conceding some ground to them and giving them some of what they wanted (Gay marriage, the right to exist, etcetera) trojan horsed some rather unsavoury things into contemporary society in record time, even if it wasn't the direct fault of every gay guy for it happening. It took less than a year or two after gay marriage was legalised nationwide in America for example for trans stuff to enter public discourse. This niche group of the Alphabets suddenly seemed to be everywhere and in your face and people were campaigning for them and wanting access to your children. It's all rather horrifying how quickly shit hit the fan in regards to that, even if in the UK it took a year longer.

When it comes to immigrants and other minority groups there's a similar level of hindsight afforded in giving them any sort of leeway at all. I've certainly had good experiences with individuals and whatnot, and when they're present in small numbers and humble they tend to be well turned out in wider society. But once they're here in large enough numbers to essentially function as a parallel state, insisting upon their own special rights and privileges, demanding concessions from everyone else in broken English, you begin to regret letting them in to begin with. Just like trannies are spoiling things for the gays, Muslims (Primarily Pakistani and Bangladeshi) are spoiling things for every other non-white group in the country by just being awful. The main issue I highlighted is mostly one of rhetoric. If you're choosing to be selective with what minority groups you consider a problem whilst lauding others, it might be easy to appeal to your emotions in not being as strict with the measures you wanted to implement for the problem group because if there's the odd good Sikh then there's the odd good Muslim too, even if I think that the proportionality of good Sikhs might be higher per capita than the proportion of good Muslims. The CivNat angle he's voicing was pretty much how most Western nations operated I think for decades after WW2, then it changed to minority groups being celebrated and their identities being reinforced rather than integrated into their host nations, which might've been fine if they didn't number in the millions at that point so you're pretty much encouraging them to not integrate and think of themselves as being special since they're not apart of the majority, which breeds entitlement.

If you make it clear there's a problem with demographics, full stop, it might imply you're actually willing to take measures to actually fix it. He went as far as mentioning the existence of Shariah courts, the shrinking white population in our schools, etcetera. But then to prop up the Sikh man after all that it implies your issue with demographics might be more of an optics problem than anything else. Muslims like that Sikh man do exist, the sort that will emphasise that they are British whilst still adhering to their belief system. The inclusion of the Sikh anecdote implies that if every Muslim spoke English and deigned to call themselves British the situation would be fine. You can't integrate a minority group in the culture of the majority if you allow the minorities to hold onto their old culture and a significant way. Even the Sikh man who continues to wear his turban, is is likely to pass that part of his identity down to his kids, and his kids might not be as eager to proclaim how proud they are to be British as he is. Verbally you just can't allow there to be room for exceptions, even if your actions in the end show a clear bias in favour of some groups over others.

The TLDR of what I'm saying is: CivNat rhetoric can undercut your entire position and makes you look weak on what is a very serious issue. It is simply not possible to integrate the millions of non-natives already here to get them to the level of a model minority Sikh.
 
Government considering sending failed asylum seekers to Balkans

Failed asylum seekers could be sent to the Balkans under plans being considered by the government.

Home Office officials have discussed proposals to set up overseas "return hubs" to house asylum seekers who have had their claims rejected and all appeals exhausted.

The proposals, which are at a "very early stage", according to a government source, would involve payments to host countries for each person removed from the UK.

The prime minister has pledged to tackle the crisis of people crossing the Channel on small boats and to "significantly" cut net migration.

He previously scrapped a Conservative scheme to send migrants who had arrived in small boats to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed there.

Unlike that scheme, the new proposals would apply only to asylum seekers whose claims had been rejected and who had no further routes of appeal.

Overseas centres would enable the government to remove failed asylum seekers who come from countries deemed unsafe for them to be returned to, such as Iran and Somalia, as well as to host other rejected claimants before transfer to removal flights to their home countries.

The proposals follow moves by the European Commission to endorse the use of "return hubs" by members of the EU.

Earlier this month, it put forward a proposal for members to use return hubs as an "innovative" solution for "migration management".

It said families with children, and unaccompanied children, would be excluded from the scheme.

