I have no need to use
threatening behaviour. I simply have to point to that which has been presented
in substantial quantities of BT documents which are attributable to other BT
employees and their BT Friend(s).
The Claimant’s detailed witness statement contains very
considerable references to exact pages of BT provided documents for
a reason. Please note: I have lived with the contents of those BT
documents since early December 2011. Just as I have lived with the BT workplace
consequences of taking workplace action and Tribunal proceedings against a
workplace racist coward in BT who was, and still remains, popular amongst other
BT employees in this part of BT plc.. Please do not view the Respondent’s
application and the grounds on which that application is made as, in any way,
valid, proportionate or in any way justifiable. With respect, I worked with and
alongside these men, nobody, I repeat nobody, within BT Legal has. They, unlike
me, are therefore in large measure ignorant of the facts, the reality, the
actuality of the what I have complained to BT about and have now succeeded in
bringing before an Employment Judge and Tribunal panel. ReadingET viewing my
claim as meriting hearing over five days. My employer instructing their legal
representatives to resist my claim. BT also placing the full weight of their
organisation’s legal expertise at the service of the five white BT employees on
whom I served ET1s separately.
Is it proportionate that a legitimate listed Tribunal
claim be struck out because the Respondents are irate at the fact that the
contents of the Claimant’s witness statement has presented the facts of my
empirical BT workplace experience and my deep knowledge, as that relates to case
2702940/2011.
Please note, I am, also, irate (as in; I have been made
to feel extremely sick and unwell and continue to be so) at the contents of BT
documents disclosed to this BME BT employee as a result of my instigating
Tribunal proceedings against five white BT employees individually and against my
employer. Irate(ness), irrespective of quoted case
law relied upon by BT, is not legitimate grounds on which to base an application
to withhold from a citizen of this country his right to access legal due process
and considered legal judgement, in respect of my workplace rights and
entitlements as a BME BT employee.
BT plc.’s obvious concern for five white BT employees
to be now kept away from and safeguarded from public accountability for those BT
employee’s workplace actions is confusing to the Claimant. Why should grown men
not be exposed to questioning from the BME BT employee those grown men freely,
happily and with malice chose to target and pick on, in a cowardly, gang
mentality manner because of my race and my visible TU workplace role and
activity?
Are BT afraid those grown men may somehow come to some
harm?
An Employment Judge and Tribunal panel will be there to
ensure that that doesn’t happen, and that the law is fairly, impartially,
proportionately, equitably and justly administered. That is my, admittedly
limited, understanding of Employment Tribunal proceedings.
The fact that those grown men will be obliged /
compelled to either retract and withdraw their current stated evidence or
perjure themselves in the public forum of an Employment Tribunal is not the
Claimant’s fault or my responsibility.
The retraction of evidence in the legal arena of a
Tribunal or committing perjury in the legal arena of a Tribunal is a natural
consequence of the law taking its natural course, as a result of a BME BT
employee upholding my workplace rights, my workplace dignity and my self respect
as a BME employee and as a black man outside of my workplace. Why the First
Respondent considers they have to be protective of grown men who are workplace
perpetrators of cowardly gang- mentality bullying, harassing and victimisation
on the grounds of another BT employee’s race and TU workplace visibility is
puzzling to the Claimant. For example, the witness statements in my possession -
from the five white BT employees whom the First Respondent seeks to protect from
being spoken to by the BME BT employee who was those grown men erstwhile victim
and target – speaks to the necessity for the listed case to be allowed to
proceed without interference. The witness statements from the BT employee
Respondents are not only highly offensive to the BME BT employee Claimant. The
contents of those witness statements are simply, factually and actually wholly
mendacious and without merit. That is it say; untrue, false, lies.
The Claimant seeks the right to put the case of those
aforementioned facts to the grown men who are the five white BT employee
Respondents. The grown man who is the Claimant, undertakes not to, in any way,
be horrible and/or nasty to any of those other grown men who are the Other
Respondents, when I put to them individually, and in front of an impartial and
independent Employment Judge and Tribunal panel - the fact of their unlawful
workplace conduct those grown men carried out against me in BT’s workplace
simply because of the fact that I am a black BT employee and that I engaged
myself in visible TU workplace activity. Therefore I assert, to grant a PHR in
order to hear an application to strike out should be refused by the
Tribunal.
Discriminatory
behaviour
In addition, the Claimant makes a large number of
racially derogatory accusations against a colleague, who is not a Respondent to
the claim and will not be a witness at the hearing. The comments, reproduced
below, are discriminatory and vindictive. The Claimant’s personal opinions of Mr
Prince are entirely irrelevant to the allegations made in his claim and can
therefore only have been included out of malice.
