How to cover up 'Culture'

1. We dismissed the whistleblower for Bringing the Companies Name into Disrepute, when the evidence has proven that he was stopping the companies name from falling into disrepute, following the actions of The Operations Manager, and the inaction of The Manager.                                      

⦁ He informed fellow staff members of incidents that management were for at least two years condoning, and then facilitating teenagers' obscene behaviour. That of a girl and boy from the ages of at least twelve and fifteen, to 'wait at the hotel for a lift home after school', who've left evidence many times in the disabled toilets that they'd had sex. The boy of which has then gone on to threaten him twice when challenged, and smashed a window with his beer can, which is when he called the police in. 

⦁ The manager followed company protocol by telling him she "wouldn't go through it with him", after hearing about the incident, and kept ‘to the system’ by having nothing to say to him after he’d informed staff of his concerns.  

She asked him personally to sign a memo, which essentially said don't publicly post critical and disrespectful information. This was to ensure he didn’t inform anyone else about managers who are condoning and facilitating underage sex in public places, who lie about police verified evidence, and who sneered at him for getting involved; despite them having the authority to do something about a situation where he’s been threatened twice. 

⦁ The Manager was on holiday both times the boy threatened him, though he wrote a report about the first occurrence in the incident book, and both other managers were present for the first threat, so we believe her claim that ‘she didn't know about the threats'.   

⦁ Whilst the Operations Manager would have told her about the second incident, so she could have been told literally anything about it, which could explain why the only thing she has said to him about it is; 

⦁ "Always have to get involved, don't you" 

⦁ then just sneered and walked away. 

⦁ She knew though from reading his post all about the threats, police involvement, the operations manager’s facilitation, and that he’d told people she was at best condoning everything,  

⦁ Hence, she also knew that the operations manager, who she had put in charge of this saga was acting complicitly by secretly overriding the relief manager's and his barring of the youngsters. Whose activities were common knowledge, whilst he’d also informed her in 2018, which was after the previous manager had told her before he left. 

⦁ Hence, through the operations manager letting them back into the hotel it gave the boy mixed messages, which caused him to threaten him, as the boy said to him, 

⦁ "he knew the owner of the hotel and that he was allowed in here..." .  

(The boy probably thought this man was the owner though, as the operations manager stupidly told police the males full name after he'd said he met with the boy's mother and agreed to unbar him. 

 He brilliantly now denies police involvement, and hence what he said to them, so he's covering up everything he said to the police, in the hope that no one gains access to the police report, therefore stopping the owner of …..  Motels Ltd being dragged into this investigation.    

 

      

⦁ The manager therefore couldn't address the situation with the whistleblower, thus allowing the couple to continue by still leaving no plan on what to do if the they came back to the hotel again. 

⦁ This confirmed our 100% confidence in her ability as manager to be able, or willing to deal with any situation we need covering up, never mind do anything about an extremely aggressive, homophobic regressive anger outburst that he was the subject of and witnessed. 

⦁ It did inspire him though to add the satirical final line to his second post to all staff, as just writing facts in the first one hadn't resulted in the issues and threats being addressed from his perspective. 

⦁ Therefore if the manager had wanted to talk about the issues he’d raised, rather than continue to condone it, it would have given him the trust in her to inform her of the homophobic regressive anger outburst he was subjected to. Hence, he wouldn't have needed to have sent the second message later that day which resulted in him being dismissed. 

  

⦁  

⦁ 2. He sent his second informative message privately in the same way as he had the first. This time though he literally had no other choice after his first message was condoned, but to retort with a satirical conclusion to try and ensure an extremely menacing outburst by the F&B Manager got addressed to stop his threatening behaviour.  

⦁ He's a much stronger man than him, and he thought he'd have another regressive anger attack if he approached him about it, just like he did with a Barmaid after she kept 'nagging' him to put Xmas antlers on.  

