I took representatives from an entire society to court for keeping quiet about everything, but no one wants to hear about it!

 

What are the issues or questions for the Tribunal to decide?. 

1. Have B' Hotels Ltd tried to thwart my attempts to get 'help' for Mr T's regressive anger, homophobia, and now 'liking' of paedophilic material on Facebook, to stop me blowing the whistle on them again? 

As they've used every trick in the book to do this, from not viewing the CCTV despite it being available, believing the only witnesses statement despite it being infeasible, and presuming he's innocent despite him not remembering 'outing' me, or homophobically harassing me in an extremely threatening way. 

2. Have B' Hotels then unfairly dismissed me for Harassment and Bullying? After I used my only available outlet of very camp, and gay themed satire in my conclusion to the post I sent to all staff. Where I informed them of what I witnessed, and that I was the subject of an horrendous regressive anger homophobic outburst.

 3. Has B' Hotels Ltd also unfairly dismissed me for Bringing The Company into Disrepute? 

After informing people that The Hotels Managers have for two years been condoning and facilitating a child couple to have sex in the disabled toilets; besides condoning the boy threatening me twice for barring them. The manager has even gone as far as condoning this issue even after she knew staff had been told about the extent of the condoning; as it was true! 

Furthermore, if Mrs G had discussed the issue with me I wouldn't have had to send my second message as I would have had confidence in them to deal with it. Therefore continued condoning of incidents left me still vulnerable to continued threats and homophobia. 

4. To ensure I was dismissed, has the Investigator, Mrs K, not interviewed any of my witnesses for my Disrepute Charge in order to protect the Operations Manager? Who has lied about police verified evidence, which would have resulted in him being dismissed and myself being thanked for exposing the truth! 

As the truth here would have then given me the continued respectable reputation, and good character for the evidence to be at least considered for my bullying charge investigation. Instead I've been treated with no respect or appreciation, when its B Hotels Ltd who've not saved copies of the CCTV evidence, believed an infeasible witness statement and the perpetrator for not knowing anything about the incident despite it being on CCTV!

 Furthermore, they've not believed a word that I've said, and every word that do-called heterosexuals have said about this incident and others, and so have treated me unequally due to my sexuality; besides myself having morals!

 5. To ensure my reasons weren't data protected, like that of Mrs L L, has Mrs K equated my camp satirical conclusion about Mr T, to having the same impact on him as myself being sexually abused as a child? 

As I told Mrs K that I was raped as a child, besides being beaten up as an adult for being gay by people who showed similar characteristics to Mr T, yet she's devoted most of her summary in dismissing me by focusing on, 'I was abused, so why abuse Mr T! 

This has not only disgusted me, it has triggered all the negative emotions I've had in the past about it. 

It's also homophobic as I told her my sexuality is due to issues stemming from childhood sexual abuse (attractions to essences of people who I found comfort from at the time to cope with my trauma - 'psychosexuality'), and is therefore gaslighting the facts to ensure I'm dismissed so that I can't hold management at The Hotel accountable for their actions anymore!!

  Are there any preliminary issues which should be decided before the final hearing? 

If yes, what preliminary issues? 

Yes, I've reported Mr T to the police for having what advertisers itself as an indecent underage app in his 'likes' on Facebook, and Mr J for denying the incident even took place, despite myself doing a police report with the police for two hours whilst he operated the CCTV for them!!

 The police have interviewed Mr T, but have yet to respond to the information about Mr J • 

How many witnesses will each party call? Who are those witnesses? Why are they needed? 

10

 Mr J, P C B, P C H, Mr L, Mr S P, Mr T, Mrs G, Mrs K Ms S S and Mrs L J. 

1. Mr J has denied the police attended the incident at the hotel, and thus, what he told them!!!

 He has also said the teenagers weren't barred by other management, he also claims to have barred them for the final incident when he wasn't even present, besides questioning why I didn't tell him the boy had threatened to slice me up when its written in the reports and saw it on CCTV!

So he needs to explain to the judge about why he has lied about everything!!

2. & 3. P C B and P C H are needed to either confirm Mr J's lies about him witnessing the incident, myself being responsible for it, and the police not attending it etc; or to reopen the case following this new evidence he's given in response to the grievance I put in against him. I would also like to ask the officers if they remember how Mr J knew the boys full name, as he told everyone present he "unbarred the boy after meeting with his mother, as they lived out of town and needed somewhere to stay after school until she could pick them up"!

