BURSLEM DELIVERY OFFICE MANAGMENT BULLYING VICTIM

[andy2007]

Wolfie, I still think that it was too harsh of you to say that Jim should be ashamed. Because in that case, I should also be ashamed of myself, for becoming so paranoid, that I had to rely on my Wife to deal with RM. At least until I recovered enough to "take the reigns" again.

I do however agree with you, that violence should never be an option. I have studied self defence, and as such am more than capable of defending myself physically (but thankfully, haven't needed to for over a decade). But I never try to use violence to solve my problems. It often results in further problems for me. As people often tell me that I'm "all mouth", because I refuse to fight them physically (e.g. Amma Fairman). But as you said yourself: The pen is mighter than the sword.

We don't know the specifics of Jim's condition. So please, don't assume his actions were shameful. Just because someone reaches a point, where all the fight goes out of them, temporarily. It doesn't mean that they aren't capable of defending themselves, when they are healthy.

[norbert]

Wolfie, I still think that it was too harsh of you to say that Jim should be ashamed. Because in that case, I should also be ashamed of myself, for becoming so paranoid, that I had to rely on my Wife to deal with RM. At least until I recovered enough to "take the reigns" again.

I do however agree with you, that violence should never be an option. I have studied self defence, and as such am more than capable of defending myself physically (but thankfully, haven't needed to for over a decade). But I never try to use violence to solve my problems. It often results in further problems for me. As people often tell me that I'm "all mouth", because I refuse to fight them physically (e.g. Amma Fairman). But as you said yourself: The pen is mighter than the sword.

We don't know the specifics of Jim's condition. So please, don't assume his actions were shameful. Just because someone reaches a point, where all the fight goes out of them, temporarily. It doesn't mean that they aren't capable of defending themselves, when they are healthy.

I wouldn't take much notice of Amma Fairman - most of his stuff was firstly a attempt to try and recruit for the BNP , then bluff and bluster afterwards - the reason why he came out with something like that was sour grapes - pure and simple .

TBH that's showing his true colours - the BNP have been shown up for what they really are - nobody has had to do rants or speechs - just put up a viral or pictures that ridicules them .

It's no coincidence that he didn't come back to spread the word .

[Beefy_Curtains]

sorry to read about your problems, however a business will not continue support if you feel they have won.....even so WELFARE is offered to all employees whom have trouble within there life, which effects there continuious attendance for work.....DID YOU TAKE THIS OPSION????????????
welfare are great and very supportive.........................Shame on you for not continuing the fight against these humans who believe they are by far greater than you...................and shame on your union representative for not knowing his onions to guide you through your trumatic time.............I hope your life continues on a positive road and wish you well in all that you do.....

"Shame on you for not continuing the fight against these humans who believe they are by far greater than you"

You are entitled to an opinion of course but you aint by the sound of it suffered depression my friend!

What make you say that then Dr Curtains You too are entitled to your opinion, which is granted. However please do not make judgements on things you are not medically experienced on.

I like Jim suffer from depression and have had many expert medical opinions on it. I unlike Jim don’t get intimidated by coward’s and will willingly smack the mouth of any bully, job or no job. Although not a medical expert, I have become over the years very experienced on stupid sentences from the miss-informed! There is no shame on you Jim in depression only shame on twats for thinking it!

Dr Curtains, its nice to read that you finally agree with me However if Jim did feel intimidated and could not take on royal mail then "shame on the union rep for not knowing his colleagues in work", as i previously wrote. For your file, as you will of been well informed by your medical expert, depression effects people in different ways and for that reason, they precribe different mediciation. However no one should be a defeatist and always stand up for what they believe is right no matter how hard things get.. so yes shame on jim but I do know how you felt ... and shame on you Dr Curtains, violance is never an option its just a cowards way out.....The pen is mighter than the sword....I believe in unions and know how hard divisional rep work up to headquaters and they are always there for us true members

Dear Nurse Dickhhead

Shame on you for STILL talking utter bollox. I dont agree with idiots / bullies and never will
Jim obviously could not stand up for himself
If bullies use violence on me then I use it on them.
As for the CWU head office working for us, you really are on another planet now so shame on you AND KEEP TAKING THE TABLEST! His rep was not much help was he?

[brothermagrew]

When challenging a bully watch for this fifteen-step behaviour exhibition:

6.Threat:
Put the frightners on. The victim has always succumbed before, see if they are still susceptible.