⦁ He thought the satire would make it far easier for his colleagues to approach him about it, which they did, and now unfortunately people are aware of his role within the company so we had to ‘let him move on’.  This is despite him sticking to company protocol when questioned by the whistleblower about it straight after his transformative outburst, where he shook his head, and walked off 'with his tail between his legs'. With the whole scene apparently being only comparable to watching The American Werewolf in London, in 3 seconds! That of a respectable looking young man, who turns into a monster when triggered, and then 'when the light of day hits' he shuffles away like he's naked and innocent due to not remembering what he's just done.  

⦁ Hilariously, we dismissed the whistleblower for harassment and bullying for posting this despite it being himself who had been the subject of and witnessed this regressive anger outburst.  Therefore, he was the actual victim of harassment and bullying by the H.O.D, not him.  

⦁ To be found guilty of harassment and bullying 'the victim' has to be affected by what's happened, which he wasn't, (and we still managed to get rid of the whistle blower) as he was just, 

⦁ "Disgusted by his conduct" 

⦁ When he's the one whose conduct commoners find disgusting, as besides the 'attack', he's got a like for paedophilic material on Facebook. 

⦁ Which on finding this added to his infuriation with ….    Motels Ltd for doing absolutely nothing to prove his good intentions, and our man's guilt.  

⦁ Therefore a 'so-called' heterosexual man, and a member of his staff have been believed without question, despite the barmaid’s story being infeasible, and our facilitator not remembering anything – which is in line with local culture.                    

Therefore, as a bisexual man he’s been treated unequally, and with no respect throughout this investigation. 

⦁ The CCTV evidence being washed away helped our situation as it gave him no back

up to provide evidence to the rest of the world. We tried to trigger him by evoking past events and emotions in the hope it'd make him go mad , after he was left to investigate this man by myself, and discovered he liked watching “obscene behaviour by 13-year-old girls in public”. 

⦁ Initially therefore the whistleblower thought the regressive anger homophobic outburst was solely due to his bisexuality, however, after looking in his Facebook 'likes' section, it became clear his anger towards him was due to him stopping what he ‘likes’ happening in the hotel’s public toilets.  

Therefore, the whistleblower was putting not only the towns, but the owner’s entire culture at severe risk, so all the stops were pulled out to ensure he was dismissed from the company. 

  

⦁  

⦁ 3. The HR Manager, who dismissed him called all the 25 witnesses for the disrepute charge a "deflection" from the bullying and harassment charge and so didn't interview any of them lol. 

⦁ Interviewing them would have revealed his concerns were common knowledge, and management weren't doing anything about it except for allowing teenagers back into the hotel after being barred by himself and the companies main Relief Manager, who wasn't interviewed despite management denying they were barred in first place.   

⦁ This included the operations manager, who when interviewed by HR for the grievance put in against him has totally contradicted police verified evidence. He's also made a story up to make the whistleblower look guilty, when he's guilty of covering up what he told the police, police involvement, and two years of what everyone knew the alcohol drinking, used condom leaving youngsters were doing in the disabled toilets. 

⦁ Therefore if HR had interviewed these people for his Disrepute Charge, it would have totally altered the dynamics of the investigation, as the managers have proven their guilt, when interviewed for the grievances he put in against them. 

⦁ This would of lead to the two managers being 'disciplined', and himself being exonerated; as he hasn't made "unfounded allegations against the company effectively turning a blind eye towards illegal activities".  

⦁ This would of lead to his bullying and harassment charge having a considerably better chance of being investigated, which it hasn't been; except by us people who are desperate to get rid of him to keep him from blowing the whistle again on …...   Hotels Ltd Managers! 

  

⦁  

⦁  

4. The Manager has been aware of this ongoing situation since the previous manager told everyone about them in 2017 being barred from another hotel, she has however given her operations managers version of events her full support despite evidence that 100% contradicts it.   