 4. Owner of The Hotel, Mr L is needed to see if he knows of the boy or indeed the couple; after the boy said, "He knew the owner, and he was allowed here". Mr L does have a connection to the town, so maybe he's a relative or friends relative, and so this huge cover up could be just to save his embarrassment. As Mr J confirmed to police that he had met the boy's mother, and unbarred him; yet now he's not only denied this, but also the police being involved at all! 

Therefore Mr L could either vouch for Mr J's possible reason for covering this saga up, or still leave the reasons for it open. 

 5. Mr S P, The Area's Manger will have been responsible for moving Mr J on to work in other hotels later that summer, so it will be interesting to see why he got moved at such a time after spending around 6 years at The Hotel. 

6. Mr T had his homophobic regressive anger outburst (about me) whilst in conversation with Ms S S outside my office!!

 Due to regressive anger sufferers having a high chance of not remembering their 'attacks' (as in this case?), their seems little point in asking him about it. But he can be asked to speculate what he thinks is most likely to have caused it; 

a) myself wearing Xmas Reindeer Antlers,

b) my sexuality 

c) Or myself trying to put an end to a girl from the age of 13 doing obscene things in the hotels disabled toilets; as Mr T has an obscene app entitled "13 year old girl doing obscene things in public" in his Facebook likes section!! 

 7. Mrs LJ is the only person to have confirmed viewing any CCTV footage, so I would like her to reveal what she saw, and to bring along any saved footage to the tribunal.

 8. First of all Mrs G needs to be asked if she viewed the CCTV of the Mr T incident, as she said she would investigate it after the investigative hearing with her, but I've not seen or heard of any feedback from that. Neither have I heard anything back about any further investigation into her Banqueting manager claim that he 'doesn't employ homosexuals as they are nothing but trouble'.

 Mrs G can also be asked what gives her the confidence to believe Mr J didn't unbar the children when he's told the police he had!!!

 Is this the same reasoning of believing so-called Heterosexuals like Mr T without question, and not so-called 'Pansexuals' like myself? 

Likewise she can account for saying she 'wouldn't go through it with me', and then say, "I haven't told her about being threatened" - threats that are in the incident book, police reports and were witnessed by the temporary manager (who is not available due to being out of the country!) and viewed by Mr J and the police on CCTV. 

She can also account for why she didn't discipline me, and had nothing to say about the first post I sent. Though she found time to write a memo, and sneer at me as she asked me to sign something that basically said don't inform people publicly about what management are both facilitating and condoning!

 Mrs G can also account for allegedly telling me 'I've no need to get involved', when I'm the one who kept on getting called to deal with these situations!!

Therefore what was the plan (if any) for dealing with these incidents that went on for at least two years, as it was discussed in Morning, and H.O.D. meetings several times. 

Moreover, why was I not informed of whatever plan Mr J had (besides condoning it, facilitating it, denying everything and blaming me for it) to stop, and deal with the obscene behaviour and threats. 

She can also be asked about her attitude to young girls who've been bullied, and her suitability to be in the role she is in! 

9. Mrs K can be asked why she didn't interview any of the witnesses (File 2) that would have proven that everything I wrote about was true, and so I wouldn't of been found guilty of bringing the company into disrepute. She can also be asked why she thinks the act of raping as a child, is akin to what most people have called 'hilarious and brilliant satire'; that's done its job by getting someone with obscene paedophilic and homophobic issues on the path towards getting therapy, and thus keeping people safe from him too. 

10. Ms S S has given exactly the same version of events as me except for the location, and says he called me 'that way inclined' and didn't shout "cos I'm F###ing Bent", in response to me wearing Xmas reindeer antlers. 

Mr T doesn't remember anything about this neither, whilst Ms S refused to speak to the police about the incident which she now says of it "It's happened, but wasn't as bad as you're making out.".

Hence, she can explain why she has changed the location and specific details about the incident her departmental manager is solely responsible for!!

                                                                               --------------------------------

Q. How did this get disregarded, not allowed to be even discussed at the 5 day hearing in court and turned into the following

A. He allowed things I couldn't prove including imputing incidents from people from 3 years earlier that I officially couldn't prove (as no one else would stand up to their two managers) and so hadn't even brought to court, whilst not allowing the things I could prove such as police verified evidence, the police report from an incident that everyone denied, cctv and anonymous witnesses