Firstly, I will say that your constant repetition of your opinions on bullying, and in particular your adding of them to inappropriate threads such as this one, or the one on arson in Australia, are in themselves a suggestion that many SMT are guilty of bullying. If we were to constantly tell teachers that there is a lot of poor teaching around, bringing it up under any heading whatsoever in every staff meeting, the staff would rightfully be upset by the implication apparent in these repeated comments.<font face="Times New Roman"> </font> Secondly,<font face="Times New Roman" size="2"> A few a19pb quotes that would seem to inculpate many or most managers:</font> “Senior managers often state publically the opposite of reality very convincingly and in such a way that they will not be challenged.” “Another important question about your boss. in most big schools, they will operate at some level - almost guaranteed.” “This thread suggests that HT's are either not prepared to speak out or that they do not give a toss about their staff's welfare or their right to work in a workplace bullying aware school.” “A common problem is mentors who, instead of supporting their charges, choose to undermine and damage them.” “Management often threaten Disciplinary Action on 'trumped up' charges to divert attention and increase stress further.” “HT references are inherrently unreliable.” “THe last article, talking about hospitals has similiaties to a teaching environment -- i.e. a lot of caring dedicated people and a lot of bullying managment.” “These people are not uncommon“ “As I said, it affects almost ALL teachers in some negative way.” “ The issue is grossly misunderstood. As I said, it affects almost ALL teachers in some way” “Minutes of investigation meetings are always inaccurate and heavily biased to suggest that the bullying claim is unfounded.” “As indicated - witness statements are unreliable as indicated above and the complainant is never allowed to see what was asked or the response.” “delays are deliberate. The intention is always to push things out so the complainant has no right to an Employment Tribunal (3 Months) after which the HR forces closure with an abusive judgment.” “HT's must be seen to support HT's otherwise the whole system would fall apart” “Teachers being bullied by there seniors is clearly a big problem in schools” “nasty people in education rise to the top” “the establishment protects the bullies” “Another contributing factor as to why schools are worse is that the Headteachers report is a very important tool which can be used to abuse staff.” “Also, the HT will generally have been groomed and will believe the bully” “Its because the tactics used by the bullies and those who blindly support them (management, HR, OH) and the underhand and devious tactics they use to damage the target, regardless of the actual facts are so unbelievable that so much damage is done” The nec plus ultra of a19pb-ism must be, however, this quote. I will give the reference to it, so that no-one will suspect me of typical SMT-behaviour of inventing and trumping up charges. But what does not come across is the unquestionable unfairness of the grievance (and investigation) process which, when understood, is found to be 98% (its a guess) in favour of clearing a more senior bully of wrongdoing despite the real situation. By default, this protects more senior people of malicious claims. http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/178359.aspx?PageIndex=9 <font size="2">So she guesses, guesses, what the percentage is, guesses it to be very high – 98% - and calls this “unquestionable unfairness of the grievance (and investigation) process”.</font> Unquestionable? Based on the guess of someone who, a19pb herself will agree, is perhaps less than impartial in this matter? A guess presented by a19pb as unquestionable evidence of unfairness. Sums it all up, really, doesn’t it? I shall now follow the example of a myriad of other posters, and declare my intention of never ever ever responding to a post by a19pb, whose opinions are always fact, whose guesses are evidence, and who considers any views contrary to her own as being invalidating of her personally. Or even invallidating.