Saturday, 5 February 2011

Save the Truthful.

Carol Hill is the school dinner lady who committed the heinous crime of telling the parents – what’s it got to do with them? – of Chloe David that she had been bullied at school. Tsk!

Carol Hill told the truth and has been roundly lambasted by the Righteous for it. She is far from being the only one.

Anna Raccoon has set up a collection to supplement her derisory 'compensation' which in true Righteous fashion, is not compensation at all. It's a belittling decision to make an example of those who turn against the Reich and defy the newspeak agenda.

Carol Hill's total earnings were nowhere near any politician's daily expenses claims. It takes very little to make a difference.

Every penny donated gives a Righteous drone angina.


subrosa said...

Can I add a wee bit LI? If anyone detests Paypal as much as me they can email Anna and get a bank account number into which a donation can be paid.

microdave said...

Fully agree regarding PayPal. Anna has just emailed the details to me.

The Penguin said...

Thanks for the extra plug.

Things like this really boil my piss and Anna has been brilliant in setting this up.

The Penguin

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

Many thanks, Leggy.

Anonymous said...

What irks me most is the smug way the school authorities gloat over technicalities that permit them to continue imposing tyranny - and a class of people outside the school who probably defend this tyranny too. This is the same attitude as defends the smoking bans and all the other sh*t everyone has to put up with in this dictatorship form of government.

Anonymous said...

Appalling injustice. £10 from me.

Anonymous said...

The first tribunal said that she was unfairly dismissed. The second tribunal said that she was fairly dismissed.

I rather suspect that employees sign some sort of contract which requires them to follow certain procedures. One such might be not to speak to newspapers until in house procedures have been exhausted. Whether or not what she said to a newspaper actually falls within such a rule is a moot point. It would not surprise me if the decision of the 2nd tribunal could be overturned in a proper court of law. For example, would the statement, "No comment" be classed as 'speaking to a newspaper'? I think that it really is a matter of intent. That is, answering questions from a newspaper is different from approaching a newspaper. These are things which we do not know.

FrankC said...

Alright already. I've chipped in. Jees Loise, Anna and Leg-Iron both nagging.

Back when I was a wee sprout, dinner ladies just served up the gruel, never saw them in the playground. That duty fell to whichever teacher drew the short straw.

opinions powered by