Manchester Employment Tribunals and Lancashire County Council

This is the 7th piece of jigsaw for the puzzle to be completed. Today the date of entry is May 8th 2007.
It might be a puzzle difficult to complete because after 7 years there is still no resolution and no end in sight.
The first piece of the puzzle is at http://www.criticalreader2006.blogspot.com/ and the last entry prior to this is at http://www.woodsresearch03.com/. That entry lists the related links and the links yet to be added.

In the original claim never registered and thus never legally heard initiated in August 2001 there was a nasty development from Lancashire County Council (LCC) staff namely IAN YOUNG and DAVID FAIRCLOUGH.
Young, as Deputy Head of Legal Services and Fairclough as Head of Human Resources being nothing more than thugs in suits had tried various ways to deter me from pursuing my claim.
Because of that I had applied for a bullying and harassment claim which papers were presented to Manchester Tribunals (MET) when the original illegal claim began i.e. March 2003.
(I was working as a part-time lecturer for the Adult College in Lancaster which was part of LCC, hne3nct access to the Equal Opportunities Bullying and Harassment Procedures.) I was employed in other capacities by universities and The Prince's Trust.)

In March 2003 I was asked by PETER RUSSELL Chairman and TANYA GRIFFITHS, barrister for LCC if I would accept a remedy hearing for the bullying claim instead of having the case heard. The remedy hearing was offered to me along with the remedy hearing for the claim I was then told I had won.
(See link http:www.criticalreader2007.blogspot.com/ ) I agreed to that resolution.

When the decision on the original claim was changed from being in my favour to being against me the decision about the bullying claim was also changed. Now it was to go to a full hearing.
I had learned a lot and found out that this was the second claim not to be registered and thus another joke at my expense. This claim was 2401715/2003.
The first directions hearing date was set for mid November 2003.

I was off work with stress at the time which stress was worsened by a heavy cold. I rang MET and asked that the date be delayed until I was back at work. I was told to submit GP notes which I did and Ms ANNA WOOLLEY had her clerk write to me saying my GP notes were acceptable and that the case was delayed until 10th December 2003 when the Directions Hearing would take place.
It seemed that I was always to be dealt with by the same cartel members.

On 10th December 2003 I arrived for the Directions Hearing, it was very quiet, there was hardly anything on in the court because it was near Christmas. Amazingly, I was on floor 7 again. The building was almost empty but I was on the top floor, by then I had discovered why. (See link to be added later dated events of 2004 and 2005)
I wasn't even in a court room proper. I was beyond the fire doors and in an emergency room set aside for overflow on very busy days. The desk-clerk confirmed that and said it was hardly ever used. No one was to see the farce in progress again.
The Chairman was a Peter Beaumont but I had no confidence in him because whilst he said that he would not confuse this case with the earlier one he went on to quote from Peter Russell. I wondered how he knew so much about the earlier claim when it had not been mentioned in my documents.

P Beaumont was slow witted and assumed that everybody else was.
I couldn't help but notice that LCC had no papers with them (BEVERLEY CULLEN was there again).
P Beaumont was a last minute plant, he just couldn't get to grips with the issues at all and finally stopped bothering saying we would adjourn until after lunch.
It was interesting to observe what was going on from where I stood for the next minutes. I waited at the far end of the corridor knowing that events usually took place when they thought I had left the floor.
The clerk didn't emerge from the 'cupboard' allocated just for my case, she emerged from the room adjoining, Peter Russell's chambers.

That was how P Beaumont was managing to quote P Russell; Russell was in the room behind and had told him what to say.
I went back after lunch to waste more time dignifying their 'proceedings'.

Peter Beaumont quoted P Russell again and struck out my claim.
This was a Directions Hearing not a Pre-Review. Cases cannot be struck out at Directions Hearings.
This was another illegality.
There was no point in appealing because of the known and documented corruption in the Employment Appeal Tribunal for which see link http://www.criticalreader2004.blogspot.com/
All I could do was wait to see what Beaumont committed himself to in writing.
More junk mail.

I obtained the court computerised records almost 3 years later and the proof is there.
The case was not registered, another not legally heard and the records show that it was heard in my absence on the date in November when Ms Woolley wrote to me saying my GP notes were satisfactory evidence that I was too unwell to attend. In actual fact the records show that Peter Russell had heard the case in November noticing (one can only presume) that I wasn't in attendance.

No wonder Beaumont was quoting Russell, he had a script. One written out in November.
The fraud was on me again. But now Russell attended in November kn0wing it was illegal. Was he paid for that attendance?
If not, why not? If he did claim for his time he claimed fraudulently, another fraud on the taxpayer.
Was Beaumont paid for Dec 10th?
If not why not?
Would he offer his services for free? If so, why?
Did the taxpayer fund his corruption as well? Are they declared earnings?

A solicitor, ringing on my behalf in October 2005, was told that the claim numbers of my cases were not proper claim numbers and that I had not had a case in that court yet they knew me. He asked how they knew me if I had not been in that court. Any reasonable minded person would be asking the obvious questions.

I have all the evidence of those facts on documents and whilst history revisionists are active they cannot rewrite what I have in my possession. And what stays in my possession.
The time of this between early Nov and Christmas 2003 was busy for LCC.
There was an escalation of harassment and attempts to force me out of my job.
More recruits were enlisted, including more women. They all though that they would be the one to get the pat on the back from the 'men'. Why is it that silly women are willing recruits for these types of thugs and bullies? Do they want to be told what 'good girls' they have been?
For all that the next link will be http://www.woodsresearch05.blogspot.com/ and Lancashire's Director of Education creeps in to the picture as does the Adult College Lancaster and Lancaster County Court again.

All litigants in persons should note the MO in Manchester tribunals and the EAT. I won't have been the first this has happened to. Ends here, Carol Woods Lancaster