Deliberately provoking the Righteous can be a risky game, especially if you've been working for them. They hold grudges forever and they will put considerable effort into destroying you if you look even remotely like a threat.
Christine Pratt, the anti-bullying woman who has been in the news for breaching confidences (which I think is possibly over-reaction, since the Rawnsley book had already done more than she did, although then again he didn't set up a confidential hotline so it's an arguable point) has seen the sponsors of her anti-bullying business melt away, the contact details summarily deleted from the Government website and has been publicly called names by Monsters of Parliament.
That's not enough. They haven't finished stamping on her yet.
She was involved in a case of workplace bullying, where a head teacher was accused of bullying her deputy.
Catherine Maltbaek was formally warned about her conduct after a tribunal heard that she had made the life of her deputy head at St Mary Roman Catholic School in Plymouth a "total misery".
Sue Preston, the claimant, received a £56,000 payment for constructive dismissal.
So the tribunal thought there was something in it. Apparently Mrs Pratt gave evidence and said something along the lines of 'it was the worst case of workplace bullying she had come across'. Well she would have been going on evidence provided by those who claimed to have been bullied, the same evidence as presented to the tribunal. She wasn't present at any actual incident. She could only work on the basis of what she was told. So can any court, tribunal, whatever. It is possible to get it wrong if the evidence is wrong.
But last night the General Teaching Council (GTC) ruled that the allegations against Mrs Maltbaek were unproven.
There were a lot of allegations from a lot of staff. A tribunal accepted them as true. Now, just after this woman annoyed the government, it seems none of those allegations had any basis in fact whatsoever. What a remarkable coincidence.
The verdict raises new questions about the professional record of Ms Pratt, whose National Bullying Helpline is now being investigated by the Charity Commission for allegedly going public with the concerns of callers.
Yes indeed, Mrs. Pratt. You dabbled in the world of the Righteous by hitching your wagon to the 'bullying' train and then you annoyed them. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing. They will not stop until you are out of business. Your husband, too.
Don't expect fair play. The best option now would be to resign and drop into obscurity. Your husband might want to move his business overseas too. There'll be a tax audit looming. A long and complex one.
One more thing -
Mrs Pratt has also faced questions about the relationship between her charity and the human resources company owned by her husband, after acknowledging that she referred callers to the firm.
If you must dabble with the Righteous you have to stay squeaky clean. They will store up information like this for the day they want to bring you down. I'm sure this little wheeze of yours was well known for some time, just like all those MP's expenses scams, but overlooked as long as you did what you were supposed to do.
They'll drag every skeleton from the closet and polish them up for public display. They will reverse everything you've done. They will humiliate you and they will shut you down.
Mrs. Pratt claimed expertise in bullying. She has come up against black-belt bullies now and she can't even phone her own hotline.
Give it up, Mrs. Pratt. You cannot win this one. Retire from the fray, consider what you've learned and come back to fight another day.
In the long run, it's the only sensible option.