[imc-oxford-features] Re: Article on Oxford Indymedia web site
mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net
Thu May 5 03:19:29 PDT 2005
richard hering wrote:
> Does anyone have a proposal how we should deal with this? (George
> Roe from UNISON confirmed the version below in a conversation on
> Monday, and he's definitely no corrupt bureaucrat!)
I don't think we should do anything.
Chris Murphy says (apparently in private correspondence with Richard):
> This page is wholly inaccurate and on behalf of the Oxford Brookes
> branch of UNISON I would ask that it be removed.
What are these inaccuracies?
> First, no-one on the branch committee here was aware of the alleged
> racial harassment, so it is difficult to be sympathetic over
> something of which you have no knowledge.
He's not saying that bit's inaccurate...
> UNISON's involvement was in a case of inappropriate behaviour, but as
> this is now going to an industrial tribunal I feel it inappropriate
> to comment further.
Sue doesn't say in her post what UNISON's involvement was, so no
> Second, Sue claims that she lost her job. The fact of the matter is
> that against UNISON's advice she resigned.
If you feel compelled to resign, it can be argued that you have lost
your job. The fact that an IT case is being brought indicates that this
is exactly what Sue thinks. So that's not obviously inaccurate.
> Third the page contains a serious allegation against a member of the
> branch committee, Ann Black.
Sue says that Ann wrote her a letter. Is Chris denying this? I was
unable to find anything I'd call a "serious allegation" against Ann in
> Sue Burgess did indeed receive a letter from the University's
> solicitor requesting that the web site www.sushilaburgess.co.uk be
> withdrawn, but this was at the request of the Deputy Director of
> Human Resources.
Sue says: "Then they got MANAGEMENT’s solicitor to write a letter trying
to gag me!". If the DDHR issued the request to the solicitor after
talking to UNISON, then I'd say that's fair comment.
> He personally confirmed this to me after a meeting last week. To say
> that this letter was written at UNISON's request is at least fanciful
> and at worst libellous.
If the solicitor got involved as a result of exchanges between UNISON
and the University, then I doubt that's libellous. It might or might not
have been badly-phrased.
I don't think there's any justification for taking any action at all
regarding that post. We haven't received a legal threat (this isn't a
proper takedown notice). The "wholly inaccurate" observation that Chris
makes isn't substantiated by the coments in the rest of his message (the
post might indeed be "wholly inaccurate", but we would need to know more
about these inaccuracies to justify hiding it). Whether the post might
have been ill-advised is another matter; but that's Sue's call, and
since Sue hasn't asked us to remove it, I can't see any excuse at the
moment for doing so.
I gather there's other information floating around the collective about
this; does someone want to make the case for hiding? I don't think it's
been made yet.
More information about the imc-oxford-features