This is doing your reputation no good.
I'll have to bring this up with the Sector or Area Manager.
I'll have to consult with our/my/your professional body on this.
I've talked with [a certain person/office] and made them aware of the facts of this case.
If you persist in this ridiculous campaign, I shall have to report you to Board of Directors/Head of Personnel/Security/Police.

Note that most of these threats are implied rather than real. In most cases, the bully has no intention of contacting anyone, but the purpose of making threats is to stir up fear and confusion. An enemy confused is an enemy disheartened is an enemy crushed. In a few cases however, the bully may carry out the threat - and follow it up with uncharacteristically meticulous notes copied with equally uncharacteristic rigorousness to all and sundry - or at least all whom the bully regards as allies or potential allies.

A further effect of this approach is to imply that the bully has the full support and backing of the people they name. Again, this may be true. It is also possible that at this moment the bully does not have the support of anyone, but in the event of a showdown these people may side with the bully, thus turning the bully's threat into an eerily self-fulfilling prophecy.

Threats themself are provocative, anticipating the next step. If you suspect the bully really has consulted a third person, and made them aware of the "facts", pause and consider how to approach the situation. A sudden reaction, which is what the bully wants, may be inappropriate or unnecessary, and may make the situation worse. A considered, discrete enquiry at a suitable time may be more appropriate. If you do decide to double-check, remember that opinions can be challenged, altered, misunderstood and misrepresented - so stick firmly to facts.

[burslemlad]

Wolfie wrote However if Jim did feel intimidated and could not take on royal mail then "shame on the union rep for not knowing his colleagues in work"[/quote]


Wolfie once again I must point out that the office reps were suspended at the time of Jims problems. Please read my previous post on this thread.

[norbert]

When challenging a bully watch for this fifteen-step behaviour exhibition:

6.Threat:
Put the frightners on. The victim has always succumbed before, see if they are still susceptible.

This is doing your reputation no good.
I'll have to bring this up with the Sector or Area Manager.
I'll have to consult with our/my/your professional body on this.
I've talked with [a certain person/office] and made them aware of the facts of this case.
If you persist in this ridiculous campaign, I shall have to report you to Board of Directors/Head of Personnel/Security/Police.

Note that most of these threats are implied rather than real. In most cases, the bully has no intention of contacting anyone, but the purpose of making threats is to stir up fear and confusion. An enemy confused is an enemy disheartened is an enemy crushed. In a few cases however, the bully may carry out the threat - and follow it up with uncharacteristically meticulous notes copied with equally uncharacteristic rigorousness to all and sundry - or at least all whom the bully regards as allies or potential allies.

A further effect of this approach is to imply that the bully has the full support and backing of the people they name. Again, this may be true. It is also possible that at this moment the bully does not have the support of anyone, but in the event of a showdown these people may side with the bully, thus turning the bully's threat into an eerily self-fulfilling prophecy.

Threats themself are provocative, anticipating the next step. If you suspect the bully really has consulted a third person, and made them aware of the "facts", pause and consider how to approach the situation. A sudden reaction, which is what the bully wants, may be inappropriate or unnecessary, and may make the situation worse. A considered, discrete enquiry at a suitable time may be more appropriate. If you do decide to double-check, remember that opinions can be challenged, altered, misunderstood and misrepresented - so stick firmly to facts.

that could be simplified to plan B - the "victim " or "you're being unreasonable " though I agree throughly with the thrust of that article as it's all about defining everything & it comes in many forms - Jeremy Kyle uses that one - enough said

I've had the " are you trying to blackmail us ( my first thought then was shouldn't have anything to "blackmail" with ) -" you are being silly" - in that case there was a lot of "silly people" going to tribunals - saw right through that one ! - then added - you can if you want - that could be spun as drawing attention to our policies - I also got "this proves your hostility " - all political with a small p B/S to impress more senior management just like RM ! - who was calling whom hostile ?

I also got the "you are surly " - I took that as sour grapes as I wasn't reacting to a bully . Problem was the Union sold us down the river so I'd to be "rep" , I was probably a too aggressive one in hindsight ! it's more a like a game of poker all about bluff and not revealing your hand - let them guess !

The employer had a policy of too clever by half ( they can also be as thick as two short planks too ) college graduates and a lot of ex-teachers instead of the old school managers who at least had come through the grades - worst ones were old school managers trying to be " be brave world " managers and they tended to be ex clerks in charge of operations - sounds familiar ?