⦁ She also said:     

⦁ "he didn't tell her the boy had threatened him",  

even after telling HR in the grievance he put in against her: 

⦁"she wouldn't go through it with him”                                                                                                   

So how was he going to communicate with her about it especially after the only thing she has said to him about the incident after she got back from her holidays was (with a sneer), 

⦁ "Always have to get involved, don't you"  

Which excellently doesn’t instil confidence to tell her about what the manager on duty should have told her about what happened, and what had been discussed with the police - which her understudy has now denied everything about the two hours he spent with the police!  

⦁ and that:  

⦁ "He’d no need to get involved" (despite being called to incidents many times) 

⦁  

⦁ The HR department at …..     Motels Ltd were told she couldn't manage her staff after she condoned her Housekeeper, who before her very eyes acted out threatening to kill and kick a maid’s head in, whilst banging her fists against the wall and tables.         

Since then, she has also condoned a 17-year-old girl being bullied about her weight, liked a joke about fat girls being ugly on Facebook, and has herself been abusive to a teenage girl staff member. Whilst in this case she has not made any effort to prove that the barmaid and the whistleblower are the victims here!  

⦁ She hasn't looked at the CCTV or taken any recordings of the bullying incident or circumstantial evidence, despite saying she would in the Investigative Hearing  

⦁ This is 35 days after the incident, and so well within the CCTV time availability of at least 42 days that HR have confirmed that they viewed another incident after. 

⦁ HR also states, 

⦁ "there is no volume or voice recording on the CCTV to clarify what was said", from at least 57 days after the incident; though there will be circumstantial evidence that proves his version of events and disproves the barmaids; therefore, he hoped she's saved a copy of what she has viewed for the Tribunal – so we ensured she didn’t. 

⦁  

⦁ Therefore this is more proof of a fantastically unjust conclusion to the hearing due to our agenda driven, biased investigators, as he’s put in complaints about the manager in the past, and his disrepute charge involved her, besides there being allegations of her condoning bullying incidents.  

  

⦁  

⦁  

 

5. HR have compared his gay satire's impact on the attacker several times to himself being raped and beaten up. This has absolutely disgusted him and is in his view not just gaslighting the facts, its homophobic as he told her his sexuality was due to issues that stemmed from the sexual abuse he was subjected to as a child (yearning for similarities to the comfort that helped you at the time, which in his case was a ‘cheeky chappy’ man). He also told her this man showed clear signs like that of another person who had physically attacked him in the past, that indicated he had serious issues that need addressing, as latest research shows 70% of homophobes are also latent homosexuals.  

So, he needs help for his own sake and other peoples!  

  

⦁  

⦁ 6. The only witness for his harassment and bullying charge, the barmaid now says     

    "It did happen but wasn't as bad as I said it was".                                               

She had not said a word about the incident outside the …......... room before this, but had told investigators a much less serious occurrence had happened in the ........., where he referred to him as,  

⦁    "That way inclined" (outing him)               

Despite her claim that he walked in when they were talking about him, he confirmed that he wasn't present for this interaction and the CCTV would have proven that!  

She is following company policy by pretending to be suffering from repressed anger and trying to dumb it down to ensure people who blow the whistle on her employers are sacked. 

⦁She has hilariously also refused to speak to police about the incident, despite phoning them up to tell them “She was too busy to get involved in all this”.  

Her telephone interview  about this incident with HR though took just three minutes, whereas with the police it would probably take the same time as the phone call she made to them (as the incident only lasted 3-5 seconds), but there's a high chance she'll have a different story to tell the police than the investigators, just like the operations manager has done – so she will be ‘moved on’ too at a convenient time. 

  

⦁  

⦁ 7. In response to the respondent's defence, the memo confirmed …...       Hotels Ltd didn't want anyone to use Group Chat to inform people of the extent to which they are willing to cover up their chosen managers indiscretions, and inability to do their jobs. 

     He confirmed that he never had any intention to use Group Chat for his second message though, as the issues raised are best to be dealt with initially by experienced people like himself, responsible management (so no one at The Hotel), colleagues, friends of the people involved and the police. 