Any return hub scheme would require officials to strike deals with countries housing the centres.

The current proposals are focused on countries in the western Balkans – a region which includes Albania, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Labour believes the scheme could save money by speeding up the removal process and increase the numbers involved.

Last year, there were 9,151 asylum-related returns, 36% more than in 2023.

Officials believe it could also help to alleviate the pressure on local authority budgets from failed asylum seekers who are homeless and whom they are legally obliged to support.

However, any scheme involving overseas centres for migrants is likely to face legal challenges as well as fierce opposition from refugee charities.

Italy has sought to process migrant claims at two detention centres in Albania but has been blocked from doing so by the Italian courts.

A government source said the issue was "a shared challenge right across the world and we've always said this international problem needs an international solutions".

"That's why we're looking at the widest possible set of options with a completely open mind.

"Any scheme we'd consider would always need to meet the test of being affordable, workable and legal."

Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "The fact Labour is now looking at offshore processing shows they were wrong to cancel Rwanda before it even started and shows their attempts to 'smash the gangs' have dismally failed".

He claims Labour had "lost control of our borders" and added that they should "urgently start the Rwanda removals scheme".

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the number of people crossing the Channel was "really worrying".

More than 5,000 migrants have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel on small boats so far this year, according to latest figures.

Speaking to reporters in Harrogate during the Lib Dem spring conference, Sir Ed said he was "glad that the government scrapped the Rwanda scheme because it wasn't working as a deterrent".

"In fact, hardly anybody went, and it was costing huge amounts of money. If they've got a better scheme that will work, we'll look at that".

He called on the government to speed up processing times to save taxpayers money.

Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council criticised the government's proposal.

"Headline-grabbing gimmicks and knee-jerk, very costly, initiatives like this seem to be more about sounding tough than actually solutions that will work," he told the BBC.

"We know from our work that working with people and supporting them to return to the countries they've come from is far more successful than shipping them somewhere like Albania where they're going to be detained in what will inevitably be prison-like conditions."
Click to expand...

It's not quite the Rwanda scheme and has a huge loophole, in that people will be allowed to reside here while their asylum application is processed. Once they're even remotely settled anywhere, they can use the ECHR to force the government to let them stay indefinitely, regardless of status. I like how they now say the rwanda scheme wasn't working because almost nobody was deported, after spending every waking moment blocking it through the courts or through protests in order to prevent anyone being deported.

Also, 5000 people known to have crossed the channel on small boats in the last three months, plus however many came in by other means. It might be better to assume closer to 10,000.
 
teriyakiburns said:
The current proposals are focused on countries in the western Balkans – a region which includes Albania, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Click to expand...
Insane.
This is still Europe and they don't belong there.
Unless these are Bosnian and Albanian criminals, "off shore" processing and detention should be done outside of Europe.

Not to mention the illegal migration problem pales in comparison to the number of people arriving "legally".
teriyakiburns said:
However, any scheme involving overseas centres for migrants is likely to face legal challenges as well as fierce opposition from refugee charities.
Click to expand...
Lol. This is easy to mitigate.
You stop all grants and funding to these legal organisations and make it difficult for them to practice by instituting crazy legislation. Much of this stuff is funded via grants and contracts from government departments. Cut their funding.

I think Hungary or Poland did this earlier in the year - declared certain NGOs as harmful to the state and banned their ability to grift.

Yeah yeah yeah I know 🌈
They don't actually want to fix the problem, they want to pretend they're fixing the problem.
 
teriyakiburns said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
They cancelled the Rwanda scheme, something that had already had MILLIONS put into it, it was READY for use but then SCRAPPED and then got used by OTHER countries for what WE paid for and now they're going to pay MILLIONS more for their own take on it and probably one less effective as well. And I thought my older family members were being overdramatic when they talked about how bad Labour is in government.
 
Overly Serious said:
If I'm reading this timeline correctly, she was employed for a year or less (don't have months, only years), before signing off for long-term sick and in and around this managed to fire off 20 claims for racial and sexual discrimination? Wow.
Click to expand...
I found the tribunal document. Here's a timeline:

14 October 2019: Kani begins working for HMRC in Croydon

20 October 2019: During a training session about taking phonecalls, the other new person she's paired with on a group exercise (Mr Alam) says "pronunciation and accent" can be things that make people hard to understand on the phone.