[wolfie citizen smith]

Wolfie, I still think that it was too harsh of you to say that Jim should be ashamed. Because in that case, I should also be ashamed of myself, for becoming so paranoid, that I had to rely on my Wife to deal with RM. At least until I recovered enough to "take the reigns" again.

I do however agree with you, that violence should never be an option. I have studied self defence, and as such am more than capable of defending myself physically (but thankfully, haven't needed to for over a decade). But I never try to use violence to solve my problems. It often results in further problems for me. As people often tell me that I'm "all mouth", because I refuse to fight them physically (e.g. Amma Fairman). But as you said yourself: The pen is mighter than the sword.

We don't know the specifics of Jim's condition. So please, don't assume his actions were shameful. Just because someone reaches a point, where all the fight goes out of them, temporarily. It doesn't mean that they aren't capable of defending themselves, when they are healthy.

I must agree with you andy and apologise

[wolfie citizen smith]

sorry to read about your problems, however a business will not continue support if you feel they have won.....even so WELFARE is offered to all employees whom have trouble within there life, which effects there continuious attendance for work.....DID YOU TAKE THIS OPSION????????????
welfare are great and very supportive.........................Shame on you for not continuing the fight against these humans who believe they are by far greater than you...................and shame on your union representative for not knowing his onions to guide you through your trumatic time.............I hope your life continues on a positive road and wish you well in all that you do.....

"Shame on you for not continuing the fight against these humans who believe they are by far greater than you"

You are entitled to an opinion of course but you aint by the sound of it suffered depression my friend!

What make you say that then Dr Curtains You too are entitled to your opinion, which is granted. However please do not make judgements on things you are not medically experienced on.

I like Jim suffer from depression and have had many expert medical opinions on it. I unlike Jim don’t get intimidated by coward’s and will willingly smack the mouth of any bully, job or no job. Although not a medical expert, I have become over the years very experienced on stupid sentences from the miss-informed! There is no shame on you Jim in depression only shame on twats for thinking it!

Dr Curtains, its nice to read that you finally agree with me However if Jim did feel intimidated and could not take on royal mail then "shame on the union rep for not knowing his colleagues in work", as i previously wrote. For your file, as you will of been well informed by your medical expert, depression effects people in different ways and for that reason, they precribe different mediciation. However no one should be a defeatist and always stand up for what they believe is right no matter how hard things get.. so yes shame on jim but I do know how you felt ... and shame on you Dr Curtains, violance is never an option its just a cowards way out.....The pen is mighter than the sword....I believe in unions and know how hard divisional rep work up to headquaters and they are always there for us true members

Dear Nurse Dickhhead

Shame on you for STILL talking utter bollox. I dont agree with idiots / bullies and never will
Jim obviously could not stand up for himself
If bullies use violence on me then I use it on them.
As for the CWU head office working for us, you really are on another planet now so shame on you AND KEEP TAKING THE TABLEST! His rep was not much help was he?

Dr Curtains, you must be an apsolute joy to work with weirdo

[wolfie citizen smith]

Wolfie wrote However if Jim did feel intimidated and could not take on royal mail then "shame on the union rep for not knowing his colleagues in work"

Wolfie once again I must point out that the office reps were suspended at the time of Jims problems. Please read my previous post on this thread.[/quote]

sorry did not read that and i apologise

[burslemlad]

Thanks Wolfie

[brothermagrew]

Q. If a person (target) is truly bullied then why don't more employers side with the person (target)?
Employers eliminate the target because they (employers) have failed to fulfil their legal duty and provide their employees with a safe work environment. Employers will do anything to avoid accountability and having to pay damages. Many organisations, especially in the public sector, have a bottomless purse when it comes to defending legal action for negligence. The purpose of bullying is to hide incompetence and most bullying is hierarchical. The bullying that one sees or experiences is usually the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing. Also, employers are more scared of serial bullies than they are of targets, therefore it's easier, cheaper and less risky to get rid of the target; by the time the employer gets to hear of the bullying case against them, the target is probably traumatised, suffering a severe psychiatric injury, facing loss of job and income, and may not have union or legal support; therefore the employer is much more likely to win their case against a target than against a resentful, determined and vindictive serial bully.

And I would suspect that it is as true now than it ever has been.