The Claimant does not retract a single syllable of the
Claimant’s personal statement. Please see (i) BT documents contained within the
First Respondent’s bundle disclosed to the Claimant in respect of the evidence
given to BT IMs by the BME BT employee Brian Prince. Please also see (ii) CMD
7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 10.1 and 10.2. Please also see (iii)
FS1GC documents from the Claimant.
The first set of documents contain evidence which is
discriminatory and vindictive toward me, and was submitted in
malice and with malice aforethought by Brian Prince. That I am
afraid, and with the greatest of respect, is a simple fact. The fact that
BT Legal are not in a position to concur with that fact is something over
which the Claimant has no control and which I am helpless to influence. The
second set of documents demonstrates the actions taken by the Claimant in my
attempt to hold this BME BT employee accountable for the wilful and
malicious harm done to me by the lies, the false, and the egregiously misleading
evidence he submitted to BT IMs in August and September 2011. I failed in that
attempt. The third set of documents I rely upon as a part of my claim in
respect of my employer’s FS1GC and GA procedures in relation to Brian Prince. (I
am deliberately not referring to Brian Prince as *****-*** Prince in the course
of this objection to the assertion of discriminatory behaviour by BT Legal, out
of proper respect for the legal proceedings this objection is a part of. I wish
also to be respectful of ReadingET, respectful of my employer and respectful of
their legal representative.
I respectfully ask my employer to acknowledge this
fact. That which I presented to BT IMs at FS1GC and GA stage was
presented by me with the knowledge that that evidence, written and verbal, could
be subject to being revealed and disclosed to another person. The offensive
utterly offensive, cowardly and wholly mendacious evidence presented verbally by
that BME BT employee B Prince was submitted by Prince in the 100%
certainty that what he, Prince, stated and gave into evidence to
BT IMs in the privacy of BT’s internal FS1GC and GA procedures would
nevern ever never ever be
known by the black BT employee he, Prince, was deliberately wilfully and with
malice aforethought, to all intent and purpose; destroying, when he chose to
give into evidence to BT the sick, cowardly, disgusting lies, fabrications and
egregiously misleading statements which he, Prince , presented at FS1GC and GA hearing
investigations (sic)....*
Please do not talk to me about malice, vindictiveness,
discriminatory behaviour in respect of my workplace and Brian Prince if you do
not know, if you are totally and utterly unaware and without knowledge of the
facts of the matter.
*....would nevern ever
never ever be known by the complaining black BT employee Colin Jarvis.
Incidentally and factually the above (sic) is fundamentally
applicable to every single other BT employee involved in this whole dirty
business. That fact of absolutely assured confidentiality within
the employer’s internal procedures is the driving force behind all those BT
employee’s conduct during the course of BT’s internal procedures. A fact upon
which all the perpetrators and administrators concerned rely. i.e. The
victim, the complaining BME BT employee Colin Jarvis - will never ever know! Will the
reader please note the fact that no such anonymity and confidentiality exists in
Tribunal proceedings. That’s why they all resist when served to
appearing in front of an independent judicial body which is external to the privacy and confidentiality of their employer’s
workplace.
The Claimant, in his witness statement, makes
reference to the phrase ‘Uncle Tom’ 9 times in reference to a black colleague.
This is a racially derogatory phrase and is undoubtedly intended to humiliate,
vilify and offend. The Claimant’s conduct in presenting this discriminatory
content is clearly unwarranted, unreasonable and scandalous.
The racially derogatory phrase referred to is indeed
intended to humiliate, vilify and offend. Of that there is no dispute and I do
not seek to hide that fact from any. The fact that I have attributed, repeatedly
so, that, so loathed, attribution to a black person, in this instance BT employee
Brian Prince, was the point of the Claimant’s personal statement in respect of my
workplace and that particular BME BT employee whom I have worked with and/or
alongside for some five years. Unfortunately (maybe that should read
- fortunately?) the reader is not Colin Jarvis. Therefore I can only state
the fact that what I have read of what was presented by Prince to BT IMs.
Prince’s intention was, demonstrably, to humiliate me, vilify me and be
offensive, highly offensive to me, but privately. That is to say, in the total privacy of
an employer’s internal confidential procedures. Do you, the reader understand, comprehend the point which I am making? If the reader does not comprehend and/or understand the point, I cannot help that. I am helpless to change reality. The content the Claimant’s personal statement is anything but discriminatory, unwarranted, unreasonable and/or scandalous. I respectfully request the Tribunal reject the Respondent’s assertions as, in part, grounds for striking out the listed claim granted to the Claimant in November 2011.
Course of conduct