12 December 2019: Kani told someone on her team (Mrs Tselika-Scott) that Mr Alam has been making fun of her accent; Mrs Tselika-Scott shared that Mr Alam had been discussing Nigerians and when she'd said she was also Nigerian, he said "it's good you don't look like one then". Kani's manager was off sick, so she then attempted to tell a rambling version of these events to a different manager (Mrs Young) without actually naming anyone, and accused the manager of then telling Mr Alam - the manager had no idea of who Mr Alam was, because they'd hired 80-odd people in one go two months earlier, and she hadn't been told his name or a description.

13 December 2019: Kani claims Mr Alam waited for her by the lifts, stuck his foot in the door to stop the doors closing and took photos or video of her. Mr Alam was actually on the phone to Thames Water and waved goodbye at Kani.

18 December 2019: Kani met with another manager (Mrs James) to discuss what happened. Kani claims this manager asked her why she was wearing a headscarf, said "my daughter wears a headscarf" in a nasty judging tone, and then called Kani beautiful and curvy. The manager also met with Mrs Tselika-Scott, who said she hadn't been offended by the joke about her not looking like a Nigerian, but if that lift thing happened then that sounds like Mr Alam might be bullying Kani. Then the manager met with Mr Alam, who disputed everything and provided his phone logs to prove that he'd been on the phone to Thames Water. He also insisted he'd merely said that because of background noise, Kani's pronunciation had been a bit harder to understand, but he'd not said anything about accents and he had enjoyed working with her.

19 December 2019: Mrs James arranges a meeting between Kani and Mr Alam. Kani explain how his comments about her pronunciation and accent had made her feel. Mr Alam disputed that he said accent, but was mortified that he'd made Kani feel bad (he had no idea). Kani accepted the apology.

23 December 2019: Kani claims she heard an unnamed colleague telling Mr Alam that something was "evil" and that "holy water was needed for the evil" while looking at her, so obviously Mr Alam was telling people she was evil. The first time this claim is made is during oral evidence at tribunal stage.

January 2020: Kani's actual manager comes back to work from sick leave. Kani raises a complaint with him about Mr Alam; she claims he tells her to drop it. It seems more likely that she explained to him about the meeting she'd had and that he took it to mean the situation had been resolved.

March 2020: Kani was due to start an apprenticeship scheme, but as covid was beginning to disrupt everything there were issues around paperwork. When she followed up with someone in another office (Mr Stevenson), he raised his voice and told her to wait, as he was busy.

April 2020: Kani attempted to raise a discrimination complaint against Mr Stevenson. She did complain about him to her boss, but didn't say it was a discrimination claim, and alleges her boss shut down her attempts to file a formal grievance. The boss explained that the apprenticeship scheme had been cancelled due to the impact of COVID, so he was telling her not to worry about the apprenticeship paperwork.

July 2020: Staff were entitled to extra expenses while working from home. Kani fucked up the paperwork so a finance person asked to see proof of receipts and questioned her manager. Her manager explained that Kani was in the right. Kani emailed her boss claiming she was getting scrutinised for being black and foreign
“As mentioned before since I started with HMRC the welcoming for me has been very warm, I had a difficult experience being accused, shouted at, discriminated against…) mostly because of my foreign accent and origin. So I realised probably the organisation has some trust issues regardless of my level of commitmenet or engagement in my work for HMRC. I am feeling I have been under investigation and scrutiny from day one since I Started so I am ok with this investigation and the outcome
Click to expand...
Her manager does not respond to that part of her email, which she later cites as evidence that he's racist.