⦁ The issues of the first message therefore could not be addressed by management as they were all true, which left him with still having to deal with the worry of threats from a youth for stopping them going into the disabled toilets together – and our homophobic staff member. 

⦁ 

  He therefore sent the second message in the same private way, and gave it some humour after the first one was ignored, in order to get people he sent it to be involved in 'helping him' for everyone's health, wellbeing and safety; rather than just accept being bullied and harassed due to his sexuality. 

⦁ Regarding what ….HR calls 'inconsistent reasons for justifying sending the messages';              If they’d read the messages, I don't think his reasons could have been much clearer in both about why he sent them, and after the hearings its been proven that …..     Hotels Ltd managers will almost perfectly cover up police involvement – hence, our close connections to all the authorities were essential to keep our culture in intact. 

⦁ Therefore he was fully justified in sending these messages to shine the light on one mans 'severe issues of a sexual nature, and also what the public now know is the extent to which the managers are covering up local traditions; which our chief investigator cheekily wrote for his dismissal “mentioning the hotel and it's not in a positive light”. 

⦁ Whilst it's true that he didn’t start this, and has done his best to finish it by getting people to approach one of our beloved about his issues to help him to address his regressive anger homophobic outbursts. He never said he was helping him reveal his sexuality though, he told HR he was helping him to stop having homophobic regressive anger outbursts through dealing with his issues, that in turn helped everyone else out, by him not being a danger to them. 

⦁ If he’d have just told everyone they would have followed company policy of just ignoring him, and so the issue wouldn't have been addressed and been left to fester; along with his 'liking' of an obscene video of a 13-year-old girl, until he told the police about it. 

⦁ Therefore our man’s traditional homophobia and latent homosexuality have come to light, as have his severe sexual issues, and without the whistleblowers input he’d still be an essential member of staff. 

⦁ Regarding what he would have done differently in hindsight, he said,  

⦁ 'he would have reported it to the manager under normal managerial conditions',  

⦁ which they couldn't be further from at The Hotel. It's even written in the Disciplinary Hearing that he said "The Manager is not fit to be approached, even besides this incident;  

so he didn't say “he would have reported it” to this manager.  

⦁ Therefore along with virtually everything else ….HR has put in the Defence of ….    Hotels Ltd due to HR’s desire to deflect attention away from the disrepute charge, they’re gaslighting facts to an exceptional standard. 

⦁ They continue this dumbing down / gaslighting of the facts narrative when they state that the regressive anger attacker just 'called him a name', when the truth is as he’s written extensively about and demonstrated to all the investigators and the police that it was an extremely aggressive, homophobic regressive anger outburst. 

⦁ ⦁ Furthermore his reasons for not informing management immediately have been justified, as they have failed to investigate the incident , despite CCTV being viewed at Head Office after a lot longer time period. Whilst we also didn't investigate the incident in 2018 or do anything about a child couple having sex in the disabled toilets.  

⦁ All of which would be still beautifully festering, if he hadn't of used gay themed satire in his conclusion to draw attention to these incidents that management were brushing under The Hotel's extremely bumpy carpet. 

⦁  

⦁ In conclusion, ….    Hotels Ltd have dismissed the only person at The Hotel who makes the management accountable for their actions, and inactions. They've took no action regarding complaints he’s made, but as soon as someone has put in a complaint about him, we've pulled out all the stops to dismiss him. 

⦁ Some people may consider his honest and satirical way of dealings with these issues to have been crude; but in context to what he’s helped expose and reveal, I think he’s written one of the greatest concluding lines of satire of all time – lucky we’re above the law eh! 

⦁ As everyone now knows the extent to which ….      Motels Ltd will go to, to cover up incidents; whilst the attacker, the police and everyone else are now aware of his issues due to the whistleblower using our Achillies Heel subject of homosexuality.