[stokes11eg]

Q. If a person (target) is truly bullied then why don't more employers side with the person (target)?
Employers eliminate the target because they (employers) have failed to fulfil their legal duty and provide their employees with a safe work environment. Employers will do anything to avoid accountability and having to pay damages. Many organisations, especially in the public sector, have a bottomless purse when it comes to defending legal action for negligence. The purpose of bullying is to hide incompetence and most bullying is hierarchical. The bullying that one sees or experiences is usually the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing. Also, employers are more scared of serial bullies than they are of targets, therefore it's easier, cheaper and less risky to get rid of the target; by the time the employer gets to hear of the bullying case against them, the target is probably traumatised, suffering a severe psychiatric injury, facing loss of job and income, and may not have union or legal support; therefore the employer is much more likely to win their case against a target than against a resentful, determined and vindictive serial bully.

And I would suspect that it is as true now than it ever has been.

Exactlly-well said!

[brothermagrew]

When challenging a bully watch for this fifteen-step behaviour exhibition:

7. Provocation:
This is an invitation to act emotionally, irrationally, irresponsibly - an attempt to elicit a knee-jerk and reckless reaction, one which will be regretted afterwards. In provoking you the bully is gaining ammunition to be used later when portraying you as untrustworthy, immature, unreliable etc - precisely those characteristics displayed by the bully, and another example of projection. Bite your tongue, focus on what the bully says and does, remind yourself that the purpose of this interaction is to allow the bully to give you overwhelming behavioural evidence so that he ends up damming himself.

The beauty of this technique is that the more impeccable your behaviour, the longer the piece of rope the bully chooses with which to hang himself.

If you don't stop pestering/harassing/bullying me, I'm going to the Police.
I know people [in high places] who will put a stop to your game.
I don't see how we can continue to work together if you continue to behave like this.
I'm reporting this to your senior manager this afternoon.
You're behaving in a childish and immature manner.
If you take any action, the company will sue for every penny you've got.
You're embarrassing yourself, me, and the company.

The last provocative remark contains guilt and implied threat. It is a weak, but often effective attempt by the bully to align himself with both high moral standards and the objectives/purpose/standards of the employer. It has a strong isolating effect on the individual.

[wolfie citizen smith]

Q. If a person (target) is truly bullied then why don't more employers side with the person (target)?
Employers eliminate the target because they (employers) have failed to fulfil their legal duty and provide their employees with a safe work environment. Employers will do anything to avoid accountability and having to pay damages. Many organisations, especially in the public sector, have a bottomless purse when it comes to defending legal action for negligence. The purpose of bullying is to hide incompetence and most bullying is hierarchical. The bullying that one sees or experiences is usually the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing. Also, employers are more scared of serial bullies than they are of targets, therefore it's easier, cheaper and less risky to get rid of the target; by the time the employer gets to hear of the bullying case against them, the target is probably traumatised, suffering a severe psychiatric injury, facing loss of job and income, and may not have union or legal support; therefore the employer is much more likely to win their case against a target than against a resentful, determined and vindictive serial bully.

And I would suspect that it is as true now than it ever has been.

I couldn't agree more brothermagrew

[norbert]

Q. If a person (target) is truly bullied then why don't more employers side with the person (target)?
Employers eliminate the target because they (employers) have failed to fulfil their legal duty and provide their employees with a safe work environment. Employers will do anything to avoid accountability and having to pay damages. Many organisations, especially in the public sector, have a bottomless purse when it comes to defending legal action for negligence. The purpose of bullying is to hide incompetence and most bullying is hierarchical. The bullying that one sees or experiences is usually the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing. Also, employers are more scared of serial bullies than they are of targets, therefore it's easier, cheaper and less risky to get rid of the target; by the time the employer gets to hear of the bullying case against them, the target is probably traumatised, suffering a severe psychiatric injury, facing loss of job and income, and may not have union or legal support; therefore the employer is much more likely to win their case against a target than against a resentful, determined and vindictive serial bully.

And I would suspect that it is as true now than it ever has been.

The Bully is likely to be a Sociopath i.e. he/she can only see things as they relate to hm/her - they think that the "system " or higher management should protect them and/or close ranks - they are likely to be arrogant / dogmatic - have a twisted sense of self - righteousness , they'll have huge but very fragile egos , the culture would turn him into at worst a big baby or the culture would be like something out of school at best .

Too right they'd be vindictive and resentful as that type is likely to think they were God's gift to the Employer .

I've seen the goalposts being moved - in a case where the Employer was accused of a deliberate command and ignore culture - the goalposts were moved to try make the complaint look like a case against the person getting away with murder , not against the Employer to try and weasel out of something .