August 2020: During a telephone call, Kani claims Mrs James referred to her headscarf as "that thing on top of your head". Then it's her birthday. She raises that she doesn't want her birthday celebrated after she's wished happy birthday. Her manager now no longer keeps a birthday list or wishes anyone happy birthday unless they specifically tell him that they will be comfortable with that. Kani then claimed she was being denied training opportunities because she was black, although did not specifically make that allegation to anyone. Her manager explained she was trying to sign up for training that wasn't relevant to her job, which is why it was getting declined. She then joined the wrong Teams call for some training she was supposed to be doing, gatecrashing a completely unrelated training session for complex debt management cases. Kani tried asking a question about something she was working on (unrelated) and got put on hold. She followed up with some MS Teams messages:
Hi I was talking to you/ asking you a question and was unexpectedly put on hold..not sure what happened? Anyway, that is fine, sorry for disturbing you I thogu you were here to help everyone without distinctions… it won’t happen again. Have a nice Weekend.
Mr Arunachalam replied at 12:56 as follows: “Kani, I am sorry, I was signed on Two Chats Catch Up & MSD/Work Flow. I had come out of one. IF you need to ask anything Please give a call.”
Click to expand...

September 2020: Becoming paranoid about the training she sees some more technical co-workers going on, she sends the following email to her manager.
Good afternoon Dennis,
Sorry but I am a little confused as Wendy is not in at the moment and don't know who else to turn to.. For the past month I have been taken off all trainings; all my colleagues have been attending trainings on VAT, PAYE; CT; BAU, SEISS or JRS except me. Over many weeks now , I have been emailing and calling Stephen, Theresa and James to find out why I am not on any CQVID-19 schemes, or training list but I got no straight answer. All my colleagues have been attending various trainings; even the ones who came back from Leave are getting invites but me. I then had to approach Chris for help as per bellow communication, Miranda explanation was like I wasn't really a priority right now. Subsequently I was then added to a VAT training and the invite was sent to me while I was off line Wednesday to attend a training on Thursday a day where I was unfortunately on sick leave so I couldn't attend. And my colleagues got a new invite for training today session scheduled for tomorrow except me, the only training I was invited to attend 2 weeks ago was the one on IT up skills. On Friday last week 1 tried to attend a BAU restart training Kuna was hosting and because it was only him and me on the chat room no one else joined I asked him a question on PAYE and while I was talking to him, asking him my question, he just put the phone down on my. I then sent him a message on Team asking him what happened, he just told me he had 2 chatrooms opened so he had to close one , I assume he was referring to the training call we were both in which wasn't a chat..)
Click to expand...
The manager contacted other managers to provide assurances to Kani about what her job was, and also that she was getting all the training needed for her job.

October 2020: Kani somehow manages to pass probation. During the team meeting on MS Teams, they would share virtual certificates for employees who had done something impressive or had something to celebrate. MS Teams crashed during this meeting. Kani alleges that her manager had faked a software glitch to deny her the virtual certificate (along with all other virtual certificates due to be presented, which were purely virtual and not worth anything). She had some more formal meetings about the idea she was being made a victim of racism; the decision maker suspected this was more to do with how Kani perceived various situations and not because she was a victim of racism, and maybe her medication were making it crazy, but recommended she should pursue a formal grievance. Kani met with a union rep, she claims this union rep asked her if she was Nigerian and when she said she wasn't he said "good, Nigerian nationals aren't trustworthy". He asked if a new union rep could shadow the case to learn what they do with grievances, which made Kani freak out and accuse the union of being in cahoots with her racist bosses
I found it very strange she got in touch with you right at the time I got in touch with you. I am doubtful this will remain confidential as it should be. Ted, not sure anymore I made the right move getting PCS involved knowing the remification with HMRC, I should have joined a complete external Union maybe.
Click to expand...
The union rep assures her that nobody's "got in touch with him", this is standard practice for new union reps, but that he'd not let the newbie shadow this case and guaranteed it was fully confidential. Kani subsequently filed multiple complaints about this union rep to the union, but they're not part of the tribunal so further details are not provided.

That's just the first year. It's very obviously a case of one of those very stupid but also crazy African ladies who go around confabulating. I imagine at this point they're happy to settle with her because they've probably had literal years of trying to get her to answer straightforward questions only to be met with brand new accusations and rambling stories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom